LDS Church and Racism

[Ray]

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]

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]

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.

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:

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
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.

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]

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

 

[tellner]

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]

and it was added the DnC

 

[Ray]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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......