# LDS Church and Racism



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2008)

Having a degree in religious studies, something I do every year is  a religion project of some sort, in addition to my own practices. I thought it might be interesting to examine racist doctrine of various religions-Ive been inspired by some of the activity on this board for this years project, which, I admit, has been somewhat late getting started. I thought Id share some of the project as it develops, and, while its only in the research stage, I thought Id share some quotes from the Church of Latter-day Saints, that demonstrate their basis in racist doctrine:



> Joseph Smith
> _Doctrines of Salvation_, pp. 65-66.
> There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.
> pg. 61.
> ...






> BRIGHAM YOUNG
> _Journal of Discourses_
> Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.
> Vol. 7, pg. 290-291
> ...


 

Of course, they said those things long ago, but I'm finding racist Mormon doctrine all the way through the civil-rights era to 1967-this stuff is truly fascinating! Hard to believe that little Donnie and Marie were raised to be racists.....more to come, if anyone is interested...I'll probably examine the racist doctrine of the early Episcopal Church next, since I was raised Episcopal.....


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 7, 2008)

While not LDS I will say that their views from the first and second presidency of the church are dated. For years blacks were allowed membership but not entitled to hold the priesthood. Until the mid-late 70's when the presiding president of the church lifted the "ban" (for want of a better word), and now any member of any race may hold any position in the church that is available. 

Socially as I lived among heavily populated LDS areas their views on non-whites are very open, cordial, friendly and accepting. Before I left Utah there was a trend for white LDS couples to adopt black American inner-city babies. Maybe it's because white infants are so much more desirable and more difficult to adopt than the lesser wanted non-whites (and also adoption fees are higher) that the readiness of black babies makes it easier. These children are given just as much love attention and care to detail as their white counterparts. 
IMO the fact that they're taken out of their low-income environments and given loving care in mid-to upper middle class homes will give these kids a better chance at life. 
There are also a growing number of inter-racial marriages occurring within the LDS church as well. 
There are a growing number of black (and other non-white) races in the LDS church membership. Many have ascended to the various offices within the church. All are seen as equal as far as I've known. Believe me I've been deeply immersed into the LDS culture as far as I could go without membership. 

Whatever racist views the LDS church _may_ have had they've long since dropped them. Probably even long before the oldest Osmond brother was even born. 

Living back here in the south, I'm still seeing (self) segregated churches among the (various) Baptists, and other denominations. I attended one service of the church that my parents attend, not a single member wasn't white. I have not returned since. But only a few blocks away is another church that seems to have a dominate black membership. What does THAT say?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Whatever racist views the LDS church _may_ have had they've long since dropped them. Probably even long before the oldest Osmond brother was even born.


 
While I agree with the substance of your post, and have to add that I've known and know a number of Mormons, and I've liked every one, I have to disagree with the last bit of it. While, in my lifetime, I've found "saints" to be tolerant and easygoing, it's also true that they've maintained racist doctrines right up through the 70's, as you said-and that was long after the oldest Osmond brother was born. In any case, it's not my intention to offend any Mormons, here or otherwise, but merely to explore their racist doctrines, and how they aren't acknowledged....

Some more quotes:



> > Elder MARK E. PETERSON
> > Race Problems -- As They Affect The Church
> > Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level,
> > Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.
> ...


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 7, 2008)

elder999 said:


> 'Caver, aren't you denying the Mormon's racist past, by saying that they've moved past it?


Not at all. It would be easy to say that typically Mormons adopted whatever views there were of the day. Of course not all were racist but it is a sure bet that there were a few, heck maybe even by half. Of course only God and the person themselves knows what's in their heart. 
But I am speaking of the present LDS members that I have known (and there's been quite a few). None that I've known have exhibited any outward form of racism. But I would not deny the possibility that there are still those members who have racist thinking and attitudes. I've had the good fortune of *not* meeting them. 
But doctrine wise, to my knowledge, it isn't there. 
Individually however... well there are probably racists and anti-gay and other intolerant people on this forum for example. They're everywhere. But knowing social mores they won't openly come out and say it. 



> The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth....We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject....


As stated the thinking of the day blinded the eyes of their own people. And it admonishes that the people of the church not be "led astray by the philosophies of men on this (and probably other) subject..." 

Still the attitudes and doctrine was changed 



> From Wikipedia: (italics are mine) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
> From the end of the nineteenth century until 1978, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not allow black men of African descent to be ordained to the priesthood or allow black men or women of African descent to participate in temple ordinances such as the Endowment and sealing that the church teaches are necessary for the highest degree of salvation. In the early church, at least two black people were ordained by Joseph Smith, Jr., but they were not permitted by later presidents of the church to participate in temple ordinances.
> 
> Official racial discrimination in the church dates to Brigham Young, who succeeded Smith as president of the church. Nevertheless, blacks could be baptized, and many black people joined the LDS Church prior to 1978. _Church leaders taught that the priesthood ban did not justify other forms of discrimination against blacks. [1] In 1978, church leaders ceased the racial restriction policy after declaring that they had received a revelation instructing them to do so. The church officially opposes racial discrimination and racism.[2]_
> ...


So yeah, I feel that they have moved past it like many others that I know. 
If not, then they wouldn't have made changes in their doctrine and policies on allowing non-whites the same privileges and absolved responsibility by putting it on God's shoulders. 

My apologies for misdating the Osmond linage by the way. Never was good at dates and such.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2008)

You make valid points, 'Caver, but I have to question why it is that the _Mormons_ don't acknowledge and denounce their racist roots in the public media each and every day....how is it that they can be racist right up until one day in 1978, and against racism the day after....and here's something interesting: with the exception of the Nation of Islam, the Mormons seem to be the only major religion founded in this country with a national platform...*er*..._national doctrine_ with its basis in racist doctrine.

In fact, they continue to use racist doctine, or at least have racist doctrine as an article of their faith:



> "Racial degeneration, resulting in differences in appearance and spiritual aptitude, has arisen since the fall. We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were born with the characteristics of the black race. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8,12,22; Abra. 1:20-27.) The Book of Mormon explains why the Lamanites received dark skins and a degenerate status. (2 Ne. 5:21-23.) If we had a full and true history of all races and nations, we would know the origins of all their distinctive characteristics. In the absence of such detailed information, however, we know only the general principle that all these changes from the physical and spiritual perfections of our common parents have been brought about by departure from the gospel truths. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 148-151; vol. 3, pp. 313-326.)" (Mormon Doctrine *1999 printing*, p. 616)


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 7, 2008)

Not George.  Tom and Virl Osmond were the ones who are deaf.

- Ceicei


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 7, 2008)

elder999 said:


> You make valid points, 'Caver, but I have to question why it is that the _Mormons_ don't acknowledge and denounce their racist roots in the public media each and every day....how is it that they can be racist right up until one day in 1978, and against racism the day after....and here's something interesting: with the exception of the Nation of Islam, the Mormons seem to be the only major religion founded in this country with a national platform...*er*..._national doctrine_ with its basis in racist doctrine.
> 
> 
> > "Racial degeneration, resulting in differences in appearance and spiritual aptitude, has arisen since the fall. We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were born with the characteristics of the black race. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8,12,22; Abra. 1:20-27.) The Book of Mormon explains why the Lamanites received dark skins and a degenerate status. (2 Ne. 5:21-23.) If we had a full and true history of all races and nations, we would know the origins of all their distinctive characteristics. In the absence of such detailed information, however, we know only the general principle that all these changes from the physical and spiritual perfections of our common parents have been brought about by departure from the gospel truths. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 148-151; vol. 3, pp. 313-326.)" (Mormon Doctrine 1999 printing, p. 616)
> ...



To be honest I do not have the answer(s) to your question here... I am not qualified to answer that but can at least be qualified to give my opinion and view point. I have asked the question to some LDS friends of mine who are well studied in their church/doctrine/faith, meaning that they have looked into various subject matter more deeply than I have. I will post their reply to my e-mail and hope that they can answer your questions ... they're valid I'll agree and good points for discussion. 

I am sure that they weren't on the mind bent of being racist one day and anti-racist the next. That it was given much thought and deliberation by the leaders of the church for quite a while. Particularly in light of the Civil Rights Movement and marches and protests in the late 60's. 
But as I understand, that the Mormons/LDS (as they prefer to be called) still rely upon revelations and prophecy to help _guide_ their church. Why as to that particular point in time I cannot say. But with all things... timing is everything.


----------



## harlan (Apr 7, 2008)

Well...they are stuck because the entire religion is founded on the 'insights' and words of their 'prophet'. To disavow any portion would leave the entire ediface open to revisionism.

I explored the LDS in the '80's, and I believe that part of the rationale for trying to ameliorate the racist underpinnings was that they were actively looking to expand overseas, and increasing the funds coming to the USA to build larger temples...especially the new jewel they were building at the time....the one near the Nation's capital. 

Racism and sexism...inherent in this religion.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> Not George. Tom and Virl Osmond were the ones who are deaf.
> 
> - Ceicei


 
Oh- Virl's his middle name; his full name is "George Virl Osmond..."



> You know, Paul said "Now we see in part and we know in part; we see through a glass darkly. When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away, then we will see as we are seen, and know as we are known." Now the Church's attitude today is to prefer to leave it until we know. The Lord has never indicated that black skin came because of being less faithful. Now, the Indian; we know why he was changed, don't we? The Book of Mormon tells us that; and he has a dark skin, but he has a promise there that through faithfulness, that they all again become a white and delightsome people. So we haven't anything like that on the colored thing.-Apostle LeGrand Richards, in 1978, on President Kimball's "revelation" that blacks be admitted to the priesthood.



This being the same President Kimball who made the weird remarks about the "Lamanites" (Indians) back in 1960....

In the same interview,  Mr. RIchards also made mention of building a temple in Brazil, and how difficult it would be to have leadership or even membership in that country without admitting "Negro blood"  into the priesthood, so there may be something to the overseas expansion angle to the "revelation..."
....or it may just be that htey didn't want to lose their IRS tax-free status...


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 7, 2008)

True, George is his first name.  He always went by Virl... I really enjoyed my association with these two men (Tom and Virl).   I got momentarily confused because there are other Georges in their extended family.

I am on break from work right now and only on for a short time, so I do not have time at the moment to respond to your points. These points you brought up are valid concerns. The only thing this thread might do, if not handled well, could degenerate into flames and personal insults. I wish to avoid the unneccesary flames/pot shots and try to keep this thread in a civil, open discussion to examine those issues.

- Ceicei


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> True, George is his first name. He always went by Virl... I really enjoyed my association with these two men (Tom and Virl). I got momentarily confused because there are other Georges in their extended family.
> 
> I am on break from work right now and only on for a short time, so I do not have time at the moment to respond to your points. These points you brought up are valid concerns. The only thing this thread might do, if not handled well, could degenerate into flames and personal insults. I wish to avoid the unneccesary flames/pot shots and try to keep this thread in a civil, open discussion to examine those issues.
> 
> - Ceicei


 
I look forward to your contribution.:asian:


----------



## Ray (Apr 7, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Having a degree in religious studies, something I do every year is a religion project of some sort, in addition to my own practices. I thought it might be interesting to examine racist doctrine of various religions-I&#8217;ve been inspired by some of the activity on this board for this year&#8217;s project, which, I admit, has been somewhat late getting started. I thought I&#8217;d share some of the project as it develops, and, while it&#8217;s only in the research stage, I thought I&#8217;d share some quotes from the Church of Latter-day Saints, that demonstrate their basis in racist doctrine:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, they said those things long ago, but I'm finding racist Mormon doctrine all the way through the civil-rights era to 1967-this stuff is truly fascinating! Hard to believe that little Donnie and Marie were raised to be racists.....more to come, if anyone is interested...I'll probably examine the racist doctrine of the early Episcopal Church next, since I was raised Episcopal.....


In the late 1960's I was taught (in church) that every worthy male of all races would eventually be given the opportunity to hold the priesthood.  I was taught that all people are the children of God and deserving of love.  I was taught not to discriminate.

I recall in reading my bible that Levites (one of the 12 tribes of Israel) had particular religious duties to perform.  That not everyone was authorized to perform these duties.  Would that also be considered a form of "unequal opportunity?"

I have a 1922 book called "Joseph Smith's Teachings" compiled by Edwin F. Parry.  I will have to look for it, I believe it quotes Joseph Smith as saying (to the effect) that the only difference between whites and blacks was the education and opportunity given; that in his day blacks didn't have the education of whites nor did they have the opportunity to excel; but given equal education and opportunity blacks would succeed as well, if not better, than whites.

Truman Madsen recounted an event in his lectures on the prophet, Joseph Smith that may be telling.  I'm going by memory...Joseph Smith as magistrate of Nauvoo found a black man guilty of public intoxication (and it may have been that this man was known as the "town drunk" - I can't recall for sure).  Smith fined the man $50.  The defendant had no money with which to pay the fine.  Smith gave his own horse to the man with instruction to sell it to pay the fine.

While some of the comments you've presented may come across and may be viewed (in the light of today) as racism, they might be no more than the general ideas of white people during the time they were uttered.  They are not doctrine, nor are they found in the canon.


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 7, 2008)

elder999 said:


> I look forward to your contribution.:asian:



Thank you.  I will be spending my lunchtime at work (which is short) checking upon my resources and will share them with you tonight.  Thank you for bringing up these issues.  

- Ceicei


----------



## Brian King (Apr 7, 2008)

Not trying to derail this thread as I think studies into differing religions and cultures can be truly fascinating and educational in the same way as looking at other martial arts can strengthen your understanding of your own martial art looking at other religions can broaden your understanding of your own religious beliefs. But, I think that there is also a danger if you approach a study with a closed and biased mind not to mention the harm if you approach any study with a negative goal already in mind and then use the research to reinforce preconceived biases and negative views producing a flawed study. This is a danger that is hard to avoid, it is so easy to even subconsciously dismiss views that do not agree with or that do not fit into the outcome that is being sought and those views wind up missing from the study, article and discussions. 

