But it was not used as an antimormon whipping tool nor was it a major issue in the USA. I don’t remember it ever being brought up to put the lds church down. Was there confusion in the linage. Yes, there were. But it has nothing to do with inspired religion. I do believe that one had to wait until the patriarchical blessing to discover linage.
How old are you? It was definitely a major issue in the USA. I was in Iowa where there were hardly any Mormons and there were newspaper stories all the time about it. Sports Illustrated ran some big articles about it. The only reason that a lot of so-called anti-Mormons didn’t use it is because a lot of Southern evangelicals held the same racial views as Mormons. So called “anti-mormonism” (telling the truth about Mormonism) didn’t really take off until evangelicalism spread north in the 1970s. Northern mainline churches really didn’t participate a lot in “anti-Mormonism.” That’s partly because in the 1960s Mormons were almost non-existent outside of the Mountain West.
Sorry. I will re-post that answer from RebbeccaJ now
Since when was Jesus white? Jesus was a native of an area inhabited by Semites. He would have looked like modern Palestinians do. Compaired to white Americans, he would have been shorter and much darker. Now, we can follow your argument that only Jews are fit, as that was what Christ called, but we know that Jesus himself said to “Go make beleivers of all nations.” It would not fit the teachings of Christianity, that there is no servent or master, no Greek or Jew, if there is still black and white.
IN the Old Covenant, yes. Christ called non-Levites as Apostles, though.
I will now quote from Brigham Young.
and
and
That looks like he considered them unworthy.
Again, it looks like perceived inferiority is the reason.
You raised the quesiton as to why the Catholic Church limits its priesthood ot males, I was pointing out that that is not a totally unique phenominon.
And so as the mormon church grows, more and more so called christians begin to take an anti mormon stance (using the blacks and the priesthood ruse etc) to stem the growth. But when it was a small group, no one bothered basically.
So answer this. Why were the Blacks not able to have the priesthood? You seem to know alot about LDS. That is why I am asking you.
He is not a Catholic. He is here to troll.
I don’t believe the Mormon Church of 2008 is racist. I do believe it held many racist doctrines in the past that were shared with many white Americans, especially in the South. The cursed Cain as ancestor to black Africans didn’t originate with Smith – he borrowed that just like he borrowed most everything else involved with his religion. Unfortunately, Brigham’s decision to exclude blacks from the priesthood put Mormons into a historical box they didn’t escape until 1978. I can tell you that by then many Mormons were ready for the ban to end – a lot of the people in the pews were way ahead of the old uninspired leaders on this one. My personal experience is that blacks in the Mormon Church now are treated as well as blacks are treated in any other religious group. Mormons were lucky they had President Kimball as leader of the LDS Church at the time since he was one of the few Mormon leaders at the time who was ready to act upon this. So the end of the ban is something we should celebrate rather than continue to criticize the Mormon Church about its racial policies. The era when blacks were treated as second class citizens in the LDS Church is over.
we are talking about church doctrine not private opinions
it was NOT “accepted” then. it was a big problem for BYU as other universities were not willing to interact with them because of this.
mormon “growth” is a myth. the mormon doctrine of blacks being denied the priesthood until 1978 is not a ruse it is a well documented fact. mormonism is still a small group and yes back then people DID bother and it was a major issue and i don’t think objecting to it is accurately portrayed as a “rant”. there WERE informational stories about it all the time. why do you think the LDS first presidency put out those letters of instruction? i see you depserately trying to feed the mormon persecution complex and trying to perpetuate the myth of “fastest growing church” but it just isn’t true. the truth here is that even to this day mormonism is still doctrinally focused on racism. you see it in the BoM, you have it in patriarchal blessings and it goes even to a more specific focus on white amreicans being the most chosen of all.
My heritage is no religion. I joined the LDS Church at 19. I never was RLDS.
I can agree with this. That the BoM is based on 19th century ideas about race is, to me, the biggest red flag that the LDS church is not of God. I thought so the very first time I was exposed to it, when I was 17 and my good friend converted and was trying to convert me. It struck me that I was reading a very creative book by a man (or men) who was very much of his time and place. Compare to the New Testament: to hold racist views is to go against the teachings contained in that book, to twist and pervert it. The NT contains teachings that were very radical for its time and which are still difficult to live up to. It does not contain teachings that celebrate and confirm the lowest and most base impulses of man.
I don’t know of any Mormons in 2008 who would agree with your statement. There may be some, but I haven’t met them here in the Midwest.
That leaves them with a huge problem, then. How can they follow a religion when they do not agree with some of its basic foundational ideas? Let’s face it, the whole Lamanite/dark-skinned-people-are-cursed-by-God is basically white supremacy. In action, it’s been mild and non-violent white supremacy, which is laudable relative to other forms of white supremacy, but it is still white supremacy. If a Mormon doesn’t believe that Indians and black people bear a curse of dark skin because of the sins of their ancestors, doesn’t the rest of the Mormon mythology start to fall apart?
The whole issue is a non-issue now. Most Mormons can’t even find a Lamanite because they agree that most Native Americans came from Asia. So in reality they can’t state that any Native American living now has been cursed with a dark skin for the sins of their ancestors. The Mormon mythology has all fallen apart. There really is no evidence in Mormon scripture that blacks are descendants of Cain – that’s how it was interpreted in the past, but it is just as easy to assert the mark had nothing to do with present day Africans. All the Book of Abraham says is that Cain’s descendants were preserved through the flood. It doesn’t specifically identify those descendants as being black Africans though that was the interpretation of early Mormons. Mormons can easily finesse all of this when it comes to a literal reading of their scripture. I expect these ideas will die out with the current generation of Mormon great grandparents.
not exactly the whole story. there is also that scripture in moses: