Question for Mormons about Cain

[ParkerD]

Parker:
So what do you think of LDS people who have internalized and taken for themselves the racist aspects of Mormon scriptures? Do you ever confront racist comments made in your own church?

Do you have the same attitude towards non-Mormon people of color that you have towards Mormon people of color?

Do you believe that it is in God’s plan for people of color to struggle to cope with racism?

No, I am not being racist when I ask these questions. I simply know through personal experience, that the BOM and other past teachings of the LDS church encourage racism in those people who are so inclined.

Jerusha,
I haven’t personally met very many (if any–I honestly don’t remember hearing any except maybe once in Marietta, Georgia) of LDS people who have made racist comments. If I had thought it would have done any good, then when I was in high school and first read the book “The Way to Perfection” by Joseph Fielding Smith and encountered the idea he expressed quoted above by Rebecca, I suppose I might have written to him or his office, but it would have been pretty presumptuous on my part to think anyone would read my letter.

I admit the Book of Mormon can be “read into” as having what could be identified as “racist” passages if taken as applying to people today, but the “mark” applied only to the people living at that time, and came because those particular people had rejected God’s teachings to them. The Book of Mormon never states nor implies that such a “mark” means the same thing today or any such similar thing. It implies instead that any darker-skinned people living today with the heritage of the Book of Mormon are not only God’s covenant people with a special heritage, but that during these last days those covenant people are going to have a celebretory renewal, something to shout about with joy.

“Do [you=I] believe that it is in God’s plan for people of color to struggle to cope with racism?”

That is a very deep question. Since I think God has a plan for all humankind that is both personal to each one and also universal to all, then I would have to say that God knew there would be this kind of struggle on this earth when He created it and included the potential for different races of people, plus knowing that people find ways to differentiate themselves and try to feel superior even though they are not.

I think the heroic efforts made by so many to overcome the effects of the non-loving, absolutely wrong attitudes of so many people over the centuries, are perhaps some of the most heroic efforts ever in the history of humankind, and I am talking about overcoming racist attitudes that are repugnant to me.

I believe in something one of our church leaders called the “principle of compensation”. Because of this, I think our benevolent Heavenly Father will look with so much compassion on those who have been wronged by the actions and attitudes implied by the word “racism”, that their “compensation” or reward in heaven will be vast, and in a spiritual sense I will “take my hat off to them” when in their presence and I will consider it a privilege to honor their name, their heritage, and what both they and their ancestors went through for no fault of their own, in this world.

I also would like to see, hope to see, and hope I am seeing a present day when that struggle is no longer a part of our society.

Now I want you or anyone else reading this to know that what I have written is in all sincerity, from the depths of my heart and soul. I hope you can detect the answer to your other question by my comments. It is, “absolutely”, to all those presently living and in the past. Have a wonderful day.

 

[ParkerD]

C2M2C,
There was an apostasy in ancient America, even more devastating than the many apostasies in the Old World around Jerusalem. That apostasy took many forms. What you have written about is but one of many examples that could be cited. Apostasy means whatever was then practiced, was not only not inspired but could be horribly wrong.

 

[Jerusha]

people find ways to differentiate themselves and try to feel superior even though they are not…I believe in something one of our church leaders called the “principle of compensation”. Because of this, I think our benevolent Heavenly Father will look with so much compassion on those who have been wronged by the actions and attitudes implied by the word “racism”, that their “compensation” or reward in heaven will be vast,… I also would like to see, hope to see, and hope I am seeing a present day when that struggle is no longer a part of our society… Now I want you or anyone else reading this to know that what I have written is in all sincerity, from the depths of my heart and soul.

Thank you. I know your response was heart-felt.

Yuur teminology is different, but the essence is the same.

