LDS Church and Racism

[Ray]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)."

". . . from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land (Abraham 1:24)."

"Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, . . . Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, . . . but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood."Now, Pharaoh being of the lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, . . . (Abraham 1:26-27)."

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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’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’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’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—that he is the Living God.

Elder999 brought up quotes from early LDS leaders that were said in the early 1800’s to mid 1900’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—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 “slow of speech” and did not trust in the Lord’s abilities, so the Lord had Aaron speak for him. Jonah wasn’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’s keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’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’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.
13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken upon him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

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. – 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’s house….(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 “No More Strangers”, which was printed in the Ensign magazine, page 16. An excerpt of this article says:

“Unfortunately, racism—the abhorrent and morally destructive theory that claims superiority of one person over another by reason of race, color, ethnicity, or cultural background—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’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’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.”

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.



Elder999 wrote in reply to the above quote.
Why should I care? How should I care?Should I care? LOL Smilely

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]

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.

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]

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: