137 replies to this topic

[juliann]

Jon Haugo, on Feb 27 2005, 11:37 AM, said:

I am not trying to squeeze anything.  It shouldn't be too hard to see that when someone has children (mingling the seed) with someon of another race that they take on physical characteristics of their parents.  It is believed that the Lamanites killed the Nephits and that the Lamanites were cursed by God.  The Lamanites received a dark skin from God because all of their sins.  Isn't that the clear meaning?  To come up with something else would be a squeeze.  I can understand the desire to change the meaning but it would have to go against the grain of the BOM.  

How many biblical characters received a "darker skin" because of sin or other circumstances?   Answer the question.

[juliann]

Mighty Curelom, on Feb 27 2005, 11:59 AM, said:

You're the one who claims to be unique; "the one true church".  When history demonstrates that the Mormon church acts just like other churches-- which are false-- the logical conclusion is that the Mormon church is false as well.

Yes, only Mormons consider themselves to belong to the real deal.  All other religions think they are false.   Give me a break.

Now back to your regularly scheduled race baiting.

[juliann]

Mighty Curelom, on Feb 27 2005, 12:08 PM, said:

In other words, silence on the part of current prophets is an endorsement of past racist doctrines.

Now you are having to resort to untruths.  Still waiting for evidence of any of your ugly accusations.

[juliann]

Tchild2, on Feb 27 2005, 01:13 PM, said:

I don't know the future, but it looks like MC or his offspring will still be posting here 40 years hence,

You are right about something.    What a sad commentary....they will be spending their lives nipping at other other people,  never having evolved...never willing to accept any sort of change.

[juliann]

Mighty Curelom, on Feb 27 2005, 12:08 PM, said:

Until a Mormon prophet explicitly states, either verbally or through writing, that Blacks weren't less valient in the pre-existence, and that that teaching was false and misguided, this racist belief is still part of Mormon doctrine, along with every other racism belief which past mormon prophets have espoused and contemporary prophets have failed to reject.

It only gets worse.  The less valiant excuse has been thoroughly denounced...and not by modern prophets.    But you don't even know that.    AGAIN....what are the current statements about racism?  Do you know THAT?  

Back to your regularly scheduled race baiting.

[Corky Wallace]

Juliann said:

Quote

Well, Corky...I know that you survive on double standards but you really can't have it both ways. 1. Those who racebait believe that the BOM is fiction so the analogy holds. 2. The complaint was that a book was published that was embarrassing so the analogy holds.

It appears you're simultaneously asserting the BOM, LDS Theology and LDS Prophets are God's conduit to mankind in this era, while claiming discrimination because the BOM, LDS policies and Mormons are viewed through the prism of a higher standard and are being singled out for holding views of their contemporaries.

I thought the LDS theology would be a leader in clarifying areas of the Bible that are problematic, given the LDS advantage of revelation & modern prophets.  

The alternative is that God changes his mind depending on how far along progressive movements are.  1978 was pretty far down the chain of ending racist ideology.

The lesson here applied to homosexuality is that gays should fight tooth & nail to discredit those parts of the Bible (and tangential ideologies, like Mormonism) that condemn them.  This approach worked for ending slavery, which was also sanctioned by the Bible.

In 50 years God will change his mind.

[truth dancer]

Hi St B...  

Quote

Truth Dancer: I think what is closer to the mark is that most members simply do not have any idea what the reason for the ban was (was it a mistake of man? did God have a purpose? etc.) To assign stupidity, lack of inspiration or what have you to the Church, the Brethren, etc. is no less wrongfully judgmental than the racism you detest. The fact is, YOU do not understand why the ban, but you suppose the worst (and therefore suppose that the Church ought to apologize or denounce the former tenet).

I don't mean to assign stupidity to the racism.  I understand it was part of a culture.  I also understand that my belief that racism is not of God may be judging those who embrace racism.

IMO, if the church wants to put its racism past behind it, it would be healing, loving and holy to apologize for the harm that racism brings to a community and to state the false teachings are indeed false.  Of course this would only be appropriate if the church believes its former racist teachings are false.  I don't know what the current view is.

You are correct that I do not fully understand the ban.  I don't think I suppose the worst.  I suppose that the church leaders shared the beliefs of many others of the time, unfortunate as this may be.  

I only think the church should apologize if it believes that it is wrong to be racist.  If the church continues to embrace the teachings (although not the practice) of racism then I would not suggest an apology is appropriate.

Quote

Sorry that you are embarrassed to be in the "I don't know" crowd; recognizing that status is truly the first step to acquiring wisdom. As long as you (et al.) refuse to acknowledge "I don't know" as a legitimate answer, there is not much else to discuss.

What I have difficulty with is the idea that the church has not denounced its racist teachings....  the fact that "I don't know" is the answer tells me that the teachings are alive and well.  It is as if many think God was behind the racism but we don't know why.  Maybe this is true.  I am very open to the idea that my awareness of God may not be the right one.  All I can say is my personal inspiration does not allow for a God that is racist.    

Let me ask you this...

Do you think the ban was of God?

Do you think that the teachings of many church leaders are correct in suggesting that the Black race was somehow not as valiant in the premortal life?


Thanks for your thoughts...    

~dancer~

Edited by truth dancer, 27 February 2005 - 02:31 PM.

[Mighty Curelom]

Quote

For the great majority of the decendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant lineage is that of Isreal.  The Indians are repeatedly called Lamanites in the revelations of the Prophet, and the promise is that in due course they "shall blossom as the rose" (D&C49:24), that is, become again a white and delightsome people as were their ancestors a great many generations ago. (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pg 33)

McConkie spells out the Mormon position that the primary ancestors of native americans are a cursed race that will become white when the curse is dispelled through righteous living.  Lest you take the position that "white" doesn't refer to skin color, I quote McConkie again-

Quote

Finally, before the judgement bar of God, all who have been righteous, Lamanites and Nephites alike, will be free from the curse of spiritual death and the skin of darkness (Jacob. 3:5-9)[Ibid. pg 429]

Quote

After separation into groups had occurred, however, to avoid intermarriage between them, the Lord placed a curse upon the Lamanites which included a dark skin.

Concerning Blacks-

Quote

Those who were less valient in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes...The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned....It is the lords doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate.

Quote

As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to recieve the priesthood are born through his lineage.

It's quite obvious that among Mormon doctrine is included the belief that God uses dark skin as a curse.  This means that dark skin is an undesirable trait, which in turn means that whites are superior to those with darker skin.  This is the very definition of racism.

I've supplied statements from a respected Mormon apostle depicting racist beliefs.  I await your response which will include LDS prophets explicitly denouncing Brother McConkie's teachings.  Again, LDS apologists don't cut it; to refute a teaching from a prophet, you need the authority of a prophet.

[SupahFly21]

i've been wondering about this topic.  in the newspaper there was a big article on it.
i dont quite understand why God would give people a curse and make their skins black.  why would God curse them, and their children's children's children's children's?

[truth dancer]

Hi S...

Quote

i've been wondering about this topic. in the newspaper there was a big article on it.
i dont quite understand why God would give people a curse and make their skins black. why would God curse them, and their children's children's children's children's? 

God wouldn't!

      

~dancer~

[SupahFly21]

so the book of mormon is wrong???

[vistamod]

Julian,
  Can you respond to people without being abusive?

[truth dancer]

Well....

I think you will find that most defenders here do not believe the mark spoken of in the BoM has anything to do with dark skin.

I understand that this was the accepted teaching however most here will say that the past teachings were just opinion and misinterpretation of scripture.



~dancer~

[SupahFly21]

i dont understand

[truth dancer]

Hi SF...

Well... for many years most people in the church believed the mark discussed in the BoM was dark skin.  Leaders of the church have stated this and it was the accepted belief.

However, it seems that defenders of the church here on this MB do not believe that the "mark" spoken of in the BoM has anything to do with dark skin.  There was a thread here not too long ago about this... (if anyone knows how to find it maybe you could post the link)?   On the thread it was clear that the idea of the mark being dark skin was just the uninformed opinion of earlier leaders.

I'm actually not a believer but I'm doing my best to share the thoughts of those that are....

BTW... welcome to the board!    

~dancer~

[thesometimesaint]

Truth dancer:

The answer is really very easy. We are all children of God. That is Church Doctrine.

God for whatever His reason(s) said that only first born male children of High Priests from the Tribe of Levi could hold the Priesthood.
God for whatever His reason(s) He said that any male of the Tribe of Levi could hold the Priesthood.
God for whatever His reason(s) allowed King David to use the Priesthood.
God for whatever His reason(s) said that He would only teach to the Tribe of Juda.
God for whatever His reason(s) instructed the Apostlers not to but to the House of Israel.
God for whatever His reason(s) told the Apostles to go to all the world and preach the Gospel.
God for whatever His reason(s) said that Blacks from Africa could be members of His Church, but would not have the Priesthood for a while.

