LDS Church and Racism

[elder999]

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.
There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.
Juvenile Instructor, vol. 26, p. 635
It is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness...It has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom His blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extent as to excite the comments of all who have known them.

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
Cain slew his brother. . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.
You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed.

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]

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]

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.
God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death....
The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders"....
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....
I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....
Now let's talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation....
When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation....
Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them....
The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there....
Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, "what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Only here we have the reverse of the thing -- what God hath separated, let not man bring together again."
Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

Fascinating stuff from the very year of Brown vs the Board of Education….
....George Osmond was born in 1945. BTW....and born deaf. The oldest singing Osmond wasn't born until 1949-still during the Moromn's racist era.


"Lamanites" is what the Mormons called (call?) "Native Americans." I'm investigating the doctrinal reasons for this, but they seem to have (had?) a differing attitude towards Indians than blacks.

SPENCER W. KIMBALL
General Conference Report, October, 1960.
Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-923.
I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

Not quite sure what this guy was getting on about back in 1960-the year I was born-but it sure seems racist to me.

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

 

[MA-Caver]

'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]

In 1997, there were approximately 500,000 black members of the church (about 5% of the total membership), mostly in Africa, Brazil and the Caribbean.[3] Since then, the black membership has grown substantially, especially in West Africa, where two temples have been built.[4]

Although not refuting his belief that the policy came from the Lord, Apostle Spencer W. Kimball acknowledged in 1963 that it could have been brought about through an error on man's part. In 1963, he said, "The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation."[61]

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]

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]

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

- Ceicei

 

[MA-Caver]

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)

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:



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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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?

No.

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.

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?

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;957907]

*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:

....... 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]

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]

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.

1 Nephi 12:23 And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. (Joe Smith calls dark skinned people ugly, filthy, lazy, and perverts.)

1 Nephi 13:15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

2 Nephi 5:21 For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

2 Nephi 30:6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure white (1830 edition) and a delightsome people.

Jacob 3:8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

Alma 3:6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

3 Nephi 2:15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.

Mormon 5:15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.

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]

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]

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?