J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
wussup,
What do you mean by this statement? I recently retired from active duty and I am curious as to what EXACTLY do you mean by the highlighted statement?
Pax Christi
- Status
What do you mean by this statement? I recently retired from active duty and I am curious as to what EXACTLY do you mean by the highlighted statement?
Pax Christi
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
Typical from Zerinus. Attack someone personally, that is the Mormon way.
Especially when you cannot refute any claims of your church and its past, embarrassing history.
He is “ill” from reading about the Doctrine of the Curse of Cain: another in a long list of Mormon lowlights.
Of course, Zerinus tries to be funny whenever confronted with something as distasteful and unChristian (which god ordered it, Z bot?) as judging dark complected people as being ‘evil’ and cursed.
Another in a longggggg list of correlations between Mormonism and Islam.
{Moderator Note: edited for charity}
F
flameburns623
Guest
It’s been answered a couple of times but I would re-affirm it: the LDS Church always allowed blacks to be members of the LDS Church; but until 1978, black males could not hold the LDS priesthood.
You seem dissatisfied with that answer but perhaps you were thinking that the LDS priesthood was something only given to a small minority of people, white or black. You may not understand just how important priesthood status is in the LDS Church for full participation in the spiritual life of Mormons. Actually, all LDS males over the age of 8 hold one of two priesthoods: shortly after being baptised they are ordained to the Aaronic priesthood. After they turn 18 (if they are raised LDS), or about six months after they are baptised (if they become LDS as adults), they receive the Melchizedek priesthood.
Women cannot be ordained in the LDS church but they ‘share’ in the priesthood of their father; or of their brother/the oldest male in their household if their father is deceased; or of their bishop if they are over 18 and unmarried; or of their husband if married. Having a valid priesthood or being part of a household with a valid priesthood holder is vital to receiving many special blessings and spiritual privileges, according to LDS theology and understanding. To deny that priesthood to blacks because their ancestors were in some way ‘accursed’ put African-Americans at a serious spiritual disadvantage in the LDS Church. As a result, not only did very few American blacks joint the Mormon Church prior to 1978; but some African countries actually outlawed the Mormon Church for it’s practice of denying priesthood to person of African descent.
It should be noted that although the early LDS Church made the majority of it’s converts among persons who were probably abolitionist (opposed to slavery) in their sympathies, Missouri Mormons found themselves at odds with their neighbors over this issue. Joseph Smith’s ‘revelation’ that persons of black skin were accursed and denied the Priesthood probably was an attempt to salve the feelings of segregationist Missourians. If so, the ploy failed: Mormons continued to grow in Missouri, and for whatever reason, other Missourians remained concerned about their presence. Ultimately, Mormons were persecuted and driven from Missouri to Nauvoo Illinois, where they settled once again until Joseph Smith was martyred and Brigham Young led the Saints to what we know now as Utah. Although the reason for the Priesthood ban vanished once Mormons were driven out of Missouri, Smith never said or did anything to repeal his ‘revelation’ and it remained a principle in the LDS Church until the “Official Declaration” of 1978.
Hope this helps!
K
Kristine1957
Guest
Maria hope this helps Bruce R McConkiean Apostle in the Mormon Church made these remarks concerning blacks in his book Mormon Doctrine:
Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood
under
** NO CIRCUMSTANCES **can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them…
Negroes are **" NOT EQUAL" **with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, is based an his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 527-528)
A
Allweather
Guest
Hi Kristine… I’m sitting here looking at pp 527-528 of my copy of Mormon Doctrine by McConkie, and I am not seeing what you’ve quoted. In fact, what I find on those pages, under the word “Negroes” which actually begins on page 526, is a description of the 8 June, 1978 documenting of Spencer W. Kimball’s revelation saying that Negroes are now admitted to the priesthood and other offices of the Mormon church. Mine is also the 1966 edition, but since it contains information from 1978 one must assume that it has been updated from time to time as circumstances require. Are you sure that you don’t have an outdated printing?
an Apostle in the Mormon Church made these remarks concerning blacks in his book Mormon Doctrine:
Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood
under
** NO CIRCUMSTANCES **can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them…
Negroes are **" NOT EQUAL" **with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, is based an his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 527-528)
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Racial Statements in LDS Scriptures
Book of Mormon
1 Nephi 11:13 (Mary) “. . . she was exceedingly fair and white.”
1 Nephi 12:23 (Prophecy of Lamanites after Christ) “. . . became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.”
1 Nephi 13:15 (Gentiles) “. . . they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people [Nephites] before they were slain.”