*Disclosure* I have to admit that even knowing the above when I read a flawed study or article I judge the author as flawed, especially if I can determine if their was a motive behind the outcome, less so if I think it was subconsciously flawed, but if I take the time to read what they put a out into the public then they as well as the study/article/blog I believe should be judged and evaluated honestly but their entire works should be considered not just a single work. I think that most authors understand this and I try to give them the benefit that they are trying to be honest in their writings as I am in mine.

A few questions for eldere999 as the author of the OP
1. I applaud your doing a religious study/project every year and posting the results here on MT. I did a quick search but could not find any of the prior years studies/projects. Can you please post links to the prior studies/projects? 

2. So far you have posted quotes showing the negative racisms of the past, are you going to also post quotes showing the positive race/culture relations when you come across them? 

3. Are you focusing on a certain period of the religion or its whole history up to and including today?

4. Honestly sir, is this post and study for your own education that you also wish to share with readers all of different races and religions or is it motivated by politics (with the possible choice of vice president being a member of the LDS church) or merely in reply and a means to lash out to the political threads you are such a participant and partisan of (republican/democratic racism threads)? *FWIW I am holding my positive/negative reputation points/comments depending on the direction of thread and answers to the above questions.

I am really looking forward to watching this thread with the consideration of your stated and obvious high educational advantages and experiences and the honest views from the other participants in the hopes of receiving some free education on a subject I know little about but sadly also with the realization and dread that this thread may well be just another amusingly transparent bigoted flame filled thread, but at least that even has a slight entertainment value. 

Thank You
Warmest regards
Brian King


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 7, 2008)

Brian said:


> Not trying to derail this thread as I think studies into differing religions and cultures can be truly fascinating and educational in the same way as looking at other martial arts can strengthen your understanding of your own martial art looking at other religions can broaden your understanding of your own religious beliefs. But, I think that there is also a danger if you approach a study with a closed and biased mind not to mention the harm if you approach any study with a negative goal already in mind and then use the research to reinforce preconceived biases and negative views producing a flawed study. This is a danger that is hard to avoid, it is so easy to even subconsciously dismiss views that do not agree with or that do not fit into the outcome that is being sought and those views wind up missing from the study, article and discussions.
> 
> *Disclosure* I have to admit that even knowing the above when I read a flawed study or article I judge the author as flawed, especially if I can determine if their was a motive behind the outcome, less so if I think it was subconsciously flawed, but if I take the time to read what they put a out into the public then they as well as the study/article/blog I believe should be judged and evaluated honestly but their entire works should be considered not just a single work. I think that most authors understand this and I try to give them the benefit that they are trying to be honest in their writings as I am in mine.
> 
> ...



If I had doubts about Elder999's intent on starting this thread I'd wouldn't have responded in the manner that I have. I for one appreciate his efforts in trying to create civil and respectable but worth while discussions on this forum. 
Kudos to him ... and to you sir for the respectful manner in ascertaining Elder's intentions. :asian: 

Let us continue shall we?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2008)

Brian said:


> A few questions for eldere999 as the author of the OP
> 1. I applaud your doing a religious study/project every year and posting the results here on MT. I did a quick search but could not find any of the prior year&#8217;s studies/projects. Can you please post links to the prior studies/projects?




No.




			
				[/SIZE said:
			
		

> Brian;957907]
> 2. So far you have posted quotes showing the negative racisms of the past, are you going to also post quotes showing the positive race/culture relations when you come across them?




Sure, but-as I pointed out in my original post-it's still in the preliminary, research phase-all I've posted so far is raw data I've come across for one sect. I picked LDS first simply because I recently took home a copy of _the Book of Mormon_ from a hotel room, and read it for the second time. 

Short answer is yes, I'll be happy to post the positive in a separate thread for other sects, as well as a separate one for LDS-if the interest is warranted and not wasteful of Bob's bandwidth. My focus this year, as I've pointed out, is to examine _racist_ doctrine in a variety of religions, so I don't expect that I'll be looking for much in what you'd call the "positive," regardless of sect-though I'll wager that I'll have to look harder than I have so far for LDS to find much negative for the Episcopalians or Quakers....others might just be another story. I can and will, however, speak to racism within the Episcopal church, though the things I speak of would be anecdotal in nature, rather than doctrinal-my grandfather and father were Epicopal priests, among other things, and my grandfather was the founder of an Episcopal parish in Connecticut that chiefly served blacks-or, more contamporaneously, "people of color." Some of their unwritten social code was clearly racist.



Brian said:


> 3. Are you focusing on a certain period of the religion or its whole history up to and including today?




Why does it make a difference?_How_ would it make a difference?*Should* it make a difference? What's the difference? 



Brian said:


> 4. Honestly sir, is this post and study for your own education that you also wish to share with readers all of different races and religions or is it motivated by politics (with the possible choice of vice president being a member of the LDS church) or merely in reply and a means to lash out to the political threads you are such a participant and partisan of (republican/democratic racism threads)?




Well, if you look at my original post, I said it was _inspired_ by recent discussions on this board. I'm actually doing my yearly project on this, and thought I'd share some of it, especially given (and surely you've experienced this) that first rush of enthusiasm that comes from finding a worthy topic.

I don't care why, how, to what or whom Mitt Romney prays, or if he should or not. 




Brian said:


> Brian;957907]





Brian said:


> *FWIW I am holding my positive/negative reputation points/comments depending on the direction of thread and answers to the above questions.




Why should I care? _How_ should I care?*Should* I care?:lol:



Brian said:


> ....... just another amusingly transparent bigoted flame filled thread, but at least that even has a slight entertainment value.


 
The only thing I'm bigoted AFAICT are breeds of dogs, firearms, and female phenotypes. I'll leave bigotry on this thread to someone else-as I usually do elsewhere...


----------



## Ray (Apr 7, 2008)

elder999 said:


> My focus this year, as I've pointed out, is to examine _racist_ doctrine in a variety of religions, so I don't expect that I'll be looking for much in what you'd call the "positive," regardless of sect-though I'll wager that I'll have to look harder than I have so far for LDS to find much negative for the Episcopalians or Quakers....


I suppose that in your research, one of the primary questions you must ask yourself is "what is doctrine?"  How have you answered that with respect to the LDS church?  I know that members, even members with leadership positions have opinions which are not official doctrine.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2008)

Ray said:


> I suppose that in your research, one of the primary questions you must ask yourself is "what is doctrine?" How have you answered that with respect to the LDS church? I know that members, even members with leadership positions have opinions which are not official doctrine.[/size][/font]



Well, that's fair, Ray-and, as I understand it, LDS doctrine is somewhat flexible, in that you believe that we still receive revelations from GOd, that God's plan changes-or, at least, our understanding of it does. I also believe, though, that your principle canon is composed of the "Holy Bible'" as in the worldwide bestseller otherwise known as the Old and New Testament, _ the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price._ 

So, not to quibble, accuse you-or anyone else-of racism, except perhaps Joseph Smith, let's start with some quotes from the Book of Mormon:



> 1 Nephi 11:8 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.
> 
> 1 Nephi 11:13 And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
> 
> ...


 
I'm getting the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants down from my shelves now, but these seem pretty racist to me....are they current doctrine, or is their some revelatory reinterpritation? I know that I can find the same sorts of things in the Old Testament, though somewhat more vague, and that they've been used to justify all sorts of racism-including slavery, but let's deal with what I've posted here for now.....


----------



## tellner (Apr 7, 2008)

They've certainly improved since the bad old days. 

I'll take it seriously the minute the apologize in abject and heartfelt terms (preferably with monetary damages) to the Native children they stole from their families over the years. They don't do it any more, but it happened well within living memory.


----------



## Ray (Apr 7, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Well, that's fair, Ray-and, as I understand it, LDS doctrine is somewhat flexible, in that you believe that we still receive revelations from GOd, that God's plan changes-or, at least, our understanding of it does. I also believe, though, that your principle canon is composed of the "Holy Bible'" as in the worldwide bestseller otherwise known as the Old and New Testament, _ the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price._


Our canon (aka "standard works"), as I understand it, is the Bible (KJV), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.  I will have to respond to your post at a later date for a couple reasons: I'm working 2nd shift, have to spend a little time in court for a friend, am closing the year-end on my studio and getting my taxes done before the 15th.

I have to say that I'm not an authority, nor a theologian.  And that one can probably find people of all ilk in the Church, just as they can in any organization. 

Also, we should probably use the current edition of the "standard works."  For example, it is widely known that the first edition of the Book of Mormon (1830 edition) had some errors in the printed version (whether errors introduced by the typesetter or by the "scribe" I'm not sure off the top of my head).  And the current edition states: "Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith."

And your parenthetical notes that are included in "quotes" of the Book of Mormon, for example, should be delineated so as not to appear as actual text from the Book of Mormon.

What does "racist" mean for your purposes?

Deal?


----------



## Ray (Apr 7, 2008)

Ray said:


> Deal?


http://www.truthandgrace.com/Racism.html
Actually, I've quickly decided to not play your game.  A little google of the parenthetical phrases in your "quote" from the Book of Mormon indicate that you just cutting and pasting stuff, probably without even reading it.  

I'm getting the feeling that you're not really researching anything...


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2008)

Ray said:


> http://www.truthandgrace.com/Racism.html
> Actually, I've quickly decided to not play your game. A little google of the parenthetical phrases in your "quote" from the Book of Mormon indicate that you just cutting and pasting stuff, probably without even reading it.
> 
> I'm getting the feeling that you're not really researching anything...


 
Simply because they appear in order?

And, honestly, if the Book of Mormon was taken from the tablets of Nephi, how is it that the prophet Joseph Smith misinterpreted them? Or were they reinterpreted? Or was God wrong the first time? Or should they stand the way they were written in 1830? And, don't worry-I'm just as curious about how the Nation of Islam stands on the ridiculous doctrine of the "white race" being the corrupt creation of a black scientist named Yakub thousand of years ago, but I haven't gotten there yet........

....I mean, honestly, it was either "white", as it was in 1830, or "pure," as it came to be much later, and which is right, and why wasn't it right the other time?

On the other hand, Ray, if you don't want to "play my game," that's okay too-like I've said more than once, I like every Mormon I've ever met.In the end, that's all that really matters. I could care less what a bunch of people-men or women, black or white, rich or poor-had to say about anything, in terms of articles of faith *or* race, 50 or 100 years ago-we're known to him by our acts, and that's good enough for me as well.


----------



## Ray (Apr 7, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Simplyh because they appear in order?


No, your "notes" are the same "notes" as found on several "anti-mormon" websites, word for word.  Not just the quotes from the Book of Mormon (which I'd expect to be word-for-word) but even the "opinions" that are not part of the text of the Book of Mormon.  These comments, if they are yours, are uncannily "word for word" with other people's comments on these websites.  This, in conjunction with the fact that the verses are in the same mis-ordering as the websites leads me to believe that you have a different agenda than honest research.

I also note that you are the starter of the thread about Republican Party and Racism....I'm beginning to see a pattern.


----------



## Ray (Apr 7, 2008)

elder999 said:


> SAnd, honestly, if the Book of Mormon was taken from the tablets of Nephi, how is it that the prophet Joseph Smith misinterpreted them? Or were they reinterpreted? Or was God wrong the first time? Or should they stand the way they were written in 1830?


You know that Joseph spoke the translation to a "scribe" who wrote down the words.  Then the hand-written pages were taken to a printer who had to typeset the book.  There is ample opportunity in these places to have an error in transcription and/or typesetting.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2008)

Ray said:


> You know that Joseph spoke the translation to a "scribe" who wrote down the words. Then the hand-written pages were taken to a printer who had to typeset the book. There is ample opportunity in these places to have an error in transcription and/or typesetting.


 
And the same sorts of errors have occurred in the Holy Bible-especially the KJV, so,  okay then-please understand, this isn't an attack on your faith:I'm of the opinion that if you believe-as a Mormon or otherwise-that blacks are descended from the devil and cursed by God, hellspawn sent to do mischief upon the earth, then that's your right under the 1st Amendment. I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd defend anyone's right to believe it-so I don't really have a particular axe to grind, just yet.

And, for the last time-I hope-I like LDS people, almost every one I've ever met. I admire their family values, and follow some of their preparedness practices-in fact, I even exceed them. This isn't "anti-Mormon." (THough I did once write a paper on how the Mormons aren't Christians, in that they embrace several doctrines held to be "heresies" by mainstream Christianity, but, again, it doesn't matter to me at all.) It could easily be about the foundations of the phrase "kill em all and let God sort them out" being Catholic in origin, and from the crusades, or the racist doctrine of the Southern Baptist Church-or even the racist doctrines of Judaism-if I find any. In the meantime, though, it's about LDS,past and present, okay?

However, I have to question whether or not the same method was used for the _Pearl of Great Price_?



> ". . . there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people . . . (Moses 7:8)."
> 
> "And . . . they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them (Moses 7:22)."
> 
> ...




Again, this strikes me as the same sort of nonsense found in the KJV of the Bible and misinterpreted to show that slavery was decreed by God, and that the "black race" is inferior, and doomed.Joe Smith (when I toured the Tabernacle in SLC, the guide called my fellow New Yorker, and your prophet, "Joe Smith," so I often do the same) *did* call the "black race":ugly, filthy, lazy, and perverts.

  So, I'll ask you, Ray, what's doctrine?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 7, 2008)

all men, regardless of race can achieve the priesthood, THAT is doctrine.

All men in the LDS church are equal. THAT is doctrine.

The past is just that, the past.

I dont forget what happened in the past, but niether do I concentrate on it. The past of every major religion has horrors and atrocities galore.

Most grow out of them. Some, like Islam still have not.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> all men, regardless of race can achieve the priesthood, THAT is doctrine.
> 
> All men in the LDS church are equal. THAT is doctrine.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I can accept that. Would you say that LDS doctrine has _changed,_ then?How did this change come about? Should it have come about? Why did it come about? Does every member embrace this change? Should those of us who aren't members of the LDS be suspicious of their past doctrines, especially those of us who are "dark-skinned?" If not, why not? If so, why? 

If you can't articulate how the changes came about, then how can you truly differentiate between what happened in the past, and what is held to be true now? It's entirely possible-even likely-that members of the church of LDS heirarchy were teaching racist doctrine prior to 1978, and are alive today? Do they truly believe differently? Did they experience some sort of personal epiphany on an individual level, or is it enough that their president simply said it was so? 

Lastly, I'll point out that within a week I'll be posting on the inherent racism of Hinduism, but hey.....


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 7, 2008)

I don't give *any* weight to any thing anti-mormon sites or literature have to say about the LDS church. There's just too much hatred in there to make any sense of it all. Too many lies as well.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I don't give *any* weight to any thing anti-mormon sites or literature have to say about the LDS church. There's just too much hatred in there to make any sense of it all. Too many lies as well.


 
Meh-I'm not anti-anything except Satanism, and that only marginally. I don't have time to hate, and was raised not to hate anyone....


....just asking questions, for now, really.


----------



## Ray (Apr 7, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Well, I can accept that. Would you say that LDS doctrine has _changed,_ then?How did this change come about? Should it have come about? Why did it come about? Does every member embrace this change? Should those of us who aren't members of the LDS be suspicious of their past doctrines, especially those of us who are "dark-skinned?" If not, why not? If so, why?



If Racism is "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others" as the American Heritage dictionary defines it.  Then even when not all worthy males could hold the PH was the church racist.  There was no belief that race accounted for differences in the character/ability of the Lamanites or Nephites, especially since they were the same race.

The word "dark" doesn't always refer to "dark skin."  Dark vrs light, the analogy of white driven snow. the idea of not stumbling in darkness anymore and being "children of light." 


elder999 said:


> If you can't articulate how the changes came about, then how can you truly differentiate between what happened in the past, and what is held to be true now?


If you have done any research at all, then you know that I believe the president of the church to be a prophet of God.  That he receives revelation from a literal Heavenly Father.

It's my understanding that Mormons, as a rule, were anti-slavery before the civil war.  That they worked together in a spirit of co-operation with each other, rather than as competitors which sometimes caused them to prosper more than their neighbors in places where they settled.  These things, combined with their weird ideas of "continuing revelation" "plural marriage (sometimes called poligamy)" and a different understanding of the nature of the Godhead than their neighbors; helped to make the neighbors uneasy with them.


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 8, 2008)

Sorry I did not get back to this thread earlier as I was helping my four children with their homework tonight, and that was a priority to me than coming to MartialTalk.  

I do, however, have a lengthy post to make soon, so bear with me.

- Ceicei


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 8, 2008)

Of course LDS doctrine has changed. Doctrine at one time included plural wives, but it no longer does. 

Despite what the wack jobs think, Plural wives are out of the question, in current lds doctrine.

At one time, doctrine was that non whites could not hold the priesthood. 

Doctrine changed.

Why does LDS doctrine change over time? The President of the LDS church is a Prophet, and receives revalation from God.This way, to use a modern phrase, the LDS church can update itself from time to time, as the Lord sees fit.

And elder, i would think that the fact that doctrine DID change should make me MORE trusting of the LDS church in general.

Religions that DONT change and evolve over time make me nervous. Like Islam for example.

Scripture reflects the times in which it was written. It should not be re-written, but it can be added to. That was one of the things that appealed to me about the LDS church. It wasn't stagnate.

Doctrine is our current understanding of scripture, and of God's will.Which changes from time to time.


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 8, 2008)

I see a lot were brought up while I was away from this thread.

  Now for those who may be unfamiliar with LDS theology, it is only fair to give a brief background.  As Elder999 mentioned up thread, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) do have various scriptures.   For now, let&#8217;s use the first two just to start.

  The Holy Bible.  We generally use the King James version of the Old Testament and New Testament.  The Holy Bible is a historical account of people (living in the Holy Land and surrounding areas) and God&#8217;s dealings with them from Adam and Eve down to the era of Jesus Christ, the ministering of His apostles after His death and resurrection, and includes the events that are still to come in the future.

  The Book of Mormon.   This is a historical account of people who fled from Jerusalem and God&#8217;s dealings with them from approximately 600 B.C. to A.D. 421, and has an account of the visit of Jesus Christ to the Americas shortly after His resurrection, and the ministering of His apostles who He selected at the time of His visit and thereafter.

  Although both scriptures describe the experiences and history of the people, the primary purpose of these two books has always been to tell about Jehovah (who is also Jesus), the Lord of heaven and earth, and how mankind can come to believe Him&#8212;that he is the Living God.

    Elder999 brought up quotes from early LDS leaders that were said in the early 1800&#8217;s to mid 1900&#8217;s.  Be aware that these men in early LDS history spoke in the context of society and of who they were, and they were very much human&#8212;even with their prejudices and weaknesses.  The Old Testament and New Testament show several people who were chosen to preach for God in spite of their foibles.  A few examples:  Moses had doubts with himself being chosen to lead Israel out and complained of being &#8220;slow of speech&#8221; and did not trust in the Lord&#8217;s abilities, so the Lord had Aaron speak for him.  Jonah wasn&#8217;t willing at first to preach to Ninevah because of the people who lived there. Peter denied three times to knowing Jesus.  Judas, as one of the twelve apostles, ended up betraying Jesus.  My point is that there are no people who exist on earth that did not have thoughts or actions that were not, at times, in harmony with God.  However, they strived as much as they could to ensure that God was with them and guided them.  They were not immune to the chastening from God.

  Now on to the topic of the thread of skin coloring.

  The verses that Elder999 brought up are just that, an explanation of what happened at the time.  This is no different than what happened in Genesis when Cain slew his brother Abel:

  Genesis Chapter 4


> 9    And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother&#8217;s keeper?
> 10  And he said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother&#8217;s blood crieth unto me from the ground.
> 11  And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother&#8217;s blood from thy hand;
> 12  When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
> ...


  The Lord may choose to set marks or skin colorings upon individuals and people for His reasons and purposes.  Sometimes this is to punish, sometimes this is to protect or to distinguish them for their actions for a time.  The skin coloring verses [that Elder999 brought up] mentioned in Second Nephi, Chapter 5, occurred around 588 B.C.-570 B.C. with the purpose to make this into two distinct groups, the Nephites and the Lamanites.  Throughout the history written, the Nephites and Lamanites basically took turns being good and being bad, depending upon their obedience to the Lord, their God.  Eventually, the Nephites ended up becoming extinct and the Lamanites survived.  It is presumed the Lamanites became the forebears of some of the Native Americans.  

  That is the history as written in the Book of Mormon.  The Lord said some years later (559 B.C. &#8211; 545 B.C.) to the Prophet Nephi:  


> 2 Nephi 26:33  For none of these iniquities come of the Lord, for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come to him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.


  There is a time and a place for each group to begin learning about His teachings.  Even in the New Testament, the ministry of Jesus was primarily to the Jews.  It was not until after death and resurrection of Jesus, that Peter was then allowed to minister to the Gentiles (those who were not Jews).  This is shown in Acts Chapter 10, beginning with verse 11.


> 11  And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit as the four corners, and let down to the earth:
> 12  Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
> 13  And there came a voice to him, Rise Peter; kill, and eat.
> 14  But Peter said, Not so, Lord: for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
> 15  And the voice spake unto him again, the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.


  And in verse 17, Peter did not initially understand why he had this vision for he said:


> 17  Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon&#8217;s house&#8230;.(rest of verse left off).


 
  Peter finally understood why he had the vision when he said in verse 28:


> 28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.


 
  In Verse 34, he declared:


> 34  Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respector of persons:
> 35   But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


 
  Thus the Gospel of Christ was then extended to those who were not Jews.

  The LDS people believe that the teachings of Christ continues today.  God does not limit himself to only the people of the Old Testament, nor of the New Testament, nor even of the Book of Mormon.  He taught also to the people of today through prophets, apostles, and seventies.    

  Upon this subject of racism, Elder Alexander B. Morrison of the Quorum of the Seventy, in September 2000 an article entitled &#8220;No More Strangers&#8221;, which was printed in the Ensign magazine, page 16.  An excerpt of this article says:



> &#8220;Unfortunately, racism&#8212;the abhorrent and morally destructive theory that claims superiority of one person over another by reason of race, color, ethnicity, or cultural background&#8212;remains one of the abiding sins of societies the world over.  The cause of much of the strife and conflict in the world, racism is an offense against God and a tool in the devil&#8217;s hands.  In common with other Christians, the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regret the actions and statements of individuals who have been insensitive to the pain suffered by the victims of racism and ask God&#8217;s forgiveness for those guilty of this grievous sin.  The sin of racism will be eliminated only when every human being treats all others with the dignity and respect each deserves as a beloved child of our Heavenly Father.&#8221;


 
  This post is long enough for now, and I will bring up more later to address the different points that were brought up and will make shorter posts to address these points tomorrow and the next few days.

- Ceicei


----------



## Carol (Apr 8, 2008)

Ray said:


> If Racism is "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others" as the American Heritage dictionary defines it. Then even when not all worthy males could hold the PH was the church racist. There was no belief that race accounted for differences in the character/ability of the Lamanites or Nephites, especially since they were the same race.
> 
> The word "dark" doesn't always refer to "dark skin."  Dark vrs light, the analogy of white driven snow. the idea of not stumbling in darkness anymore and being "children of light."



However many people believe that racism is a belief that one race or certain races are _inferior _to others.   That would be a condition that does not meet the given dictionary definition but still give rise to a hateful environment.

Is there any formal statement within the LDS church, either within scripture or doctrine, that forbids the denigration (or glorification) of a race of people? [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 8, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> Is there any formal statement within the LDS church, either within scripture or doctrine, that forbids the denigration (or glorification) of a race of people?



Yes, read my last quote in my lengthy post above yours...  

I can find more quotes, but that will have to wait for another day. It is midnight here and I need to get to bed to sleep.  I have a long work day ahead of me tomorrow.

- Ceicei


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 8, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> However many people believe that racism is a belief that one race or certain races are _inferior _to others.   That would be a condition that does not meet the given dictionary definition but still give rise to a hateful environment.
> 
> Is there any* formal statement *within the LDS church, either within scripture or doctrine, that forbids the denigration (or glorification) of a race of people?



None what-so-ever. Many people (including LDS members themselves) sometimes mistake a speaker's words to be that the word of God... especially those spoken by the current presiding president/prophet of the church. In my experience, the president does give regular "talks" these are of his own concious his own heart and mind and spirit/soul speaking. But when he speaks as a prophet then it is the word of God, just as it was when Moses, Issac, Abraham, Noah, Jonah, Ezekiel and all the others. The prophet will let you know "this is God's word!" When it is that it becomes Doctrine and Policy of the Church. 
Otherwise it's his own thoughts and opinion. Many anti-mormons will take a speaker's words out of context and snip to suit rather giving the full statement or "talk". 
This is what makes discussions like these difficult sad to say. 
The key is (as a friend of mine told me this evening) is to find the common ground upon which we can agree and go from there.


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 8, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> None what-so-ever. Many people (including LDS members themselves) sometimes mistake a speaker's words to be that the word of God... especially those spoken by the current presiding president/prophet of the church. In my experience, the president does give regular "talks" these are of his own concious his own heart and mind and spirit/soul speaking. But when he speaks as a prophet then it is the word of God, just as it was when Moses, Issac, Abraham, Noah, Jonah, Ezekiel and all the others. The prophet will let you know "this is God's word!" When it is that it becomes Doctrine and Policy of the Church.
> Otherwise it's his own thoughts and opinion. Many anti-mormons will take a speaker's words out of context and snip to suit rather giving the full statement or "talk".
> This is what makes discussions like these difficult sad to say.
> The key is (as a friend of mine told me this evening) is to find the common ground upon which we can agree and go from there.



Yes, you are correct to say even prophets, apostles, and seventies are free to express their opinions and thoughts and not every word they say are necessarily doctrinal.  For one to expect that every single word uttered is always doctrine would be amiss.  The LDS Church will make clear when there is something that is set as doctrine.

It is our responsibility as each person to pay attention to our relationship with Jesus Christ and to pray to determine what is true.  Even within the scriptures or spoken by the leaders of the Church, we are asked by the Lord to pray often and turn to Him to receive answers.  It is through the sincere communication that we are led in our lives to determine the best course possible.  We are ultimately responsible for the choices we make.

- Ceicei


----------



## Brian King (Apr 8, 2008)

Elder999
Thanks for taking time away from your research to answer my questions. Your answers satisfy my curiosity as to your motivations and character, again thanks. 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brian*
> _*FWIW I am holding my positive/negative reputation points/comments depending on the direction of thread and answers to the above questions._
> 
> ...


 
Why should you care? 
I cannot speak for you sir, but for myself I see the reputation system as a further means of communication, a chance to receive feedback and a chance to observe through that feedback as to whether I am communicating effectively my ideas and thoughts as judged from the feedback I receive, both the positive and the negative from all who take the time to give me the feedback are valued. You mileage obviously differs from mine and that is OK I am sure. 

How should you care?
Asking how to care is kind of odd. You either do care or you do not as your ego and conceit battle with your grace and humility for supremacy. As your ego and conceit reduce your caring increases, at least that has been my experience. 

Should you care?
This must be an important question for you to ask it of me twice. It is for you to contemplate and to answer yourself. 

"LOL Smilely"

Yes sir, we are both amused and laughing, yet, I wonder if we are both laughing for the same reasons. 


Ah well, luck to you

Regards
Brian King

Ceicei and MA-Caver
Thanks for your informative postings. I really do appreciate the time that you two along with many of the others are taking providing context and depth to what could easily be merely a shallow thread. I know very little about the LDS Church but have been favorably impressed with the followers that I have been fortunate to meet. Thanks again for caring enough to add clarity to this conversation.

Bri


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 8, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> This way, to use a modern phrase, the LDS church can update itself from time to time, as the Lord sees fit.



Makes you wonder what happened in 1978 for the Lord to change his racist ways.  Saw a Jesse Jackson speech?  Became a huge fan of blaxploitation films?  Guess we'll have to die to find out. 



Twin Fist said:


> Religions that DONT change and evolve over time make me nervous. Like Islam for example.



This is extremely ignorant.  You would do well to read up on the history of Islam before you spout off.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 8, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Makes you wonder what happened in 1978 for the Lord to change his racist ways.  Saw a Jesse Jackson speech?  Became a huge fan of blaxploitation films?  Guess we'll have to die to find out.


Not necessarily. I was asked by my brother when speaking about the LDS church as a whole why God chose to establish the church during the 1830's. Apparently timing has a lot to do with a lot of things. At the time religion in America was branching out to many various forms people (including Joseph Smith) were looking for something to satisfy their particular needs... but more importantly prior to 1776 religious freedom was unheard of. You either were or you weren't. The dark ages were just that. 

As to the change in racial policies. I speculate the same reasons. By the late 70's the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing, equality was becoming more and more an accepted (if not wholly practiced) idea and it is possible and likely that the next generation would be more accepting and actually put it to practice. 

As we all well know, it takes time for an idea to set in with the people. This is any idea any concept. Sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly but it does take time. 

But I could be wrong and might have to die right along side you to find out the whys and wherefores. :asian:


----------



## Ray (Apr 8, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> Is there any formal statement within the LDS church, either within scripture or doctrine, that forbids the denigration (or glorification) of a race of people?


I can think of one right off the top of my head: "Love thy neighbor as thy self."


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 8, 2008)

Not all muslims , there is no "all" in anything and I realize that, but a LOT are ok with the widewide caliphate the prophet ordered, and that bunch is willing to slaughter to accomplish it.And I have read everything I need to about Islam.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
back on topic, I dont know what happened in 1978, but it was past due. But then, as the saying goes, the lord moves in his own time.

It's on my list to ask the creator about if i get the chance. Along with  the platypus, i mean seriously?  Oh, and  for that matter, whats up with  the SIMS being so addictive?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 8, 2008)

I want to say, first off and again, that I have no axe to grind with the LDS, or just about anyone else-in _my_ America, everyone is free to believe and actice their religion just about however they like, as long as it doesnt entail violating anyone elses rights, and Ive long admired quite a few  LDS practices, and made them my own: my children and I had a family meeting every week, for instance. Your church seems to have moved past what some might call their racist roots, and I never detected a  hint of racism from any of the members I met _before_ 1978-though one girl in 5th grade just plain didnt like me, near as I can tell. There are certainly much nuttier sects out there in terms of racial doctrine.

Ive still got questions, though, or at least some spin to add.



Ceicei said:


> Now on to the topic of the thread of skin coloring.
> 
> The verses that Elder999 brought up are just that, an explanation of what happened at the time. This is no different than what happened in Genesis when Cain slew his brother Abel:
> 
> ...




Interestingly Ceicei-and thanks for your thoughtful and interesting reply-its long been my opinioin that these verses have been misinterpreted and misused for a long time. If we look to the Hebrew (and Ill avoid going into what a lousy translation the KJV actually is, in this case it actually is correct) the word used for mark is _'owth_, which means, well, mark. It is used in scripture variously to mean-sign, omen, portent, circumcision, and the rainbow after the flood. 

In any case, it might seem odd to some that what we know to have been commonplace in the Middle East throughout history was chosen to set people apart, if one thinks of Cain as the father of a nation, rather than an allegory for the nation itself. Ive heard people teach that the mark of Cain was _red hair._ This was in the Ethiopian Coptic church, which is actually thought of by religious scholars as the longest extant Christian sect. Red hair appears occasionally in Africans, and *is* pretty unusual and distinctive when it does. The Jews teach that it may have been a letter, but that no one knows. Somehow, Cain was linked to dark skin, and to Ham, and Ham to Africans-and this verse, and others have been used to justify racism and slavery.

Shame. Good that the LDS has gotten past it, though.

I dont really have time right now, but I would like to respond to the other replies, excellent and otherwise-especially Rays, which raised some interesting philosophical questions for me. In the meantime, Id like to ask you both if you have any personal experience with African-American members of your church, and what that was like.


----------



## Ray (Apr 8, 2008)

Ray said:


> I can think of one right off the top of my head: "Love thy neighbor as thy self."


Here's another one.

2nd Nephi 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him,* black* and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and *all are alike unto God*, both Jew and Gentile.

Suggestion: You can use a search function on www.lds.org to look up statements, scriptures and articles published by the church on a variety of subjects.

Another site that may be helpful is www.blacklds.org


----------



## Ray (Apr 8, 2008)

elder999 said:


> though one girl in 5th grade just plain didnt like me, near as I can tell.


In all humor, I have to tell you that it happens to 5th grade boys of all colors, sizes and shapes.  I know it's hard to believe but there have been people who just didn't like me either.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 8, 2008)

Ray said:


> In all humor, I have to tell you that it happens to 5th grade boys of all colors, sizes and shapes. I know it's hard to believe but there have been people who just didn't like me either.


 
Well, there weren't a lot of Mormons back in that part of New York-of the two I was in school with (that I know of) one liked me, one didn't....

both cute redheaded girls. :lol:


----------



## Ray (Apr 8, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Well, there weren't a lot of Mormons back in that part of New York-of the two I was in school with (that I know of) one liked me, one didn't....
> both cute redheaded girls.


That caused me a little reflection.  I would love to tell you that LDS people are perfect, but that would be a lie...we aren't.  Our people run the gamut, just like people of other (and no) faiths do.

For a period of about 25 years (beginning at age 18) I was not active in the church, it was during this time that the blacks were able to hold the PH.  I was told by a member from Texas that there was more than one person who had a problem when the ban was lifted.  He mentioned that some left the church.  I have no first hand knowledge of those who may have had a problem with it, or who may have left but it is reasonable to assume it's true.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 8, 2008)

Ray said:


> That caused me a little reflection.  I would love to tell you that LDS people are perfect, but that would be a lie...we aren't.  Our people run the gamut, just like people of other (and no) faiths do.
> 
> For a period of about 25 years (beginning at age 18) I was not active in the church, it was during this time that the blacks were able to hold the PH.  I was told by a member from Texas that there was more than one person who had a problem when the ban was lifted.  He mentioned that some left the church.  I have no first hand knowledge of those who may have had a problem with it, or who may have left but it is reasonable to assume it's true.


Well it's one of the first lessons that I learned about the problems of racism... it's not the color of the skin... it's the attitude of the person looking at the color of the skin.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 9, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Religions that DONT change and evolve over time make me nervous. Like Islam for example..


 
On topic:unlike some LDS, Christian and Jewish scripture, there is no clear justification for racism in the Koran and Islamic tradition. At least 20 percent of the world's Muslims are black, and black African kings have made pilgrimages to Mecca since the Middle Ages. Even the Arabs involved in the slave trade do not appear to have rationalized their actions in the name of religion

Islam, in any case, _has_ evolved in the nearly 1300 years of its existence: the Wahabist movement that we face as the primary motivation behind "Islamo-fascist terrorism", started in the 1700's as a reform movement within the religion. There are many, many separate sects and practices within Islam-a Saudi wahabist might well call a muslim from China or Indonesia an infidel, or at least a heretic.

LDS is what? A little less than 200 years old? And you call  what some might call "political changes"-giving up polygamy for statehood, admitting blacks to full membership to keep tax free status and avoid a boycott of BYU in athletic events-somehow those of us outside the church are expected to believe that all of you within the church believe these are "revelations from God." I guess that's evolving..

No matter-believe what you want, as I've said before. Tell me this, though-given the past teachings of the church, and the degree to which they were embraced by the membership-or not, how is it that the membership went from following what can only be described today as blatantly racist doctrine from just 1950-1978, and then not being racist in 1979-because it was "God's will?"

Are _you_ saying that people can change that much? (I *know* that they can, you understand; I'd just like some clarification.)


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 9, 2008)

Elder,
Just because the doctrine was discriminatory, doesnt mean the people were. 

Just as many catholics use birth control, i am sure the percentage of LDS who  were racially prejudiced was no higher than in any other faith.

People have always been willing to ignore their prophets when it suited them.

So when the doctrine changed, for most, it was just changing to reflect the way they already felt. 

I am just as sure that some, the few, had a problem with it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 9, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Elder,
> Just because the doctrine was discriminatory, doesn't mean the people were.
> Just as many catholics use birth control, i am sure the percentage of LDS who  were racially prejudiced was no higher than in any other faith.
> People have always been willing to ignore their prophets when it suited them.
> ...


Christ said that a prophet has no honor in his country or in his own house (or something to that effect). No one is mandated to obey whatever doctrines there are. They are expected to of course just like Catholics or Baptists and even Muslims but nobody HAS to do anything that they don't want to. People choose to obey, follow, adhere to laws, doctrine, scriptures, rules, regulations, mandates and whatever. Not doing so of course carries consenquences of varying degrees. 

The _people_ were discriminatory not the doctrine. There's a fine line within the LDS church when they have speakers. It must be stated clearly that this (whatever it is) is Doctrine if it is not stated then it is the personal view/opinion/idea of the speaker. All doctrine must be approved by the church hierarchy and voted into acceptance by the members by majority. By LDS beliefs/faith all doctrine is passed down by God to the prophet.
Again, people even within the LDS church have confused the President's speakings with that being of God's law and word. Not everything that the current president of the LDS church says is God's word... until he says it is. 

God, IMO has good enough reasons for denying/withholding the priesthood from those whom He has deemed not worthy. And yes, ours *is* to question why... but as far as getting the answers... we have to do what's appropriate to find them.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 9, 2008)

Actually there is an easy answer, Once it is put in the Doctrine and Covenants, it is Doctrine.


----------



## tellner (Apr 9, 2008)

Mmm, but the head of the Church is a Prophet. That's how the revelation of Blacks' release from theological detention was announced.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 9, 2008)

and it was added the DnC


----------



## Ray (Apr 9, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> The _people_ were discriminatory not the doctrine. There's a fine line within the LDS church when they have speakers. It must be stated clearly that this (whatever it is) is Doctrine if it is not stated then it is the personal view/opinion/idea of the speaker. All doctrine must be approved by the church hierarchy and voted into acceptance by the members by majority. By LDS beliefs/faith all doctrine is passed down by God to the prophet.
> 
> Again, people even within the LDS church have confused the President's speakings with that being of God's law and word. Not everything that the current president of the LDS church says is God's word... until he says it is.


An example of something that sometimes confuses people is the "word of wisdom" wherein coffee, tea, tobacco and alcohol are forbidden (and certain good eating practices encouraged).  Some people, by extension, will stop consuming caffenated beverages...which is all good and will be to their benefit...but it is not doctrine.

Then, if you happen to be questioned by someone who doesn't understand the word of wisdom doctrine, then you get comments like: "well a daily glass of wine is good for you" and "well, why can you diet pop? The chemicals in it are horrible for you."


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 9, 2008)

Ray said:


> An example of something that sometimes confuses people is the "word of wisdom" wherein coffee, tea, tobacco and alcohol are forbidden (and certain good eating practices encouraged).  Some people, by extension, will stop consuming caffenated beverages...which is all good and will be to their benefit...but it is not doctrine.
> 
> Then, if you happen to be questioned by someone who doesn't understand the word of wisdom doctrine, then you get comments like: "well a daily glass of wine is good for you" and "well, why can you diet pop? The chemicals in it are horrible for you."



Thought we were talking about racism? :uhyeah: 

Word of wisdom was initially a suggestion for good health which many took to be doctrine but in actuality it wasn't. But this from good ole' Wiki... says: (bold is mine) 



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom#Adoption_as_binding
> Adherence to the proscriptions of the Word of Wisdom was not made a requirement for entry into LDS Church temples until 1902. However, even then, church president Joseph F. Smith encouraged stake presidents to be liberal with old men who used tobacco and old ladies who drank tea.[29] Of those who violated the revelation, it was mainly habitual drunkards that were excluded from the temple.[29] Around the turn of the century, the proscriptions of the Word of Wisdom were not strictly adhered to by such notable church leaders as Anthon H. Lund, Matthias F. Cowley, Charles W. Penrose, Emmeline B. Wells, and George Albert Smith.[29] In 1921, *church president Heber J. Grant made adherence to the proscriptions of the Word of Wisdom an absolute requirement for entering the temple.[29]*
> 
> Today, adherence to the proscriptions of the Word of Wisdom is required for baptism[citation needed] and for entry into temples of the LDS Church.[30] *Adherence to the prescriptions of the Word of Wisdom and the revelation's counsel on the use of meat have never been made obligatory.*


So basically to be a member in good standing adhering to the WoW  is just part of it. 
Many LDS members that I know of drink caffine free sodas if they drink them at all. Some do drink straight soda, but almost none that I know of personally, ever drank coffee or even hot-herbal tea. Most stick to water and sometimes indulge in Kool-aid or (even better) Power-aid or Gatorade. 
Also only the "non-active" members that I knew actually smoked or even drank a beer or three. 
A majority however were members in good standing. And they weren't racist in any way. (back on topic :wink2: )


----------



## Ray (Apr 10, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Thought we were talking about racism?
> 
> A majority however were members in good standing. And they weren't racist in any way. (back on topic :wink2: )


We were, I just thought an example on how the understanding about doctrine can be confused by some.  If people know and understand the doctrine, then no problem.  If someone just reads a couple anti-mormon websites without investigating the source documents for themselves, then they can be misled.  A well-rounded approach to investigation may yield any number of results, but at least they be well thought out.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 10, 2008)

Ray said:


> We were, I just thought an example on how the understanding about doctrine can be confused by some. If people know and understand the doctrine, then no problem. If someone just reads a couple anti-mormon websites without investigating the source documents for themselves, then they can be misled. A well-rounded approach to investigation may yield any number of results, but at least they be well thought out.


 
Sorry, Ray, it's not that simple.

The doctrine said-for many years after Joseph Smith and Brigham Young-right into our lifetimes, that blacks could not hold any level of the priesthood, including those that you may have attained as a child. I have the source documents on my desk, and frankly, the statements made by your prophets-the President at the time-and the practice, were, quite simply, racist-and no amount of equivocation can change that. While the "source documents" may have been mistransltated, misinterpreted or abused, it doesn't excuse the practice itself, any more than it excuses the Catholic Church's condoning slavery, or the Southern Baptists, or any number of other organizations that embraced racism based on such faulty translations, misinterpretations or abuse. I can accept that the doctrine can change, and that (some) people can change, but when you say that someone can be a member, but not a full member-that they'll only attain "heaven as a servant,"  that a 14 or 15 year old white boy is more of a man than a grown black man, then that's racist. Your church never said-"you _shouldn't_ let blacks hold the priesthood , or partake in celestial marriage" -like, as I think you're saying, it says that you _shouldn't_ drink Coke or Pepsi-it said "we shall not," and it said why, and both the practice and it's rationale were racist.

My mom's from Wyoming, and grew up with and liked Mormons, and didn't really care what they believed, since it mostly didn't effect her, or, apparently, the way they treated her. She went to college in Salt Lake City. My family and I took "the tour" when we visited back in the 70's, and the only one in the family who really seemed perturbed by your church's (then) attitude towards blacks was my younger brother-I could really have cared less at the time, but I was finishing my last "year" of my comparative religious studies degree, and was more than a little fascinated by several relatively modern religions-especially by yours. While familiar with the "Source documents" I'm also aware that it's a lot easier for me to find the direct quotes from your tradition that leant themselves to such racist doctrine on the Internet-while you can call the sources "anti-Mormon websites," the real sources are still your scripture and prophets. I'll say again that I don't have a particular axe to grind here-there was a time when it would have been illegal for my wife and I to be married-while it's no longer the law in those places, there are still many people who don't agree with it-_and I believe that's their right._ Doesn't make it right or correct, but it certainly is their right to believe that, or in little pink bunnies on the moon, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or that black people aren't equal to anyone else and will only go to heaven as servants....you and Ceicei have helped explain _why[/][ your church believed as it did, to some degree, and-more importantly-why it no longer does, and how some may never have believed that tp begin with. You can't say that  some "deeper understanding" is going to make past practice not be racist, though, because it was-just as the Catholics have been, and sometimes still are-just as the Hindus have been, and sometimes still are-just as the various sects of Judaism have been, and sometimes still are.The degree to which they were, and that it was part of doctrine, though, is for another thread...._


----------



## Ray (Apr 10, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Sorry, Ray, it's not that simple.
> 
> The doctrine said-for many years after Joseph Smith and Brigham Young-right into our lifetimes, that blacks could not hold any level of the priesthood, including those that you may have attained as a child. I have the source documents on my desk, and frankly, the statements made by your prophets-the President at the time-and the practice, were, quite simply, racist-and no amount of equivocation can change that.


Of course it's that simple.  You indicate that you are actually using the source documents to reach your conclusion and I have absolutely no problem with the conclusion you reach.  You believe that the doctrine of the Church was racist and I respect your opinion.  

The point I was trying to get across is that there are people who go no further than what someone tells them, or what they read in the enquirer or what they see on a website.  e.g. while researching a topic for a lesson in church I found a biblical quote on a website - I thought it was a verse I might use, however those words (and words like them) didn't appear in several versions of my printed Bibles, nor could I find it on any on-line Bibles.  

I'd love to know the results of your project!


----------



## elder999 (Apr 10, 2008)

Ray said:


> e.g. while researching a topic for a lesson in church I found a biblical quote on a website - I thought it was a verse I might use, however those words (and words like them) didn't appear in several versions of my printed Bibles, nor could I find it on any on-line Bibles.



That wouldn't have been Ezekiel 25:17, would it? :lol:



Ray said:


> I'd love to know the results of your project!


 
I don't know that there'll be "results," though I'm willing to bet that I find a lot more support for racist doctrine in Hinduism than any other major mainstream religion, based on what I remember, anyway......


----------



## Ray (Apr 10, 2008)

elder999 said:


> That wouldn't have been Ezekiel 25:17, would it?


It wasn't that one.  But I was stunned when I came across it, I can understand sometimes translations differ in wording but not usually in meaning.  Sometimes the meaning may even be a little different, but still convey the same idea.  I wish I could remember exactly what & where, but it serves (for me) a reason to get as close as I can to the source on anything (religious or otherwise).

Since I've never been other than white and I've had a different experience than some, I may not see the same things as racist that other see as racist.  If I judge another culture (or maybe another era) I might be considered ethnocentric if I judge them according to my standards.  Lastly, growing up white in a mostly Hispanic area there were a few incidents where I was assaulted and insulted only because I was white; but I wrote that off to "stupidity" (of course because "to know me is to love me").


----------



## elder999 (Apr 10, 2008)

Ray said:


> . Lastly, growing up white in a mostly Hispanic area there were a few incidents where I was assaulted and insulted only because I was white; but I wrote that off to "stupidity" (of course because "to know me is to love me").


 
Well, it was _racist_, Ray.......which *is* stupid.


----------



## Ray (Apr 13, 2008)

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQRace.shtml

Jeff Lindsay has maintained a web-site for a while. Give his page on race a read.


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 13, 2008)

I apologize for my absence the past week as I've had a string of illnesses run through my family (I won't bore you with the details).

However, I am genuinely pleased with how the progress of this thread went.  It didn't degenerate, there were no flaming, no overt pot-shots.  People remained civil.  Well done.

Anyway, here is a verse that was spoken of by the Lord to the Prophet Jacob from the Book of Mormon (approximately 544 B.C. - 421 B.C.)  The Nephites (light skinned group) weren't being very nice to the Lamanites (dark skinned group).  In fact, it was during the time when the Nephites were not being very obedient to God:

Jacob Chapter 3 verses 9-10


> 9  Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.
> 
> 10  Wherefore, ye shall remember your children, how that ye have grieved their hearts because of the example that ye have set before them; and also, remember that ye may, because of your filthiness, bring your children unto destruction, and their sins be heaped upon your heads at the last day.



It is well known that parents are obligated in scriptures to teach their children how to behave the way they should and to learn the ways of God.  Apparently, they were amiss with their duties of this important charge.  It is by the example of parents that children learn, and how they learn often lead to how they treat others.

This makes me think of how long it took for racism in the United States to finally be recognized and action taken (1960's - 1970's).  Even then, there are still pockets in various places where long held beliefs of people and their approach to others that differ still linger.  Changing attitudes is taking an extremely long time.  I wonder if racism, or any -ism for that matter, would ever be eradicated.  Probably not, if ever, but I am glad though, that we have made much progress to the point where, for the most part, people can go to places and do things that allow people of different races to mingle.

- Ceicei


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 13, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> This makes me think of how long it took for racism in the United States to finally be recognized and action taken (1960's - 1970's).  Even then, there are still pockets in various places where long held beliefs of people and their approach to others that differ still linger.  Changing attitudes is taking an extremely long time.  I wonder if racism, or any -ism for that matter, would ever be eradicated.  Probably not, if ever, but I am glad though, that we have made much progress to the point where, for the most part, people can go to places and do things that allow people of different races to mingle.
> 
> - Ceicei


I think racism was recognized much sooner than that but definitely action on a wide-spread society scale didn't occur until those decades mentioned. Only here and there did white individuals look beyond a persons skin color and take them for who they were... people. Sadly these were the few. 
Yet when you think about it... wasn't the Civil War basically a war against racism? I mean yes, to free slaves and to prevent the separation of these United States but am thinking that freeing the slaves were more of a dig to the slave-owners of the day. Even up north in the Union States slavery was common until the latter days of the war. True it probably wasn't a horrific scene as more commonly played out in the deep south but still slavery none-the-less. 
Was it really because we were enslaving and being cruel to blacks or to our fellow man? If that is the case then why did the same union which fought for the freedom of blacks were so cruel and performing acts of genocide on the native americans? Almost hypocritical you might say. 
Though bills and laws were passed it still took several more decades to finally enforce them enough to make people realize how wrong the attitude carried over from the past really was. Racist attitudes still prevail here and there but it's fading, thankfully fading quickly. 

You're absolutely right (IMO) that it is up to the parents to help their children see past the color barrier. To help them realize that people are people no matter their exterior.  
I hope the generation next will be even better, and it keeps improving.


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 15, 2008)

Excuse me, elder999, but Donnie and Marie weren't raised to be racist. That's kind of a stupid thing to say. And I should know because I'm a Mormon and I'm not racist at all.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 15, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Excuse me, elder999, but Donnie and Marie weren't raised to be racist. That's kind of a stupid thing to say. And I should know because I'm a Mormon and I'm not racist at all.


 

Not stupid at all-it was deliberately provocative, inciteful (as opposed to "_insightful_") inflammatory and somewhat sarcastic. And I'm sure you're not a racist at all, and a good Mormon-though _you've only been one since seven years *after* the doctrine towards "dark-skinned" people changed. _

I don't know Donny and Marie-do you? (Again-sarcastic....I'm sure they're "not racist" either.)


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 15, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Living back here in the south, I'm still seeing (self) segregated churches among the (various) Baptists, and other denominations. I attended one service of the church that my parents attend, not a single member wasn't white. I have not returned since. But only a few blocks away is another church that seems to have a dominate black membership. What does THAT say?



When I was a child, I went to a Southern Baptist church, and we had only one black family in the whole church.  Their son was my age, he was in the same Sunday School class that I was in.

I think that there are still "black churches" and "white churches" in my city.  They are even referred to as such -- I cannot think of any of the names of the churches -- I do not attend now.  People will go down the road in a car and make a remark such as "There is such and such a church, it is a black church".

Now, mind you, if a white person ends up going to a black church, or if a black person ends up going to a white church, no one will run them out.  No one will say, "You, get out of our church, you are black/white."

From time to time there are goings - on, some kinds of get - togethers where more than one church will combine and have some kind of cook-out or some such thing, and everyone gets along, too.

Of course, what I say is just what I observe.  I have not taken measurements of this, or studied it.

One more thing -- Ed Parker was a Mormon, so because of his giving us the Kenpo, we should have good respect for Mormons.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 15, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> Ed Parker was a Mormon, so because of his giving us the Kenpo, we should have good respect for Mormons.



Unless Mormonism directly inspired his kenpo somehow, I would say the two are irrelevant and unrelated to each other.


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 15, 2008)

There used to be a church on tv -- late night on tv.  The preacher was a black guy.  I cannot think of his name right now.  I happened upon this show one night.  He was a great preacher, believe me!  I was freaking in tears, I kid you not.  

I watched him a couple times -- made a point of it -- this was years ago, though!  Everyone in that whole place was black.  By the end of it, I felt very good, I thought to myself -- man, that is one happy church, there!

The preacher made you feel good when you listened!

Come to find out -- this church is on the corner of 32nd ST and Southern AVE in my city -- and this is the freaking most dangerous place in my city!  No joke!  It is a very bad neighborhood!  You can get shot or get your head busted down there, but yet, in my estimation, they have the best preacher of the whole city.  This guy could give Billy Graham a run for the money!


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 15, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Unless Mormonism directly inspired his kenpo somehow, I would say the two are irrelevant and unrelated to each other.


I have been told that when the Kenpo Student ties the belt on the side of the uniform, rather than in the front (by the center of mass), that this is a "Morman thing".  

And, yes, I know that the CMA students tie their belts on the side, but I was told that the reason that Kenpo Students do it is because of an influence of the Morman Church.  Whether this is true, I cannot totally say.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 15, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> I have been told that when the Kenpo Student ties the belt on the side of the uniform, rather than in the front (by the center of mass), that this is a "Morman thing".
> 
> And, yes, I know that the CMA students tie their belts on the side, but I was told that the reason that Kenpo Students do it is because of an influence of the Morman Church.  Whether this is true, I cannot totally say.



Of the Kenpo's I've seen in Utah... it isn't true. This includes Ed Parker Jr. when he gave a seminar there once.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

Al Tracy is the one that spread the story about kenpo students under BB level's belt knots being on the left or right (depending on gender)being a Morman thing

I dont know, and i will not call Al Tracy a liar, but when it comes to ANYTHING about what Ed Parker supposedly did or didnt do, I try to take everything with a grain of salt.


----------



## Ray (Apr 15, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> I have been told that when the Kenpo Student ties the belt on the side of the uniform, rather than in the front (by the center of mass), that this is a "Morman thing".
> 
> And, yes, I know that the CMA students tie their belts on the side, but I was told that the reason that Kenpo Students do it is because of an influence of the Morman Church.  Whether this is true, I cannot totally say.


Stop by a Mormon church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) and you'll notice that people who do wear belts (to hold up their pants) all wear them like everyone else does.  I've seen some at various Sunday services who wore (gasp) suspenders!

Having had associations with the "Mormon" church all of my life (I'm 50), having been in leadership positions and even having been to the temple several times (and actually more than one temple), I can tell you that you'll find nothing of kenpo in church and visa versa (except for those of us who happen to practice kenpo and actually be Mormons).

Those who wish to find "co-incidental similarities" can probably do so.  But realistically...not.

However, we do preach about Jesus Christ quite a bit.  And faith, repentance, baptism and good works.  We're taught to respect the beliefs of others.  There is a whole bunch of things that we do that are similar to other Christian denominations...

When I lived in Twin Falls, Idaho (a largely LDS place), I found a man who was teaching kenpo in his church --- he wasn't LDS, but he thought kenpo would be a great way to bring the youth and their parents into more activity in that church.  I went and did what I could to help the guy with his kenpo, he was learning via Sasaki's video program.


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 15, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> I have been told that when the Kenpo Student ties the belt on the side of the uniform, rather than in the front (by the center of mass), that this is a "Morman thing".
> 
> And, yes, I know that the CMA students tie their belts on the side, but I was told that the reason that Kenpo Students do it is because of an influence of the Morman Church.  Whether this is true, I cannot totally say.



Well, I guess we'll have to be disappointed if that was supposed to a "Mormon thing".  FYI, it isn't.  

I've trained in six different Kenpo schools and under some instructors who are LDS and some who aren't.  We all wore our belts knotted in the front and frankly speaking, couldn't really distinguish which religion any of the kenpo students/instructors belonged just by looking.  None of us cared which religion any of us belonged and that wasn't necessary for our training.

- Ceicei


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 16, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Interestingly Ceicei-and thanks for your thoughtful and interesting reply-it&#8217;s long been my opinioin that these verses have been misinterpreted and misused for a long time. If we look to the Hebrew (and I&#8217;ll avoid going into what a lousy translation the KJV actually is, in this case it actually is correct) the word used for mark is _'owth_, which means, well, &#8220;mark.&#8221; It is used in scripture variously to mean-sign, omen, portent, circumcision, and the rainbow after the flood.
> 
> In any case, it might seem odd to some that what we know to have been commonplace in the Middle East throughout history was chosen to set people apart, if one thinks of &#8220;Cain&#8221; as the father of a nation, rather than an allegory for the nation itself. I&#8217;ve heard people teach that the mark of Cain was _red hair._ This was in the Ethiopian Coptic church, which is actually thought of by religious scholars as the longest extant Christian sect. Red hair appears occasionally in Africans, and *is* pretty unusual and distinctive when it does. The Jews teach that it may have been a letter, but that no one knows. Somehow, Cain was linked to dark skin, and to Ham, and Ham to Africans-and this verse, and others have been used to justify racism and slavery.


I'll have to agree with you the scriptures didn't give much explanation what Cain's mark meant.  It could be a skin coloring, hair coloring, or something else.  




> I don&#8217;t really have time right now, but I would like to respond to the other replies, excellent and otherwise-especially Ray&#8217;s, which raised some interesting philosophical questions for me. In the meantime, I&#8217;d like to ask you both if you have any personal experience with African-American members of your church, and what that was like.



There weren't very many African-American LDS members while I grew up in New Mexico.  I do remember two families becoming baptized into the LDS church and participating within my ward (congregation).  That was in the early 1980's.  I didn't ask them how or why they were converted and since I had no interpreters, if they did share their stories, I missed out on that.  They were really cool families though.

Where I currently am living, we have African-American LDS in my Deaf Ward.  All of those LDS African-Americans who I met in Utah, except for one, were baptized within the past 10 years (late 1990's to 2000's).  The one (he wasn't deaf) who was baptized earlier had actually joined before the official declaration about the priesthood in 1978.  He is currently serving on the Stake High Council (a stake consists of a few wards).  According to him, he said he had many prayers and thoughts about this issue, but always felt good about what he read in the scriptures and when he prayed, and his relationships with others in the ward.  It was not an issue that would drive him away from the Church since he had many positive experiences.  He also said he knew someday the priesthood would come.  The declaration came sooner than he expected and he felt delighted.

- Ceicei


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 16, 2008)

Put things in context then, elder999! You shouldn't lump all Mormons in with what past leaders have said or done, just as you shouldn't lump all Muslims in with the terrorists just as Pat Robertson and the "Rev." Bill Keller have done.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Having a degree in religious studies, something I do`very year is a religion project of some sort, *<snip!>*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Is that enough _context?_ It seems to have been for everyone else, including some who ascribed "motive" to my starting the thread-which, btw, I suggest you read in its entirety for more "context." I think you'll find that I went out of my way not to "lump" anyone in with anyone else.


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 16, 2008)

Whatever, elder999. But I think if you also examine the history of The Southern Baptist Convention, I think you'll find that there's also a history of racism and bigoty in that religion as well. By the way, for no reason whatsoever, the SBC considers my religion a cult.


----------



## Ray (Apr 16, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Whatever, elder999. But I think if you also examine the history of The Southern Baptist Convention, I think you'll find that there's also a history of racism and bigoty in that religion as well. By the way, for no reason whatsoever, the SBC considers my religion a cult.


Bro Dustin, please stop helping.


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 16, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> By the way, for no reason whatsoever, the SBC considers my religion a cult.


Try not to take it personally.  I grew up in the SBC, and from what I gather, EVERYONE who is NOT in the SBC is in some kind of cult.  Southern Baptists are pretty "cock-sure" that they have a really good idea of what the Truth is, and that anyone who differs from them are missing the point.

I myself used to think that, yes, our doctrine (in the Southern Baptists) must be the Ultimate Understanding of the Truth, and that NO OTHER organization would never understand as well as we do.

This is much the same way as say, the Student of TKD may think, "I feel pity for the Hung-Ga Student, because they do not enjoy such lovely practice as I enjoy."  (You can insert any kind of practice in either blank there -- you get the point -- each person wishes to follow what they consider to the very best path -- and sometimes they feel big-headed and egotistical, thinking, "yes, I now surely understand this better than anyone else ever possibly could.") -- to do this is human, perhaps.


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 16, 2008)

What do you mean stop helping, Ray?


----------



## Ray (Apr 16, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> What do you mean stop helping, Ray?


your arguements are particularly weak.


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 16, 2008)

How are my opinions weak? It is a well known fact that the SBC has a history of racism and religious bigotry. For instance, former President Jimmy Carter, a SBC member is an anti-Semite. Pat Robertson, the host of The 700 Club, a SBC member hates Mormons, Presbytarians, all Muslims, Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and anbody that's not a Baptist. And let's not forget that in the early years of the 20th century starting with about 1915, there were many Baptists and Methodists in the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan hates blacks, Asians, Jews, gays, Mormons, Muslims, Hispanics, communists, unions, immigrants both legal and illegal, Catholics, people with disabilities and anybody that they don't consider white or isn't Protestant.


----------



## Ray (Apr 16, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> How are my opinions weak? It is a well known fact that the SBC has a history of racism and religious bigotry. For instance, former President Jimmy Carter, a SBC member is an anti-Semite. Pat Robertson, the host of The 700 Club, a SBC member hates Mormons, Presbytarians, all Muslims, Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and anbody that's not a Baptist. And let's not forget that in the early years of the 20th century starting with about 1915, there were many Baptists and Methodists in the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan hates blacks, Asians, Jews, gays, Mormons, Muslims, Hispanics, communists, unions, immigrants both legal and illegal, Catholics, people with disabilities and anybody that they don't consider white or isn't Protestant.


Bro, did you grow up with Donny & Marie?  If you didn't then you don't know how they were raised.  I assume and believe that they were brought up to not be biased against others; but I don't have first hand knowledge, so I don't say it.  It also doesn't have much to do with the question asked.  

Stay on track, so what if there are a whole bunch of people who are not LDS who are biased?  It doesn't answer the question asked.  Just say that you're LDS, that your not a racist, that your family taught you that it is wrong to be racist and that you have always been taught by the church that racism is wrong.  

If you have any documentation regarding leaders of the Church that shows the words quoted by elder999 are out of context, misquoted or fabricated, then that would be a great help.


----------



## thardey (Apr 16, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> How are my opinions weak? It is a well known fact that the SBC has a history of racism and religious bigotry. For instance, former President Jimmy Carter, a SBC member is an anti-Semite. Pat Robertson, the host of The 700 Club, a SBC member hates Mormons, Presbytarians, all Muslims, Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and anbody that's not a Baptist. And let's not forget that in the early years of the 20th century starting with about 1915, there were many Baptists and Methodists in the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan hates blacks, Asians, Jews, gays, Mormons, Muslims, Hispanics, communists, unions, immigrants both legal and illegal, Catholics, people with disabilities and anybody that they don't consider white or isn't Protestant.



From post #16



elder999 said:


> [/size][/font]
> 
> 
> Sure, but-as I pointed out in my original post-it's still in the preliminary, research phase-all I've posted so far is raw data I've come across for one sect. I picked LDS first simply because I recently took home a copy of _the Book of Mormon_ from a hotel room, and read it for the second time.
> ...



You're arguing stuff that was dealt with early on . . . *elder999* is not out to say that Mormonism is more racist than other religions - he'll get to those other religions later. He just started with Mormonism because he ran across a Book of Mormon. The racist doctrines of the SBC are irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 16, 2008)

Elder999 is accusing us of _still _being racist, despite the fact that our late President and prophet Gordon B. Hinckley who died a couple months ago condemned racism just a few years ago. Besides, the church has tried to apologize for the racist statements of those people, but people like Al Sharpton who is a hypocrit haven't accepted those apologies. Can we move on, please?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2008)

> In fact, they continue to use racist doctine, or at least have racist doctrine as an article of their faith:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> "Racial degeneration, resulting in differences in appearance and spiritual aptitude, has arisen since the fall. We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were born with the characteristics of the black race. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8,12,22; Abra. 1:20-27.) The Book of Mormon explains why the Lamanites received dark skins and a degenerate status. (2 Ne. 5:21-23.) If we had a full and true history of all races and nations, we would know the origins of all their distinctive characteristics. In the absence of such detailed information, however, we know only the general principle that all these changes from the physical and spiritual perfections of our common parents have been brought about by departure from the gospel truths. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 148-151; vol. 3, pp. 313-326.)" (Mormon Doctrine *1999 printing*, p. 616)


 
You know, I haven't _accused_ anyone of anything, so far, leastof all you. However, the history as presented offers some interesting philosophical questions that you might address-for example, if it was an article of faith espoused strongly by Brigham Young-the one time President and prophet, God's voice on earth-that dark-skinned people were cursed by God, and could not participate in the priesthood, then was _he_ wrong-as "God's voice on earth," or somehow in error-or is the LDS _church_ wrong to depart from that teaching, and guilty of apostasy, or did God change His mind and voice it to the last President and prophet
in the form of a revelation,and, if God _did_ change his mind, did the minds of the church members that were taught otherwise *also* change-or, if they weren't taught otherwise, why weren't they? 

I don't mean to be accusatory, but your church certainly was, by all evidence, at one time (as recently as 1977, before the revelation) practicing racism as an article of faith, whatever the reason.

I'll also add that while the Southern Baptist Church was founded in racism, it has since repudiated, repented, denounced, and _apologized_-you can read about this apology  here.


----------



## Ray (Apr 16, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Elder999 is accusing us of _still _being racist, despite the fact that our late President and prophet Gordon B. Hinckley who died a couple months ago condemned racism just a few years ago. Besides, the church has tried to apologize for the racist statements of those people, but people like Al Sharpton who is a hypocrit haven't accepted those apologies. Can we move on, please?


Brother Jolley,  If you are a "light on a hill" as we are supposed to try to be then you shouldn't call Al Sharpton a hypocrit...we aren't supposed to judge him (but we can judge the act and decide if it's something we should or shouldn't emulate).

The "Church" (imo) shouldn't try to apologize for the remarks made "by the racist statements" of "those people."  Inasmuch as I don't apologize for my father, nor my grandfather, nor my great-grandfather.  I don't apologize for "white americans of centuries past" who were slave holders, etc.  But I try not to offend, and I do seek forgiveness when I do offend.

Besides, it's tough to argue that the Church wasn't racist when you're saying the "church has tried to apologize for the racist statements of those people..."

Instead of building walls and barriers to anyone who is trying to research and understand the church over the years, we should be building bridges and desire.


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 16, 2008)

Elder999, once and for all, racism has never been an official doctrine of our church. Just read the "actual" Articles of Faith from The Pearl of Great Price in our scriptures.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2008)

Ray said:


> The "Church" (imo) shouldn't try to apologize for the remarks made "by the racist statements" of "those people." Inasmuch as I don't apologize for my father, nor my grandfather, nor my great-grandfather. I don't apologize for "white americans of centuries past" who were slave holders, etc. But I try not to offend, and I do seek forgiveness when I do offend.


 

While I sort of agree with you-*I'm* certainly not asking for any apology from anyone, or expecting one-I should point out (since it's become part of my research) that several prominent churches (which are supposed to be "eternal")-*have* done that very thing for their past racism, while the LDS church seems to be somewhat more ambiguous.


----------



## Ray (Apr 16, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Elder999, once and for all, racism has never been an official doctrine of our church. Just read the "actual" Articles of Faith from The Pearl of Great Price in our scriptures.


Elder999: There you have it, an authoritative genuine statement on racism in the Church.....:wavey:


----------



## Ray (Apr 16, 2008)

elder999 said:


> You know, I haven't _accused_ anyone of anything, so far, leastof all you. However, the history as presented offers some interesting philosophical questions that you might address-for example, if it was an article of faith espoused strongly by Brigham Young-the one time President and prophet, God's voice on earth-that dark-skinned people were cursed by God, and could not participate in the priesthood, then was _he_ wrong-as "God's voice on earth," or somehow in error-or is the LDS _church_ wrong to depart from that teaching, and guilty of apostasy, or did God change His mind and voice it to the last President and prophet
> in the form of a revelation,and, if God _did_ change his mind, did the minds of the church members that were taught otherwise *also* change-or, if they weren't taught otherwise, why weren't they?
> 
> I don't mean to be accusatory, but your church certainly was, by all evidence, at one time (as recently as 1977, before the revelation) practicing racism as an article of faith, whatever the reason.


Be advised that the book titled "Mormon Doctrine" is not an official statement of "doctrine" it is a book giving a man's opinion of what he thinks "Mormon Doctrine" is.  It is the prophet's job to relate what doctrine is and isn't (unless there isn't a current president, then it {I think} falls to the 12).


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 16, 2008)

Thank you, Ray. That's first smart thing anybody's said all day.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Elder999, once and for all, racism has never been an official doctrine of our church. Just read the "actual" Articles of Faith from The Pearl of Great Price in our scriptures.


 
Was it, or was it not official doctrine-or practice-that members of black African descent were excluded from the priesthood and temple ceremonies until 1978? 

Was or was not this practice supported by interpreting (or misinterpreting) scrtipture to meant that the black race was cursed? Were or were not these interpretations (or _mis_interpretations) taught to members of the church until 1978?

I'll add that, rather schizophrenicly(?), and _constitutionally correctly_, the LDS's official position during the 60's and 70's up to the lifting of "the ban" was pro-civil rights.


----------



## Ray (Apr 16, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Having a degree in religious studies, something I do every year is  a religion project of some sort, in addition to my own practices. I thought it might be interesting to examine racist doctrine of various religions-Ive been inspired by some of the activity on this board for this years project, which, I admit, has been somewhat late getting started. I thought Id share some of the project as it develops, and, while its only in the research stage, I thought Id share some quotes from the Church of Latter-day Saints, that demonstrate their basis in racist doctrine:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Elder999: I have to throw out the quote that you gave as "Joseph Smith" (above) pending further information.  It is by Joseph Fielding Smith and is a collection of sermons and writings; compiled by someone else (and isn't official church publication).

Although I do not have a copy, I definitely know that one of the chapters in the book  (which dealt with evolution vs creation) was given before he was president of the church.  Another Elder of the church challenged him on his statements, asking whether what Joseph Fielding Smith said was "official doctrine" or not.  The church stated that Smith's opinion on evolution was not "official doctrine."  

If you can look in your copy of "Doctrines and Salvation" and tell me when he gave his talk, we'll correlate that to when he was president (which relates to whether he had the ability to set doctrine at that time).  Thanks.


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 16, 2008)

Nice try, elder999. You seem to be forgetting that the church was also pro-abolition as well.


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 16, 2008)

The book, &#8220;Mormon Doctrine&#8221;, was compiled by Bruce R. McConkie, and was printed in 1958 and 1966.  (Paperback came out in 1996.)  There were later printings.  Regardless which year the edition, that book was never officially approved by the LDS Church as doctrine nor is it considered to be canon, despite the title of the book.  It is largely a book of selections made by McConkie of things that he thought were important thoughts, quotes, and sayings by various people.   While a lot is accurate and brings up many scriptural passages, some things were taken out of context, errors in teachings, and material included that were not considered doctrinal and were opinions only of those quoted; this is why the book never was able to be officially approved (not even unofficially) by the leadership of the LDS Church.  The book includes a disclaimer written by the author that he alone was responsible for the doctrinal and scriptural interpretations.  

  What the Church does use to present doctrine are:

  The Holy Bible (both Old and New Testament)
  The Book of Mormon
  The Doctrine and Covenants
  The Pearl of Great Price

  Four magazines printed by the LDS church:
  Ensign (for adults)
  New Era (for youth)
  Friend (for children)
  Liahona (international)

While not everything currently printed in the magazines are doctrine, the material must at least be in compliance with the teachings.  We do have our twice yearly conference (General Conference in April and October) when the Prophet, his apostles, seventies, and other LDS people will speak and their words are carried by television, satellite, radio, cable, and the internet.  Their presentations are printed in the Ensign magazines the following month.  Both the audio and video of these conference sessions are then put on DVDs and and also made available to listen and read on the Church website (http://lds.org/conference/languages/0,6353,310-1,00.html). 

Almost all presentations given in General Conference are written out beforehand to be previewed by the the leadership.  Some copies (manuscripts) are made available to those the same day who work behind the scenes as real-time language interpreters/translators, those who prepare the teleprompters, and also closed captioning for the deaf of these sessions.  I had been asked a few times some years ago to go up to Salt Lake City to work as a sign language "on-screen interpreter" signing musical numbers during General Conference.  It was rather interesting being "behind the scenes" and seeing how things worked.  

  - Ceicei


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Nice try, elder999. You seem to be forgetting that the church was also pro-abolition as well.


 
_Oh really?_

Utah entered the Union as a *slavery* state, in 1850, as part of a compromise that admitted California as non slaveholding, and allowing my homestate, New Mexico, and Utah to decide by "popular sovreignty," or a vote. Utah voted *for* slavery. 

Some Mormons from the south had brought slaves into Utah with them. THe Mormon church had _no official policy, doctrine or statement against slavery_ at the time, and church leadership statements from the period are, again, ambiguous at best.  Brigham Young seems to have supported slavery, though, while Joseph Smith came out against it.

Additionally, blacks were not the only people enslaved in Utah; Indians  were enslaved as well-the settling of Utah interrupted what had been a thriving Spanish?Mexican trade in Indian slaves.

...best maybe if you follow Ray's advice, and stop trying to help-*I* never mentioned slavery, and, if you can leave it alone, I'll be moving on to Hinduism and those evil Black Muslims.....:lol:


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 17, 2008)

Nice try, elder999. You're just making stuff up the way all anti-Mormons do.


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 17, 2008)

> From post #92 of this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For those who read the above posts and not knowing what is the "Articles of Faith", I will explain a bit.  The Articles of Faith was written by Joseph Smith and is a very basic summary of LDS beliefs.  This was originally published in the _Times and Seasons_(Nauvoo, Illinois) on March 1, 1842; it was then included into the Pearl of Great Price which became officially accepted as scriptures during General Conference in Salt Lake City on October 10, 1880.  While the Articles of Faith does not address the subject of racism directly, it does give some instruction how we are to treat other people (verses 11 and 13).



> The Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
> 1   We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
> 2   We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
> 3   We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
> ...



- Ceicei


----------



## elder999 (Apr 17, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Nice try, elder999. You're just making stuff up the way all anti-Mormons do.


 
Oh geez, I guess I was wrong about Utah's statehood-it became a slavery _territory_ in 1850.



> The Brigham Young party that arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in July 1847 included three African Americans - Green Flake, Oscar Crosby, and Hark Lay. These men were slaves of southern Mormons who sent them ahead to help prepare for the arrival of the Mormon caravans that were to follow. By 1850 there were approximately sixty blacks residing in the Utah Territory. The majority were slaves living in Salt Lake, Davis, and Utah counties. Although slavery was not sanctioned by law until 1852, the religiously homogeneous community accepted the servile status of the majority of black residents. Slavery officially ended in 1862 when the United States Congress abolished slavery in the territories.


 
You can read that  here,at the Utah History Encylopedia, published by the University of Utah press in 1994.

I'll spare you the quite savory and well-documented Brigham Young quotes, mostly because I'm *not* anti-Mormon-I'm not anti-anything, really. I didn't create your church history-three of your fellow church members haven't denied it, and have done a fair job of trying to explain it. Why do you insist upon denying it, and defensively labeling the truth as untrue? I understand that the policies and practices (and yes, I'll avoid the word "doctrine" here) changed in 1978-_seven years before you were born, 19 years before you could attain priesthood_-and that things have changed-whatever the reasons. I'm fairly sure that neither you, Dustin, nor any of them are racists, or were raised to be-though, like most *Americans*, _including myself_,  they probably harbor some subtle racist thoughts and actions.I can also say that because it appears that BRigham Young was a racist (which would make him a product of his time, and not evil) and the LDS church practices-whatever the reasons-were racist for nearly a century, does not make Mormons racist, anymore than it does southerners. Just as southerners may or may not be racist, though, doesn't change the fact that part of the history of the region is the practice of racism.

Let me ask you a question, okay? Were parts of the south racist for insiting that black people sit in the back of the bus, separate sections in the movie theater, use separate public facilities like water fountains, parks and restrooms, not be served in restaruants, and not vote-in other words, not be permitted many of the rights of common citizens? Was that racist?Is it part of southern history?

Or simply something that doesn't exist, because it changed before you were on the planet? 



			
				Ceicei said:
			
		

> While the Articles of Faith does not address the subject of racism directly, it does give some instruction how we are to treat other people (verses 11 and 13).



Thanks Ceicei-and if I hadn't made it clear before, I'll say again that this is the way I have always been treated by Mormons (except for Becky, that evil ***** in 5th grade!) , and the way my mother was treated growing up in Wyoming. That, however, is anecdotal-and I'm avoiding the anecdotal for now, though I've mentioned it to keep people from thinking I'm some kind of hater-it's also why I've avoided posting links to anecdotal stories from black LDS members and former members on "both sides of the argument" about how they've been treated and felt-though I have to thank Ray(?) and 'Caver for supplying some.

Ray, I'm pretty sure you know that  all of "Doctrines and Salvation" are sermons and talks given prior to Joseph Fielding Smith becoming President in 1971-in fact, they're all from the 50's-though it doesn't change the fact that he taught them-which opens up all sorts of interesting questions that I'll just try to avoid-we can just agree that he couldn't set doctrine at the time he said those things.


----------



## Ray (Apr 17, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Let me ask you a question, okay? Were parts of the south racist for insiting that black people sit in the back of the bus, separate sections in the movie theater, use separate public facilities like water fountains, parks and restrooms, not be served in restaruants, and not vote-in other words, not be permitted many of the rights of common citizens? Was that racist?Is it part of southern history?
> 
> Or simply something that doesn't exist, because it changed before you were on the planet?


That is an elemental question truely.  Surely some of those who acted in (what we would call racist today) didn't think they were racist at the time.  To be sure, some did out of dislike.  I wonder how many people grew up in yester-year believing that "whatever" was "just the way things are."

Times may have changed, but have the hearts of people changed?  Have a few people of great wisdom come along, showed us the error of our ways, caused some changes to society and now we just grow up believing in a different "just the way things are?"

I remember my paternal grand-parents who grew up in a rural area of Utah making a comment about a black family who were members of their church unit in Utah.  I, having grown up in Southern California, was uncomfortable with their comments.  No, they didn't use the "n" word or anything similar; and they expressed nothing but love and respect for them;  I think, for them, it was a novel experience to know people of another race;


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 17, 2008)

I guess I'm a racist by the mere fact that when I was younger I used the n-word to refer to blacks in my school and neighborhood, I hated the black kids in my school, thought all their girls were ugly, all the boys stupid and lazy and they all ought to be in a separate school. The fact that most of my fights in school were with the n-words as I referred to them afterwards. 

Never mind the fact that *today*, one of my best friends' wife is black with three beautiful children, that I was one of the first people who supported him unhesitatingly. Never mind the fact that I've lived, worked, laughed and cried side by side with blacks in a half-way house while I (and they) were in the early days of our drug/alcohol addiction recovery. Never mind the fact that I've black friends who invite me over to their family's bbq and I'm the only white guy there. Never mind the fact that today, I've asked black girls out on dates (unsuccessfully -- so far :wink1: ). Never mind all of that, never mind all the room-mates I've shared apartments with that were black (or of another race for that matter), in spite of the fact that I now, today... against racism of any kind, teach to the young whenever I can the equality between a black man and a white man shouldn't be looked at for skin color but should be looked at by their character. Yes, I'll credit MLKjr for planting that idea into my head. 

Because I've *had* those thoughts, feelings, ideals in the past I'm a racist! Oh that would include anyone else who've associated with me at all.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 17, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I guess I'm a racist by the mere fact that when I was younger I used the n-word to refer to blacks in my school and neighborhood, I hated the black kids in my school, thought all their girls were ugly, all the boys stupid and lazy and they all ought to be in a separate school. The fact that most of my fights in school were with the n-words as I referred to them afterwards.
> 
> Never mind the fact that *today*, one of my best friends' wife is black with three beautiful children, that I was one of the first people who supported him unhesitatingly. Never mind the fact that I've lived, worked, laughed and cried side by side with blacks in a half-way house while I (and they) were in the early days of our drug/alcohol addiction recovery. Never mind the fact that I've black friends who invite me over to their family's bbq and I'm the only white guy there. Never mind the fact that today, I've asked black girls out on dates (unsuccessfully -- so far :wink1: ). Never mind all of that, never mind all the room-mates I've shared apartments with that were black (or of another race for that matter), in spite of the fact that I now, today... against racism of any kind, teach to the young whenever I can the equality between a black man and a white man shouldn't be looked at for skin color but should be looked at by their character. Yes, I'll credit MLKjr for planting that idea into my head.
> 
> Because I've *had* those thoughts, feelings, ideals in the past I'm a racist! Oh that would include anyone else who've associated with me at all.


 
No, you're not a racist. Maybe you _were_, once- that's not for me to say though, based on the evidence, I think you probably would say as much yourself. The rest of the evidence points towards you not being a racist.....

...and I'm not saying that the LDS *is* racist-only that it had some questionable practices and policies that _were_. I'm not saying that all Mormons are racist simply because some clearly have been-or  perhaps (surely?) *are*-there's no guilt by association, and no judgement here. Heck, there are more than a couple of fringe groups like so-called "Christian Identity" movements who's entire doctrine is based on racism. I'm looking at underlying tenets or practices of "mainstream" religions that could be thought of as racist.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 17, 2008)

Well. 
Hmmm
This has certainly been thought provoking. I dont normally think about my religion too much. I havnt attended services in over 10 years. But I still consider myself LDS.

Race is perhaps the hardest thing to talk about in America today. I wonder why that is.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 17, 2008)

elder999 said:


> No, you're not a racist. Maybe you _were_, once- that's not for me to say though, based on the evidence, I think you probably would say as much yourself. The rest of the evidence points towards you not being a racist.....
> 
> ...and I'm not saying that the LDS *is* racist-only that it had some questionable practices and policies that _were_. I'm not saying that all Mormons are racist simply because some clearly have been-or  perhaps (surely?) *are*-there's no guilt by association, and no judgement here. Heck, there are more than a couple of fringe groups like so-called "Christian Identity" movements who's entire doctrine is based on racism. I'm looking at underlying tenets or practices of "mainstream" religions that could be thought of as racist.