God for whatever His reason(s) removed all of the above bans.

We do not know the reason(s) for the ANY of the above bans. God has not revealed any of it to us. Unfortunately there has been "Speculation" as to the reason(s) for the ban. Some of it hurtfull and even racist. All any of can do is apologize for the hurtfull "Speculation", and move on.

Barring His telling us first. It is one of many things on my list to ask Him about when I see Him.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 27 February 2005 - 03:35 PM.

[juliann]

Corky Wallace, on Feb 27 2005, 02:09 PM, said:

It appears you're simultaneously asserting the BOM, LDS Theology and LDS Prophets are God's conduit to mankind in this era, while claiming discrimination because the BOM, LDS policies and Mormons are viewed through the prism of a higher standard and are being singled out for holding views of their contemporaries.

It appears that you think God takes away will.   Why were the Bible people so primitive if that is how it works?   Why do you continue to make up new rules for Mormons and then expect us to do anything but look at you funny?

Quote

I thought the LDS theology would be a leader in clarifying areas of the Bible that are problematic, given the LDS advantage of revelation & modern prophets.�??�? 

Do you have any basis for that thought?  Any precedent?  Anything other than insisting Mormons should be held to a higher standard than Christ as a convenient platform to racebait?

Quote

The alternative is that God changes his mind depending on how far along progressive movements are.

    You really haven't been near a Bible have you.  The NT doesn't really exist because God never "changed his mind".  (Be sure to put that in the pejorative language possible.)

Quote

In 50 years God will change his mind.

Most  people expect change rather than rail against it.    Have you ever considered joining the Amish?

[juliann]

truth dancer, on Feb 27 2005, 02:12 PM, said:

IMO, if the church wants to put its racism past behind it, it would be healing, loving and holy to apologize for the harm that racism brings to a community and to state the false teachings are indeed false.  Of course this would only be appropriate if the church believes its former racist teachings are false.  I don't know what the current view is.

This is incredible.  Not one person has even bothered to check what the "current view is".   I guess it is less troublesome to ascend that pedestal in ignorance?

Quote

I only think the church should apologize if it believes that it is wrong to be racist.  If the church continues to embrace the teachings (although not the practice) of racism then I would not suggest an apology is appropriate.

What teachings of racism is the church "embracing"?    Do tell.   As for apologies...how well have they worked to bring races together in other religions?   What are the stats?  Why are you so focused on what the church has not done while choosing to remain completely ignorant of what it has done?

It just gets odder and odder.   But this elitism is not without precedent....this is from a leading book on Evangelical problems with racism...and the worthlessness of those empty apologies.  

Quote

"Some of the white elite evangelicals attempted reconciliation, but incompletely.  The problem with whites' conception of reconciliation, many claimed, was than they did not seek true justice--that is, justice both individually and collectively.  Without this component, reconciliation was cheap, artificial, and mere words.  It was rather like a big brother shoving his little brother to the ground, apologizing, and then shoving him to the ground again."


Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, Divided by Faith:  Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America.   (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000),  p. 58.

[truth dancer]

Hi TSS....  

So basically you believe the ban was from God.... therefore God is racist?  

Would you suggest this is current church doctrine?  (The part about the ban being from God...   )

It seems like some defenders think the ban was just policy based on the opinions of some (perhaps misguided) church leaders.  Perhaps I am mistaken on this?

I don't know the official church position on this...  

~dancer~

[juliann]

truth dancer, on Feb 27 2005, 02:44 PM, said:

However, it seems that defenders of the church here on this MB do not believe that the "mark" spoken of in the BoM has anything to do with dark skin.  There was a thread here not too long ago about this... (if anyone knows how to find it maybe you could post the link)?   On the thread it was clear that the idea of the mark being dark skin was just the uninformed opinion of earlier leaders.

Ya know...you can't even be bothered to inform yourself about anything that has happened in the last decade when it comes to race....and now you can't even digest the contents of those threads.  Does putting words in everyone else's mouth help your position?   Does it never occur to you that the defenders are still here?

Do you remember that racism was not even a word until anti-Semitism became prominent? Do you remember Brant's comments about ancient ideologies?  Rhetorical question....