 

[LDSGuy]

I didn’t say Mormons believed it. My question has to do with the validity of the temple ceremony and it’s origins. Mormons claim that the Mayan temple is proof of the BoM civilizations. Mayans sacrificed humans in their temples, so unless Mormons not sacrificing humans in the temple now is just another change made to their ceremony, it’s hard for them to make that claim. My question had to do with how do you reconcile this.

Would you like for me to describe the inside of the Jordan River temple for you? The desk is at the East entrance after you walk through the foyer area. Behind the desk is a wall, West of that is a waiting area. West of that are two areas where men go to the right (North) to their dressing room and women go to the left (South) to their’s…would you like for me to go on?

You’re saying two different things. Is it that Latter-day Saints claim that the Mayan temple is proof of the BoM civilizations, or “…am under the impression that Mormons claim their temple ceremony is what was done in the 1st & 2nd temple and also what the Mayans did in their temple (being Nephites and bringing the temple ceremony with them).”—We do not claim that the “temple ceremony is…what the Mayans did in their temple”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
First, in 1949 JFS was not the prophet.

He was an apostle. Aren’t your apostles, all, “prophets, seers and revelators”?

He was writing his own opinions, and at least one of them was wrong. (I never felt it was correct, the first time I heard it. But I understood that it wasn’t doctrine–it had not been stated by the united written words of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles, nor was it scriptural in the way he said it, by any stretch of the imagination.) He should have kept silent about something he knew nothing about other than earlier conjecture by others.

Again, these were not his opinions. He built the case for the position of your church.

The doctrine is now in the Doctrine and Covenants, plain to read. I did not need to “cherry pick”.

The doctrine ending the exclusion of African Americans. Where is the doctrine for this exclusion? This is what you are cherry picking.

Many LDS (including general authorities) understood that JFS and Bruce R McConkie were very opinionated men who wrote more than they should have about certain subjects including this one.Joseph Smith did not teach what JFS taught about pre-mortal considerations involving blacks and the priesthood.

Nice back peddle.

So you think it is racism (I read it from Black editorialists very often) to imply that black men have needed to assume a more prominent role in their families? I suppose you know that almost all of the micro-loans made in third world countries (many to black families) are to the women of the family, not the men. Why is that? It is the kind of talk you give there that reinforces the implication that every hint that a culture could improve is a racist comment, leading to finger-pointing rather than self-assessment. Read the unwed mother statistics–to read them isn’t racist, but I suppose you will say my bringing it up is. Black editorialists bring it up. Read their editorials, not my words.

You sited no works. You said that your opinion is that black men weren’t spiritual enough and were prone to unrighteous dominion.

I dearly love the black people, always have, always will. I loved the time I spent among them in Los Angeles, in Danville, Illinois, in Marietta, Georgia, getting to know many wonderful people, men and women and children with great enthusiasm for life, great faith, great love for people and for their cultural heritage, and much kindness to me which I appreciated.

www.blackpeopleloveus.com

 

[Jerusha]

'Becca. What an excellent post. The sarcasm about latent racism rocks!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

'Becca. What an excellent post. The sarcasm about latent racism rocks!!

Pretty funny website. It was a group of former Mormons who pointed it out, in a conversation we were having about latent racism and Mormonism. The things we were taught, the things we believed, and how it hangs on.

It is not such an unusual thing with Mormons and former Mormons. So, ParkerD shouldn’t feel as though he is unique and being picked on. Just a little education.

 

[ParkerD]

He was an apostle.(1) Aren’t your apostles, all, “prophets, seers and revelators”?

(2) Again, these were not his opinions. He built the case for the position of your church.

(3) The doctrine ending the exclusion of African Americans. Where is the doctrine for this exclusion? This is what you are cherry picking.

Nice back peddle.

(4) You sited no works. You said that your opinion is that black men weren’t spiritual enough and were prone to unrighteous dominion.

www.blackpeopleloveus.com

Rebecca,
(1) You would know if you listened in Seminary that Joseph Smith said, “A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such.” (No put-down intended. Do you remember hearing that?)

(2) JFS knew he was acting on his own when he wrote that book. He knew he wasn’t presenting the doctrinal position of the church. James E Talmage was an apostle when he wrote Jesus the Christ and he did it because he was asked by the First Presidency and he wrote it from a room in the Salt Lake Temple. I mention that to show you there is a huge difference between what could be considered a “doctrinal” source and what was one person’s attempt to present opinions in a way that made sense to them (but not to me).

(3) There is no “doctrine for the exclusion.” Period.

(4) I assume someone like you or other readers read the newspaper, either a printed version or online. If you need me to find such an editorial, please let me know, and I will try my best.

What I said was, “a striking thing I noticed was how strongly and naturally religious the women are, with great faith yet also a willingness to be somewhat subservient to the men in their life. It seems to me that the culture needed to change so that when the men received the privilege of the priesthood, they would wield that power and authority righteously and not use unrighteous dominion. Any man who holds the priesthood and uses unrighteous dominion in exercising authority is doing a grave sin, and if that kind of habit is perpetuated down through generations, then it would be well-nigh impossible to change the culture.”

You think I implied that “black men weren’t spiritual enough.” I wasn’t talking about individuals–I was talking about a culture, and more than one culture since blacks are all over the world and have different cultures. I suggest that you are implying that black men haven’t made “progress” and that black women haven’t made “progress”, the former in assuming their role as heads of their families better, and the latter in being more assertive. (Oprah Winfrey among many others would be an example of the latter. Bill Cosby among many others would be an example of the former.) Perhaps you aren’t, but if not then I don’t understand what you are trying to pin on me, other than a label to suit your purposes. (I really don’t care about your purposes, but I am trying not be misunderstood by others reading here.) Peace to all.

 

[Jerusha]

Here is an excellent way to explore latent prejudices:

tolerance.org/hidden_bias/index.html

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
(1) You would know if you listened in Seminary that Joseph Smith said, “A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such.” (No put-down intended. Do you remember hearing that?)

I was taught, when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.

(2) JFS knew he was acting on his own when he wrote that book. He knew he wasn’t presenting the doctrinal position of the church.

What evidence do you have of this?

James E Talmage was an apostle when he wrote Jesus the Christ and he did it because he was asked by the First Presidency and he wrote it from a room in the Salt Lake Temple. I mention that to show you there is a huge difference between what could be considered a “doctrinal” source and what was one person’s attempt to present opinions in a way that made sense to them (but not to me).

Yes, his anti-Catholic rhetoric is evident in the things you write.

(3) There is no “doctrine for the exclusion.” Period.

So, the doctrine of inclusions, that you pointed out from BY, had no doctrine of exclusion behind it? Just cuz?

(4) I assume someone like you or other readers read the newspaper, either a printed version or online. If you need me to find such an editorial, please let me know, and I will try my best.

Sure, why not.

What I said was, “a striking thing I noticed was how strongly and naturally religious the women are, with great faith yet also a willingness to be somewhat subservient to the men in their life. It seems to me that the culture needed to change so that when the men received the privilege of the priesthood, they would wield that power and authority righteously and not use unrighteous dominion. Any man who holds the priesthood and uses unrighteous dominion in exercising authority is doing a grave sin, and if that kind of habit is perpetuated down through generations, then it would be well-nigh impossible to change the culture.”

You think I implied that “black men weren’t spiritual enough.” I wasn’t talking about individuals–I was talking about a culture, and more than one culture since blacks are all over the world and have different cultures. I suggest that you are implying that black men haven’t made “progress” and that black women haven’t made “progress”, the former in assuming their role as heads of their families better, and the latter in being more assertive. (Oprah Winfrey among many others would be an example of the latter. Bill Cosby among many others would be an example of the former.) Perhaps you aren’t, but if not then I don’t understand what you are trying to pin on me, other than a label to suit your purposes. (I really don’t care about your purposes, but I am trying not be misunderstood by others reading here.) Peace to all.

Rock on.

 

[ParkerD]

Rebecca,
Surely you weren’t taught, “when Joseph Fielding Smith speaks or writes a book while he is an apostle, the thinking is done.” Even someone not listening well would have understood that the “prophet” in the context of your sentence, means the President of the Church.

Anyone can hear what the “prophet” of the LDS church had to say yesterday and Saturday, by going to lds.org and following the link to General Conference in the middle of the screen. They can also hear other leaders refer to him, Thomas S Monson, as “the living prophet.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
Surely you weren’t taught, “when Joseph Fielding Smith speaks or writes a book while he is an apostle, the thinking is done.” Even someone not listening well would have understood that the “prophet” in the context of your sentence, means the President of the Church.

Surely, ParkerD, if I said anything against “the brethren”, in the house I was raised in, there would have unwanted consequences. I was taught, very clearly, from a very early age that “the brethren”, are to not be questioned because they are never wrong. I was taught this at church. I was taught this at home.

Are you trying to tell me that obedience to “the brethren” has somehow gone the way of opinion in Mormonism. “Follow the Brethren” has become passe? I highly doubt this is the case.

Anyone can hear what the “prophet” of the LDS church had to say yesterday and Saturday, by going to lds.org and following the link to General Conference in the middle of the screen. They can also hear other leaders refer to him, Thomas S Monson, as “the living prophet.”

What does pointing people to your religious propaganda have to do with anything?

 

[ParkerD]

Surely, ParkerD, if I said anything against “the brethren”, in the house I was raised in, there would have unwanted consequences. I was taught, very clearly, from a very early age that “the brethren”, are to not be questioned because they are never wrong. I was taught this at church. I was taught this at home.

Are you trying to tell me that obedience to “the brethren” has somehow gone the way of opinion in Mormonism. “Follow the Brethren” has become passe? I highly doubt this is the case.

What does pointing people to your religious propaganda have to do with anything?

I can’t help it if you were taught in a wrong way. “Never wrong” was never taught in the home I was raised in.

The word “Brethren” is plural, not singular.

So anyone who cares to can find out what “follow the living prophet” means in the context of where that is talked about, as opposed to getting your sole opinion on the matter.

 

[ParkerD]

Rebecca,
Bruce R McConkie, in his preface to Mormon Doctrine, wrote: “For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility.” I couldn’t find something similar from JFS, so if you want to hold a grudge against him, go ahead and hold a grudge.

 

[Stephen168]

But if Catholics are going to give LDS a hard time about all that “curse” (which I don’t agree with) happening because of Cain having killed Abel, then why don’t they give themselves a hard time about the doctrine of original sin because of Adam’s choice in the Garden of Eden?
RebeccaJ;5038886:

Original sin is not based on racism.

How does the following address the race based doctrine of the ‘mark of cain?’

So you think it is racism (I read it from Black editorialists very often) to imply that black men have needed to assume a more prominent role in their families? I suppose you know that almost all of the micro-loans made in third world countries (many to black families) are to the women of the family, not the men. Why is that? It is the kind of talk you give there that reinforces the implication that every hint that a culture could improve is a racist comment, leading to finger-pointing rather than self-assessment. Read the unwed mother statistics–to read them isn’t racist, but I suppose you will say my bringing it up is. Black editorialists bring it up. Read their editorials, not my words.

Original sin affects the whole human race. The mark of cain is racist. If Mormon’s believe Christ died for all sin, how did the mark of cain slip through?

 

[C2M2C]

You’re saying two different things. Is it that Latter-day Saints claim that the Mayan temple is proof of the BoM civilizations, or “…am under the impression that Mormons claim their temple ceremony is what was done in the 1st & 2nd temple and also what the Mayans did in their temple (being Nephites and bringing the temple ceremony with them).”—We do not claim that the “temple ceremony is…what the Mayans did in their temple”.