Yes, okay. I didn't mean my post to be antagonistic by any sense. Mainly to make a point which you have gotten and already have gotten before my (above) post. 
It is hoped that your other examinations of other faiths (Baptists, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodists, Catholic, etc. etc.) will also show the same type of _attitudes_ as the LDS church has shown in the past... by it's _individual members_ (leaders or otherwise). But like all faiths and all things, there are good and bad members. There are smart and ignorant (not stupid) members.
If anything the LDS church by and large cannot (to my knowledge--so far) be accused of actively segregating it's congregations like the Baptists, and other faiths that I've known down here in the south.  
And we *all* know that segregation *is* racism.  (sarcastic) 
So looking forward to discussions on the other faiths and their take on race and the attitudes there of.


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 17, 2008)

Elder999, quite frankly, you're a lot like Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. Or anybody on MSNBC for that matter. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 17, 2008)

Dustin,
to be fair, Elder is a LOT smarter than Olbermann.

But, i think that 8 pages of people telling him "no, maybe once but not anymore" have been wasted because he is still stuck in the past saying "but what about this"


----------



## exile (Apr 17, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Bob Levine
-MT Moderator-


----------



## elder999 (Apr 17, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Elder999, quite frankly, you're a lot like Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. Or anybody on MSNBC for that matter. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.


 
Quite right, I'm a stupid doo-doo poopie head. Pay no attention to the words produced by my keyboard.....

Olbermann? Haven't they fired that guy yet? I mean, I'm a liberal, and I don't even watch that crap on MSNBC-do you?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 17, 2008)

judging by the ratings, NO ONE watches MSNBC


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 17, 2008)

Of course nobody watches MSNBC. By the way, MSNBC hates Mormons. Or at least Lawerence O'Donnell does.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 17, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Nice try, elder999. You're just making stuff up the way all anti-Mormons do.


 

I'd still like to know what it is that I'm "making up," and how I'm "anti-Mormon."  :rpo:


----------



## Ray (Apr 17, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> Of course nobody watches MSNBC. By the way, MSNBC hates Mormons. Or at least Lawerence O'Donnell does.


Come on Dustin.  What are you doing?  Stop, bro.


----------



## thardey (Apr 17, 2008)

First, I've got no dog in this fight, I'm not Mormon, and a couple of my friends are.

Just a couple of things I've noticed in this discourse.

*Elder- *(Am I the only one that gets the irony in that name, related to this discussion? Nevermind.)

Are you looking for Official Church doctrine for racism in the LDS, and when/how it was officially revoked?

Or are you looking for Personal Beliefs within the LDS Church as a whole, and when those personal beliefs changed?

Because, as I read it, the answer to the first question was back at the beginning, on page 4, provided by 'Caver:



> Official racial discrimination in the church dates to Brigham Young, who succeeded Smith as president of the church. Nevertheless, blacks could be baptized, and many black people joined the LDS Church prior to 1978. _Church leaders taught that the priesthood ban did not justify other forms of discrimination against blacks. [1] In 1978, church leaders ceased the racial restriction policy after declaring that they had received a revelation instructing them to do so. The church officially opposes racial discrimination and racism.[2]_


So, if the banning of Blacks from the priesthood was racist (which I believe it was) then that Official Policy changed in 1978. So far as I've ever heard, that's the only Official Doctrine that deals with race.

If you're looking for changes in Personal Beliefs in LDS regarding racism, then Official Policy has nothing to do with it. Individual Mormons have been racists, at one time a large portion of Mormons were racist to a degree, now they majority of Mormons aren't. 

As you pointed out correctly, 





> If you can't articulate how the changes came about, then how can you truly differentiate between what happened in the past, and what is held to be true now? It's entirely possible-even likely-that members of the church of LDS heirarchy were teaching racist doctrine prior to 1978, and are alive today? Do they truly believe differently? Did they experience some sort of personal epiphany on an individual level, or is it enough that their president simply said it was so?


At a personal level, nothing changed with the official change in '78. It was personal before, and it is still personal. For how that change came about, it was the same for Mormons as it was for everyone else in the U.S. Civil Rights, MLK, and changing attitudes affected everybody.

As for the connection of dark skin = sin found in the Book of Mormon, that is certainly a stumbling block for those who are racist to begin with. However, no where does it say (that I've seen) that the descendants of those who were "cursed" are still bearing the sin, or curse, of their ancestors -- they only bear the mark. That is, the descendants are not cursed, only the original sinners, who were given a mark to distinguish them from others, whether Cain or the Lamanites.

Now, of course there are people who will point to that and say "Since he's Black, he must be cursed." But that's not Mormon Doctrine, any more that the curse of Ham gave rights to own African slaves.

If the removal of those verses in the Book of Mormon is what you feel would be required before the doctrine of LDS is no longer racist, then you'll have to wait a long time for that to change, because I don't think those verses are going anywhere. If that means to you then LDS is racist, then that's your belief, and you're certainly entitled to it. Just know that that interpretation is not part of the LDS church doctrine anymore.


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 17, 2008)

It's very simple, elder999. It's considered anti-Mormon when you criticize the church for no good reason. It's anti-Mormon to spread rumors about the church that aren't true. It's anti-Mormon to suggest that we're not even Christian as "Rev." Bill Keller, Pat Robertson, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, Lawerence O'Donnell, Al Sharpton, Ana Marie Cox, Air America Radio, The SBC, and others have done.


----------



## thardey (Apr 17, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> It's very simple, elder999. It's considered anti-Mormon when you criticize the church for no good reason. It's anti-Mormon to spread rumors about the church that aren't true. *It's anti-Mormon to suggest that we're not even Christian* as "Rev." Bill Keller, Pat Robertson, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, Lawerence O'Donnell, Al Sharpton, Ana Marie Cox, Air America Radio, The SBC, and others have done.



That's probably a better discussion for another thread.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 17, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> It's very simple, elder999. It's considered anti-Mormon when you criticize the church for no good reason.


 
Where have I done that?



DustinJolley said:


> It's anti-Mormon to spread rumors about the church that aren't true.


 
Where have I done that?



DustinJolley said:


> It's anti-Mormon to suggest that we're not even Christian as "Rev." Bill Keller, Pat Robertson, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, Lawerence O'Donnell, Al Sharpton, Ana Marie Cox, Air America Radio, The SBC, and others have done.


 
....er...um...I dunno... *where have I done that?*
Still like to know what I'm "making up?"


----------



## DustinJolley (Apr 17, 2008)

You've been criticizing my religion during this entire discussion, elder999.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 17, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> You've been criticizing my religion during this entire discussion, elder999.



I don't see it. And believe me I've been watching this discussion rather closely since it's inception. Elder is not anti-Mormon anymore than I am and I can "testify" and find a respected member of this forum to back me up on my support of the church despite the fact that I am not a member of it, though I've been affectionately called a "dry-Mormon" because of my knowledge, beliefs and affection towards many of it's members. 

I feel that it is your perception of anything that says anything negative about the LDS church/beliefs/dogma/doctrine/members is considered anti-Mormon. 
In-so-far this has been a in-depth discussion on the church's policy of racism. 

If you take the time to go back and read ANY of Elder999's posts on this forum you'll see that he is through and leaves very few stones unturned. Take the time to read some of his posts/threads in the past 6-12 months (not all at once mind you) and get a better sense of the man's thinking before calling him anything. Know your enemy as it were if you perceive him to be so. 
I do not. 

Peace okay? Not every discussion about the church by non-members is an attack against it. 
:asian:


----------



## elder999 (Apr 17, 2008)

DustinJolley said:


> You've been criticizing my religion during this entire discussion, elder999.


 

Oh yeah, I said this:



elder999 said:


> I thought I&#8217;d share some of the project as it develops, and, while it&#8217;s only in the research stage, I thought I&#8217;d share some quotes from the Church of Latter-day Saints,




but I didn't say or make up any of those things that I quoted. Then I said this:



elder999 said:


> *Of course, they said those things long ago*, but I'm finding racist Mormon doctrine all the way through the civil-rights era to 1967-this stuff is truly fascinating! Hard to believe that little Donnie and Marie were raised to be racists.....more to come, if anyone is interested...I'll probably examine the racist doctrine of the early Episcopal Church next, since I was raised Episcopal.....




Note that the "Donnie and Marie" remark was somewhat....._snarky?_-something I'm known for, that I qualified it with how long ago the quotes were from, and added "if anyone is interested," and interest *was* demonstrated-in what was a civil conversation until you decided to call me a stupid liar.

I also said this:



el Brujo de la Cueva (that's me!) said:


> <*snip!*>.... *have to add that I've known and know a number of Mormons, and I've liked every one, *I have to disagree with the last bit of it. While, in my lifetime, *I've found "saints" to be tolerant and easygoing, *it's also true that they've maintained racist doctrines right up through the 70's, as you said-and that was long after the oldest Osmond brother was born. In any case, it's not my intention to offend any Mormons, here or otherwise, but merely to explore their racist doctrines, and how they aren't acknowledged....


 
and this:



el Rey Snarko Grande (that's me too!THANKS TWINFIST!) said:


> <*snip!*>.....like I've said more than once, I like every Mormon I've ever met.In the end, that's all that really matters. I could care less what a bunch of people-men or women, black or white, rich or poor-had to say about anything, in terms of articles of faith *or* race, 50 or 100 years ago-we're known to him by our acts, and that's good enough for me as well


 
and this-*THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT, SO SOUND THE WORDS OUT AND READ REAALLLLYYY SLOWLY  :*



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> this isn't an attack on your faith:*I'm of the opinion that if you believe-as a Mormon or otherwise-that blacks are descended from the devil and cursed by God, hellspawn sent to do mischief upon the earth, then that's your right under the 1st Amendment. *I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd defend anyone's right to believe it-


 
and this:



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> for the last time-I hope-I like LDS people, almost every one I've ever met. I admire their family values, and follow some of their preparedness practices-in fact, I even exceed them. This isn't "anti-Mormon." (THough I did once write a paper on how the Mormons aren't Christians, in that they embrace several doctrines held to be "heresies" by mainstream Christianity, but, again, it doesn't matter to me at all.) It could easily be about the foundations of the phrase "kill em all and let God sort them out" being Catholic in origin, and from the crusades, or the racist doctrine of the Southern Baptist Church-or even the racist doctrines of Judaism-if I find any. In the meantime, though, it's about LDS,past and present, okay?


 

then I posted this:



elder999 said:


> Well, I can accept that. Would you say that LDS doctrine has _changed,_ then?How did this change come about? Should it have come about? Why did it come about? Does every member embrace this change? Should those of us who aren't members of the LDS be suspicious of their past doctrines, especially those of us who are "dark-skinned?" If not, why not? If so, why?
> 
> If you can't articulate how the changes came about, then how can you truly differentiate between what happened in the past, and what is held to be true now? It's entirely possible-even likely-that members of the church of LDS heirarchy were teaching racist doctrine prior to 1978, and are alive today? Do they truly believe differently? Did they experience some sort of personal epiphany on an individual level, or is it enough that their president simply said it was so?
> 
> Lastly, I'll point out that within a week I'll be posting on the inherent racism of Hinduism, but hey.....


 
Which was a bunch of questions that some of your brethren answered, but I get the feeling you'd rather weren't asked at all-and pointed out that I'm not singling out the LDS...

and lastly, four pages ago, I said this-though I've reiterated similar thoughts several times:



elder999 said:


> I want to say, first off and again, that I have no axe to grind with the LDS, or just about anyone else-in _my_ America, everyone is free to believe and actice their religion just about however they like, as long as it doesn&#8217;t entail violating anyone else&#8217;s rights, and I&#8217;ve long admired quite a few LDS practices, and made them my own: my children and I had a family meeting every week, for instance. Your church seems to have moved past what some might call their racist roots, and I never detected a hint of racism from any of the members I met _before_ 1978-though one girl in 5th grade just plain didn&#8217;t like me, near as I can tell. There are certainly much nuttier sects out there in terms of racial doctrine.
> 
> *<snip!>*
> 
> ...


 

So all I've really done is offer up information, and ask questions-I'm sorry that it bothers you-maybe I should just mind my own business, and shut up-but this is America, and I don't have to (yet!). 

...can't wait to take a beating from all the Hindus and members of the Nation of Islam on this board...._snicker!_

...still haven't heard what it is that I "made up," but at this point I don't expect to.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 17, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> IIf you take the time to go back and read ANY of Elder999's posts on this forum you'll see that he is through and leaves very few stones unturned. Take the time to read some of his posts/threads in the past 6-12 months (not all at once mind you) and get a better sense of the man's thinking before calling him anything. Know your enemy as it were if you perceive him to be so.
> I do not.:asian:


 

Thanks, man-I'd say ALMOST any of my posts, as I can be a bit of a butt, at times-usually deliberately, and probably will be again.....I'm no one of any significance, after all....:asian:


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 17, 2008)

Elder999,

I felt your questions were very probing and I welcomed them.  A frank discussion is always a good thing as long as there is an open dialogue with the purpose to try to understand each other.   I feel no offense with your questions--I believe serious questions are there that seek for clarifying answers.  How else can an understanding happen without the questions and answers?  Explaining and understanding the background and context of the questions and answers usually help to communicate better.   I do recognize that some of your questions were given as a challenge.  <shrug>  That's okay.  Even challenges deserve answers, if the challenger is willing to consider them. 

Thank you for making a thread of such a difficult topic--I know you are not the only one who has read, thought, and questioned the same things regarding racism and the LDS Church.  It is easy for some of your questions to be misunderstood and viewed as attacks, especially if the purpose and motive of your questions weren't initially clear.  I think your "LDS Church and Racism" thread has, for the most part, been productive and I enjoyed the opportunity to share some answers (I hope they were somewhat useful). Please do not hesitate to ask more questions.

- Ceicei


----------