2 Nephi 5:21 “. . . a sore cursing . . . 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 (Prophecy to Lamanites) “. . . scales of darkness shall begin to fall . . . they shall be a white and delightsome people.” (Changed to pure and delightsome in 1981)
Jacob 3:5 (Lamanites cursed) “. . .whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins. . .”
Jacob 3:8-9 “. . .their skins will be whiter than yours . . . revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins . . .”
Alma 3:6 “. . . 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. . .”
Alma 3:8 (Cursed) “. . .that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren . . .that they might not mix . . .”
Alma 3:9 “. . . whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.”
Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed) “. . . set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed. . .”
Alma 3:19 (Amlicites cursed) “. . . brought upon themselves the curse …”
Alma 23:18 “. . . [Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them.”
3 Nephi 2:14-16 “. . . Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites . . . became exceedingly fair . . .”
3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples) “. . . they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness . . . nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof . . . they were white, even as Jesus.”
Mormon 5:15 (Prophecy about Lamanites) “. . .shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us . . .”
Mormon 5:17 “They were once a delightsome people . . .”
Pearl of Great Price
Moses 7:8 “. . . a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan . . .”
Moses 7:12 “. . . Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were [except] the people of Canaan, to repent . . .”
Moses 7:22 “. . . for the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them.”
Abraham 1:21 “. . . king of Egypt [Pharaoh] was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.”
Abraham 1:27 “. . . Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood . . .”
utlm.org/onlineresources/racialstatements.htm
utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech10a.htm#Black Skin and the Pre-Existence
Book of Mormon
1 Nephi 11:13 (Mary) “. . . she was exceedingly fair and white.”
1 Nephi 12:23 (Prophecy of Lamanites after Christ) “. . . became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.”
1 Nephi 13:15 (Gentiles) “. . . they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people [Nephites] before they were slain.”
2 Nephi 5:21 “. . . a sore cursing . . . 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 (Prophecy to Lamanites) “. . . scales of darkness shall begin to fall . . . they shall be a white and delightsome people.” (Changed to pure and delightsome in 1981)
Jacob 3:5 (Lamanites cursed) “. . .whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins. . .”
Jacob 3:8-9 “. . .their skins will be whiter than yours . . . revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins . . .”
Alma 3:6 “. . . 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. . .”
Alma 3:8 (Cursed) “. . .that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren . . .that they might not mix . . .”
Alma 3:9 “. . . whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.”
Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed) “. . . set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed. . .”
Alma 3:19 (Amlicites cursed) “. . . brought upon themselves the curse …”
Alma 23:18 “. . . [Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them.”
3 Nephi 2:14-16 “. . . Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites . . . became exceedingly fair . . .”
3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples) “. . . they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness . . . nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof . . . they were white, even as Jesus.”
Mormon 5:15 (Prophecy about Lamanites) “. . .shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us . . .”
Mormon 5:17 “They were once a delightsome people . . .”
Pearl of Great Price
Moses 7:8 “. . . a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan . . .”
Moses 7:12 “. . . Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were [except] the people of Canaan, to repent . . .”
Moses 7:22 “. . . for the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them.”
Abraham 1:21 “. . . king of Egypt [Pharaoh] was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.”
Abraham 1:27 “. . . Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood . . .”
utlm.org/onlineresources/racialstatements.htm
utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech10a.htm#Black Skin and the Pre-Existence
P
Pjs2ejs
Guest
Flameburn,
After reading your defense of the non-black priesthood, I can still say that I am sick. You actually believe that a black man is different than a white man. That is what bothers me.
I am wondering why your doctrine changed. Apparently God revealed a change in His policy on blacks. Now they are okay for the priesthood.
You can justify it all you want. If you would have just said that someone had started that false teaching a long time ago and now it has been cleared up, I would say, “Okay, fair enough”. But you actually took the time to justify the doctrine that has now been reversed. And that God has in essence changed his mind.
You wrote: “Joseph Smith’s ‘revelation’ that persons of black skin were accursed and denied the Priesthood probably was an attempt to salve the feelings of segregationist Missourians.”
I think “salve” is a typo but I can’t figure out the word that you meant. Isn’t a revelation from God? Is God trying to “salve” the feelings of the segregationists? God is truth, not comprimise.
After reading your defense of the non-black priesthood, I can still say that I am sick. You actually believe that a black man is different than a white man. That is what bothers me.
I am wondering why your doctrine changed. Apparently God revealed a change in His policy on blacks. Now they are okay for the priesthood.