I apologize for my inability to be clear. What I am saying is this, and let me reiterate what I said earlier about having done no research on this, how can Mormons claim that their temple ceremony is ancient roots & came from God? Mormons claim the Mayans are actually Nephites and as such their temples are proof that the Mayans in fact were Nephites and engaged in the same temple ceremony that Mormons do today as evidenced by their temples. We know for a fact that the Mayans sacrificed humans in the temple. Having been through myself, that is obviously not what Mormons do, so then where is the connection? When was the change?

ParkerD has since explained that there was an apostasy at that time as well. So this is why there is no evidence linking the two temple ceremonies together, or anything for that matter to indicate that they are in any way, shape, or form similar.

About the Jews; the Jews were God’s people correct (pre New Testament)? And their temple ceremonies came from God, correct? So assuming these things are correct (I’ve done no research), and the Jews sacrificed animals in their temple for repentance; when did the temple ceremony change from what the Jews did, to what Mormons do?

And finally, why do we have evidence of Mayans sacrificing humans (post apostasy according to ParkerD) and yet no evidence of an LDS version. pre-apostasy?

 

[ParkerD]

Stephen,
I think your very last question is a good one. I think it is a point well taken. I don’t believe in the “mark of Cain”. 'Never have.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
I think your very last question is a good one. I think it is a point well taken.

Thank you

I don’t believe in the “mark of Cain”. 'Never have.

‘I’ would not be a proper pronoun for the Mormon Church. But I think I understand why you would give a non-answer.

 

[PaulDupre]

What I said was, "a striking thing I noticed was how strongly and naturally religious the women are, with great faith yet also a willingness to be somewhat subservient to the men in their life. It seems to me that the culture needed to change so that when the men received the privilege of the priesthood, they would wield that power and authority righteously and not use unrighteous dominion.

Yeah, we all know that the anglo, hispanic and asian cultures have no history of pervasive unrighteous dominion of men over women. That’s why the whites, hispanics and asians could have the priesthood. It’s just those darn blacks - they’re so macho. Yeah, that’s why they were denied the priesthood. When their culture got to be more like ours, then they were worthy. Yeah, that’s it.

I understand you better now, ParkerD.

 

[ParkerD]

Yeah, we all know that the anglo, hispanic and asian cultures have no history of pervasive unrighteous dominion of men over women. That’s why the whites, hispanics and asians could have the priesthood. It’s just those darn blacks - they’re so macho. Yeah, that’s why they were denied the priesthood. When their culture got to be more like ours, then they were worthy. Yeah, that’s it.

I understand you better now, ParkerD.

Paul,
Sorry my comment and the opinion I expressed offended you. It was non-doctrinal, and I’m not surprised at all to be ridiculed about it. No culture wants to be second-guessed. But if a person cares to look at statistics about families with father and mother in the home, with children from a single marriage, by cultural background, then perhaps one can see a valid need.

The word macho means nothing to me. My comment was more about the women than about the men, and we’re talking up until the 1970’s. Perhaps you can explain why almost all of the micro-loans done in Africa are to women? I say, hooray for the women then!

If I had been in charge, I would have said every case of “yes” or “no” about priesthood should have been done on a case by case basis, but I wasn’t in charge, of course. So I have reconciled the issue in my own mind, with an opinion. I have no idea whether anyone else shares that opinion. I have never heard it expressed.

You are justified in whatever you may think of me, my church, or the world around you. Blacks in the U.S. will probably never join the LDS church in significant numbers, as it’s too big of a hurdle. We have seen why that is, here on this thread. Other religious beliefs are going to be just fine for their needs, the more Christ-focused the better. They are just fine as is.

I still treasure fond memories of many such really good people, admirable in every way, loving, kind, considerate, vibrant and happy with their lives. “You can’t take that away from me.” Cheerio.