Black and LDS

  • Thread starter Thread starter wademann
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mormon teaching (directed at Mormon children, no less) that God is a white man:
“We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or DISPLEASURE OF GOD UPON A PEOPLE, starting with the belief that A BLACK SKIN IS A MARK OF THE CURSE OF HEAVEN PLACED UPON SOME PORTIONS OF MANKIND. Some, however, will argue that a black skin is not a curse, nor a white skin a blessing. In fact, some have been so foolish as to believe and say that a black skin is a blessing, and that the negro is the finest type of a perfect man that exists on the earth; but to us such teachings are foolishness. We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white. We have no record of any of God’s favored servants being of a black race…every angel who ever brought a message of God’s mercy to man was beautiful to look upon, clad in the purest white and with a countenance BRIGHT as the noonday sun.”
(Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157)
Click to expand...
Paul
 
So there were hair styling products and curling irons in the Garden of Eden?
 
zerinus said:
Joseph Smith.

Because it was the will of God at that time.

zerinus
Click to expand...
“At the time”, the LDS god made people who were “less valiant” in the “spirit world” “dark and loathsome”???
 
ibkc said:
So there were hair styling products and curling irons in the Garden of Eden?
Click to expand...
Who knew that feathered hair was not an invention of the 70’s.

I also thought they look rather androgynous.
 
RebeccaJ said:
:rotfl:
Click to expand...
Then again, European painters usually depicted bible characters as Europeans so that the viewer would identify with them.

With Mormonism, it’s different because the depiction of Jesus as a white man is doctrine, not just artistic license.
 
PaulDupre said:
Here is the Mormon representation of Jesus (from the Book of Mormon):

I’ll try to find a close-up.

Edit: Here is one of the most popular LDS images of Jesus. I kind of like it because it makes him look very masculine:

and here are the Mormon Adam and Eve:
Click to expand...
Just further proof that JS was wrong.

Everybody knows that if the Garden of Eve was in Jackson County, MO, Adam would have had a sweet mullett, a pair of Oakleys, and a kick-butt 77 Camaro, and Eve would have worn a tube top.
 
PaulDupre said:
Then again, European painters usually depicted bible characters as Europeans so that the viewer would identify with them.

With Mormonism, it’s different because the depiction of Jesus as a white man is doctrine, not just artistic license.
Click to expand...
And in Africa they are depicted as African and in Asia as Asians…for the same reason, so that the viewer can identify with them.

Agreed, Mormons believe their depictions are accurate portrayals. Especially with Jesus, where He has been absolutely described as northern European in appearance.
 
PaulDupre said:
Here is a close-up. This is one of the most popular depictions of Jesus in Mormonism:

http://lds.about.com/library/graphics/clipart/jesus/color/2912.gif
Click to expand...
When I worked for the evil empire (Mormon church), Del Parson’s “Christ in Red Robe” was considered THE most accurate depiction of Jesus. The faith promoting rumor floating around at the time was that Pres. Kimball pointed at it once saying he had seen Jesus in the SLC temple, and that is what he looked like. Here ya go…

geocities.com/DaveGarber1975/church/Image_-_Jesus_Christ.jpg
 
zerinus said:
Joseph Smith.

Because it was the will of God at that time.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Then why is there proof that JS ordained a black man?

Why did God say one race is inferior and unworthy?

Further, why did the doctrine change when segregation was outlawed in America?
 
ralphinal said:
Then why is there proof that JS ordained a black man?

Why did God say one race is inferior and unworthy?

Further, why did the doctrine change when segregation was outlawed in America?
Click to expand...
BOB JONES UNIVERSITY v. UNITED STATES
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (IRC) provides that “[c]orporations . . . organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable . . . or educational purposes” are entitled to tax exemption. Until 1970, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) granted tax-exempt status under 501(c)(3) to private schools, independent of racial admissions policies, and granted charitable deductions for contributions to such schools under 170 of the IRC. But in 1970, the IRS concluded that it could no longer justify allowing tax-exempt status under 501(c)(3) to private schools that practiced racial discrimination, and in 1971 issued Revenue Ruling 71-447 providing that a private school not having a racially nondiscriminatory policy as to students is not “charitable” within the common-law concepts reflected in 170 and 501(c)(3).
Click to expand...
Coincidence?
 
ralphinal said:
Then why is there proof that JS ordained a black man?
Click to expand...
Because at first he was not aware of the will of God in the matter. When he became aware he discontinued further ordinations, and told that brother not to exerciese his priesthod.
Why did God say one race is inferior and unworthy?
Click to expand...
The ban was not a sign of superiotiry or inferiority of one race over another.
Further, why did the doctrine change when segregation was outlawed in America?
Click to expand...
The change had nothing to do with that, and occured long after segregation was outlawed in the US; and segregation was never practiced by the LDS Church anyway, even while the ban against the priesthood was in force.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
The change had nothing to do with that, and occured long after segregation was outlawed in the US; and segregation was never practiced by LDS anyway, even while the ban against the priesthood was in force.
Click to expand...
The priesthood was segregated, was it not?
 
zerinus said:
Because at first he was not aware of the will of God in the matter. When he became aware he discontinued further ordinations, and told that brother not to exerciese his priesthod.
Click to expand...
Ok. I can understand that.
The ban was not a sign of superiotiry or inferiority of one race over another.
Click to expand...
Then why was it in place? There had to be a reason. There are reasons that only men can be priests. Surely there is a reason men of African descent were banned.
The change had nothing to do with that, and occured long after segregation was outlawed in the US; and segregation was never practiced by LDS anyway, even while the ban against the priesthood was in force.
Click to expand...
zerinus
Click to expand...
True, it could not have been a knee-jerk reaction. What about the issue of tax-exempt status?

I see a minor difference. If you tell someone that they are welcome but they can never acheive any position of importance, and you cannot give a good reason for it, are you not still segregating? What is the difference between the back of the bus or a “coloreds only” water fountain and no black priests?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top