You can justify it all you want. If you would have just said that someone had started that false teaching a long time ago and now it has been cleared up, I would say, “Okay, fair enough”. But you actually took the time to justify the doctrine that has now been reversed. And that God has in essence changed his mind.
You wrote: “Joseph Smith’s ‘revelation’ that persons of black skin were accursed and denied the Priesthood probably was an attempt to salve the feelings of segregationist Missourians.”
I think “salve” is a typo but I can’t figure out the word that you meant. Isn’t a revelation from God? Is God trying to “salve” the feelings of the segregationists? God is truth, not comprimise.
F
flameburns623
Guest
PJ:
I am not a Latter-Day Saint. I was providing a more-or-less impartial analysis of what the LDS believe(d) and what historical circumstances probably influenced them. I was not advocating nor endorsing those beliefs. I do think that we owe it to the LDS to be as fair to what they really teach and why they teach it as we can be; only then can we properly refute their errors.
Incidentally, active, practicing Mormons would not be entirely happy with much of what I wrote, largely because I attribute psycho-sociological factors to Joseph Smith’s ‘revelation’ which barred blacks from the Priesthood. They of course believe that the revelation came from God, Who is at liberty to change His commands as He chooses. You and I probably would wonder at such a changeable God. But Mormons do accept the doctrine of ‘continuing revelation’, with the understanding that what God expects at one time in human history may be different from what He decrees at another time.
If I might, however:
Umm . . . .could you please cite for me the specific part of my previous post from which you gleaned the impression that I believe a black person is different from a white person. I will expressly deny believing such a thing and cannot see how you got that impression from what I wrote. Also:
‘Salve’ was not a typo. I personally do not believe that Joseph Smith’s ‘revelation’ about blacks actually came from God. Nor do I think that Joseph Smith or most early Mormon converts were expressly racist. Most early Mormons would have probably been Northerners, abolitionists, and generally not explicitly racist. A few early black converts to the Mormon Church–prior to Smith’s ‘revelation’–were actually ordained to the Priesthood. However, after the Mormons settled in Missouri, among people with pro-slavery and segregationist sympathies, the difference of opinion on the ‘Negro Question’ created a lot of friction.
Joseph Smith had already decided that ‘Far West, Missouri’ and it’s environs were the site of the original Garden of Eden, and the place where the New Jerusalem was soon destined to descend from Heaven: Smith’s followers had been hounded out of upper New York and out of Ohio, and Smith hoped he could find a way to make peace with his Missouri neighbors before something similar happened there. Hence, his ‘revelation’–in my opinion, and in the opinion of a number of non-LDS historians–was an attempt to ‘make nice’ with the Missourians. That is what I believe what the human motive of Joseph Smith in denying blacks the Mormon Priesthood. I hope that explains what I was saying a little bit better.
F
flameburns623
Guest
Bruce McConkie’s book is NOT an authoritative source for what the LDS Church now believes or even what it once believed, officially and universally. It represents one school of thought within the LDS Church, and not always one supported by the General Authorities of the LDS Church. The First Presidency of the LDS Church is on-record as having disavowed Mormon Doctrine and as having compelled Bruce McConkie to revise portions of it. To hold the entire LDS Church to account for Mormon Doctrine is rather like holding the RCC to account for the Dutch Catechism or for Richard P. McBrien’s Catholicism.
I will say that McConkie’s views probably represented the view of many of the most-traditional, most-conservative Mormons, and portions of it were and continue to be widely cited and studied. But since it has been censured within the LDS Church, one should have reservations about using it to represent ‘official’ LDS doctrine.
A
Allweather
Guest
Thanks, and I’ve gathered that from things that Zerinus has said, and so I don’t put all that much stock in this book. What I was responding to was Kristine, who quoted two pages of the book that say exactly the opposite of what my copy says. I’m wondering if maybe she has an older edition that doesn’t refer to the 1978 revelation re: blacks, as mine does.
P
Pjs2ejs
Guest
flame, I did not know you were non-Mormon so it changes my perspective on your comments. It sounded like a Mormon defending the beliefs. Sorry for the miscommunication.
C
catsrus
Guest
Smith, McConkie, Young and the other 19th century mormons aside, the mormons STILL refused to look at a black man as an equal until 1978.
Period.
And I personally know a couple of older mormons that, revelation or no, STILL adhere to the concept that blacks are “dirty”, “filthy” and “unworthy”.
Period.
And I personally know a couple of older mormons that, revelation or no, STILL adhere to the concept that blacks are “dirty”, “filthy” and “unworthy”.
A
Allweather
Guest
Same here. Some Mormons I know are EXTREMELY antagonistic towards blacks. But I can’t say whether that is because of their religion, or because they are just bigoted for other reasons. I grew up in Texas during the 50s, and so I am well acquainted with people (including myself I am ashamed to say) having terrible racist attitudes, not only towards blacks but also towards Mexicans and Asians. This is just something that is a human attribute. Some blacks don’t care much for whites, and I’ve known Koreans who hate Japanese, etc. I believe that Mormonism is a man-made religion, and one evidence of this is that it has traces of racism in its “modern scripture” while the Bible teaches a brotherhood of man, in which all are equal.
K
Kristine1957
Guest
Opps… it was in 1958
K
Kristine1957
Guest
Just a comment on Mormon Teachings:
All of the people on this site can quote this scripture and that scripture from the BoM and the Bible but that facts are the Mormon Doctrine has been “changed or taken out” of several books that active members go by.
No matter what anyone tries to say or how they try to twist the facts I remember when the LDS church said blacks are evil and they are **" NOT EQUAL" **with other races and if anyone would have one drop of negro blood in them they would be cursed the same way.
The LDS church scared everyone into submission and nobody would dare do anything against the church. And this is only one small example!
If you are LDS why are you? Please dont give me your testimony… Open your heart…Open your eyes…Open your ears and LISTEN to what God has said especially since it will be God you answer to on judgement day not Jospeh Smith.
For those of you who want to twist the facts go for it, your only fooling yourself. Remember God knows everything…
All of the people on this site can quote this scripture and that scripture from the BoM and the Bible but that facts are the Mormon Doctrine has been “changed or taken out” of several books that active members go by.
No matter what anyone tries to say or how they try to twist the facts I remember when the LDS church said blacks are evil and they are **" NOT EQUAL" **with other races and if anyone would have one drop of negro blood in them they would be cursed the same way.
The LDS church scared everyone into submission and nobody would dare do anything against the church. And this is only one small example!
If you are LDS why are you? Please dont give me your testimony… Open your heart…Open your eyes…Open your ears and LISTEN to what God has said especially since it will be God you answer to on judgement day not Jospeh Smith.For those of you who want to twist the facts go for it, your only fooling yourself. Remember God knows everything…
K
Kristine1957
Guest
I stand corrected…The church has it listed as A Compendium of the Gospel, 1958. I do know members that thought it was/is official doctrine since these books are being written by a leader of authority.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
It was a much different LDS church when I was LDS in the 70’s and 80’s. Back then, Mormons were proud of their teachings and did not want to be known as Christians. Mormon Doctrine was very popular because it was the closest thing to a catechism the Mormons have ever had, and the members loved having a book that covered just about every aspect of Mormonism that they could use to answer arguments and questions about the faith. When I was at BYU in 1976, nearly everyone had a copy of Mormon Doctrine, and it was considered the last word in any dispute about LDS teachings.
Paul
A
Allweather
Guest
Why don’t the Mormons have a catechism? Seems like it would make things a lot easier on them, and us, too.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
No, the Mormons don’t have a catechism. How could they? Their doctrines change so fast that any edition of their catechism would be obsolete in a few years. They need to preserve plausible deniability so that when their doctrines change they can claim (as so many LDS on this forum do) that “we never taught that” or “I never heard that”. A catechism would make that very difficult. A non-official book like Mormon Doctrine, even though written by “prophet, seer and revelator” Bruce R. McConkie, is easier to dismiss.
Paul
Paul
F
flameburns623
Guest
Paul: I agree with most of what you say about ‘plausible deniability’. However, Bruce R. McConkie was never a “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” in the Mormon Church. (He was an Apostle, but he was never an LDS Prophet). Only the reigning Prophet of the LDS Church holds the title additional titles of 'Seer" and of “Revelator”.
There are some racialist schisms in the Mormon Church, but they are not large or influential. Older Mormons especially probably are less comfortable around minorities, but that is true within the larger population of pre-1955 Americans, generally. A lot of Mormons probably do carry about a bit of racist baggage, but then so do many Christians–even Roman Catholics–particularly of Southern heritage. In fact, most of us who are White and American have some need to purge ourselves of some of the vestiges of our own history. The LDS were simply slower than most of the rest of US society to put a horrible legacy behind them.No matter what anyone tries to say or how they try to twist the facts I remember when the LDS church said blacks are evil and they are **" NOT EQUAL" **with other races and if anyone would have one drop of negro blood in them they would be cursed the same way.
The LDS church scared everyone into submission and nobody would dare do anything against the church. And this is only one small example!
- Status