Race, God, and the LDS Church

[RebeccaJ]

Mormons have wards that are not geographically defined. Singles wards, as has already been mentioned. Also, Spanish, Tongan, etc. People from the cultures who speak these languages seek them out and attend, outside of their assigned boundaries.

According to Diana, this means they’re racially segregated. Of course, she has redefined what racial segregation actually means and wants us to believe that the sort of racial segregation that existed in the USA is the same as a person self-selecting where they attend church.



Doctrine defining a black man cannot be ordained is not the same as a person choosing to attend a Spanish speaking church service. Trying to equate the two is promoting a lie. One that says racial discrimination is something an oppressed race seeks out and desires.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Today at Mass, as is usual, I was in the most racially and ethnically diverse congregation I have ever been in. Bear in mind, I live in California, which has a very diverse population to begin with, but that cannot be the whole reason. In making this comparison, I am making reference to these past experiences in my life:

• My early years as an Episcopalian, including my university years
• Going to church with Mormon friends over the years
• Going to church with family members who are mostly conservative Presbyterian

We have a Spanish Mass at our parish, and a Vietnamese Mass, but there are still plenty of people who might like those Masses that go to the Masses said in English too.

We’ve seen a lot of back and forth here in this thread. But Mormons cannot overcome one salient point, and I’m sure they probably feel very uncomfortable about that. That point is that racial discrimination is not, and never has been, Catholic Doctrine, but it HAS been Mormon Doctrine, a commandment from God, at least for a time.

Have people made errors? including Popes? including Mormon Prophets? of course. They’re human. But it was never DOCTRINE for Catholics the way it was for Mormons. It’s no wonder that Mormons seek to distance themselves from its racist doctrine roots, try to re-frame it as something else. But the fact remains that it WAS doctrine, even if it is not today and their congregations, even today, don’t reflect much diversity as a result, at least not from what I’ve seen.

 

[zaffiroborant]

According to Diana, this means they’re racially segregated. Of course, she has redefined what racial segregation actually means and wants us to believe that the sort of racial segregation that existed in the USA is the same as a person self-selecting where they attend church.


.

And this only holds true for us, when the LDS do it it is not segregation, because they DON’T have segregated wards.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And this only holds true for us, when the LDS do it it is not segregation, because they DON’T have segregated wards.

Go figure.

I don’t know that she understands how fluid it is for people who live in a culture that is not their native cutlure. People flow between our English and Spanish resources. While the parents may prefer Spanish, often their children are more fluent in English and prefer English. Not only prefer it, they learn better in English because it is the language they use in school. I’ve gone to our Spanish Mass and speak very little Spanish.

This is not racial segregation, where the walls are put up and no one is allowed to cross because the Catholic Church is teaching God said so based on the color of your skin.

 

[SirThomasMore]

the bottom line we can;t lose sight of is that the LDS God is a racist god, giving a command to his people to be racists and exclude blacks until they become white…or, as the B of M was changed to after it was proven they would not become white…“pure”

 

[Returning_Home]

the bottom line we can;t lose sight of is that the LDS God is a racist god, giving a command to his people to be racists and exclude blacks until they become white…or, as the B of M was changed to after it was proven they would not become white…“pure”

I dunno; not much of it was changed enough to show that Smith wasn’t referring to skin color. And even when Mormon newcomers try to say otherwise, there will be enough of us to prove them wrong with good old black and white books.

One of the Mormons that helped set me on the course I’m on now is black and in the intervening years, he hasn’t gotten even one shade closer to being ‘white and delightsome.’ Strangely, Michael Jackson, a *Jehovah’s Witness *did. Hmmmm.

 

[Returning_Home]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had a “policy” until 1978 to not ordain blacks to their priesthood. It seems that the LDS church teaches that the origin of the ban is unknown, and most Mormons online tend to agree with this.

I just had a thought and need to get it out before I forget: we’re making way too much out of the differences between LDS policy and doctrine because, as we all know, the church is supposedly lead by Jesus Christ Almighty and therefore he wouldn’t permit anything in it that doesn’t meet his approval. That would nullify the restoration of the church, the creeping in of false teachings. And we also know that the prophets of said church cannot make mistakes so there really is no difference between the two.

In short, debating this point is a red herring but Mormons will bring it up because it’s intended to confuse and distract us from what’s really going on.

 

[twopekinguys]

I just had a thought and need to get it out before I forget: we’re making way too much out of the differences between LDS policy and doctrine because, as we all know, the church is supposedly lead by Jesus Christ Almighty and therefore he wouldn’t permit anything in it that doesn’t meet his approval. That would nullify the restoration of the church, the creeping in of false teachings. And we also know that the prophets of said church cannot make mistakes so there really is no difference between the two.

In short, debating this point is a red herring but Mormons will bring it up because it’s intended to confuse and distract us from what’s really going on.

Good point, and it ties into several different threads here at CAF.

Riddle me this Batman: When is doctrine not doctrine?

Answer: When it becomes embarrassing. Then it was just opinion.

 

[PaulDupre]

I dunno; not much of it was changed enough to show that Smith wasn’t referring to skin color. And even when Mormon newcomers try to say otherwise, there will be enough of us to prove them wrong with good old black and white books.

One of the Mormons that helped set me on the course I’m on now is black and in the intervening years, he hasn’t gotten even one shade closer to being ‘white and delightsome.’ Strangely, Michael Jackson, a *Jehovah’s Witness *did. Hmmmm.

 

[Returning_Home]

Good point, and it ties into several different threads here at CAF.

Riddle me this Batman: When is doctrine not doctrine?

Answer: When it becomes embarrassing. Then it was just opinion.

Thank you, kind sir. And you get the kewpie doll of the day because your assessment of LDS doctrine is 100% correct. In fact, if you watch closely, the same applies to the correctness of the Bible, too; it’s only translated correctly if it supports their position. If not, that’s one of the parts that’s missing many ‘plain and precious things.’ This tact also covers up the fact that the church cannot legally adopt or print the JST of the Bible, which the Mormon god told Smith to complete (and what he claimed to have finished).

I think we’re on a roll because the Mormon members have basically given up on trying to refute the facts. Glory be to God!

 

[SirThomasMore]

Thank you, kind sir. And you get the kewpie doll of the day because your assessment of LDS doctrine is 100% correct. In fact, if you watch closely, the same applies to the correctness of the Bible, too; it’s only translated correctly if it supports their position. If not, that’s one of the parts that’s missing many ‘plain and precious things.’ This tact also covers up the fact that the church cannot legally adopt or print the JST of the Bible, which the Mormon god told Smith to complete (and what he claimed to have finished).

I think we’re on a roll because the Mormon members have basically given up on trying to refute the facts. Glory be to God!

VERY hard to dispute the facts when you have a “perfect” book saying blacks will turn white (which has only happened once, but, as it was pointed out, Michael Jackson was JW). Then you have the incredibly racist comments by LDS leader after LDS leader. Then you have the First Presidency declaring that the racism was a direct commandment from God.

Which then goes to prove it is a false god because the One True God is NOT racist

 

[Returning_Home]

VERY hard to dispute the facts when you have a “perfect” book saying blacks will turn white (which has only happened once, but, as it was pointed out, Michael Jackson was JW). Then you have the incredibly racist comments by LDS leader after LDS leader. Then you have the First Presidency declaring that the racism was a direct commandment from God.

Which then goes to prove it is a false god because the One True God is NOT racist

And all we hear is dead silence from the LDS corner…

 

[NewSeeker]

VERY hard to dispute the facts when you have a “perfect” book saying blacks will turn white (which has only happened once, but, as it was pointed out, Michael Jackson was JW). Then you have the incredibly racist comments by LDS leader after LDS leader. Then you have the First Presidency declaring that the racism was a direct commandment from God.

Which then goes to prove it is a false god because the One True God is NOT racist

When my mother in law converted from Catholicism to Mormonism, she was confronted with the subtle, passive-aggressive racism promoted by the Book of Mormon. During her first temple visit when she was taking out her endowments, one of the female temple workers came up to her and said: “oh my dear, it’s so nice to see you here. Isn’t it wonderful that by coming to the temple one day your skin will become lighter in color.” My mom in law is a Mexican. To this day, she still smarts from the comment, but amazingly still believes the Book of Mormon is true. I suppose it’s because, like the LDS apologists on this board, she ignores what the Book of Mormon actually teaches - that dark people will turn white through following Christ and personal righteousness. You know the mantra, “yes, the BoM does use the words ‘skin of blackness’, but that doesn’t really mean skin; skin is used metaphorically to represent the soul.” LOL. What a crock.

NS

 

[Returning_Home]

When my mother in law converted from Catholicism to Mormonism, she was confronted with the subtle, passive-aggressive racism promoted by the Book of Mormon. During her first temple visit when she was taking out her endowments, one of the female temple workers came up to her and said: “oh my dear, it’s so nice to see you here. Isn’t it wonderful that by coming to the temple one day your skin will become lighter in color.” My mom in law is a Mexican. To this day, she still smarts from the comment, but amazingly still believes the Book of Mormon is true. I suppose it’s because, like the LDS apologists on this board, she ignores what the Book of Mormon actually teaches - that dark people will turn white through following Christ and personal righteousness. You know the mantra, “yes, the BoM does use the words ‘skin of blackness’, but that doesn’t really mean skin; skin is used metaphorically to represent the soul.” LOL. What a crock.

NS

Mormons are either misinformed or those in the know will actively lie about this having once been clearly taught by the church. It was and that’s a fact. The remants are still very much alive today and I’ve seen it personally.

That said, the church has changed its texts so as to soften the blow in the wake of allowing blacks to attain the priesthood in opposition to the Mormon texts that clearly state otherwise.

 

[NewSeeker]

Mormons are either misinformed or those in the know will actively lie about this having once been clearly taught by the church. It was and that’s a fact. The remants are still very much alive today and I’ve seen it personally.

I have too. I heard it all my life. It was taught over the pulpit in conference and included in lesson manuals consistently for most of the church’s history. It all comes from the BoM, where dark people became white through being united with God’s people:

2 Nephi 5:20-23
20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake
unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy
words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And
behold, they were cut off from his presence.
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a
sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had
hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto
a flint; wherefore, 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.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be
loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their
iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their
seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And
the Lord spake it, and it was done.

3 Nephi 2:12-16
12 Therefore, all the Lamanites who had become converted unto
the Lord did unite with their brethren, the Nephites, and were
compelled, for the safety of their lives and their women and
their children, to take up arms against those Gadianton robbers,
yea, and also to maintain their rights, and the privileges of
their church and of their worship, and their freedom and their
liberty.
13 And it came to pass that before this thirteenth year had
passed away the Nephites were threatened with utter destruction
because of this war, which had become exceedingly sore.
14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with
the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became
white like unto the Nephites;
16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly
fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called
Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.

The funny thing is that after joining the LDS church and accepting the BoM, my mom in law didn’t turn white. Even though she faithfully attends church and has for the past 50 years, she’s still “cursed”. Go figure.

NS

 

[LongJourney]

The funny thing is that after joining the LDS church and accepting the BoM, my mom in law didn’t turn white. Even though she faithfully attends church and has for the past 50 years, she’s still “cursed”. Go figure.

Therefore, no matter how hard she tries, she can never be “good enough.” Terrible trap to fall into.

 

[MelanieAnne]

When my mother in law converted from Catholicism to Mormonism, she was confronted with the subtle, passive-aggressive racism promoted by the Book of Mormon. During her first temple visit when she was taking out her endowments, one of the female temple workers came up to her and said: “oh my dear, it’s so nice to see you here. Isn’t it wonderful that by coming to the temple one day your skin will become lighter in color.” My mom in law is a Mexican. To this day, she still smarts from the comment, but amazingly still believes the Book of Mormon is true. I suppose it’s because, like the LDS apologists on this board, she ignores what the Book of Mormon actually teaches - that dark people will turn white through following Christ and personal righteousness. You know the mantra, “yes, the BoM does use the words ‘skin of blackness’, but that doesn’t really mean skin; skin is used metaphorically to represent the soul.” LOL. What a crock.

NS

Bigotry, no matter how sweetly presented or well-intended, is still bigotry. I submit that the temple worker would be shocked that such a thing could be said about her, but it is true. It was probably simply ignorance on her part, which doesn’t excuse bigotry, but can, perhaps, explain it.

I blame those who have taught bigotry as doctrine much more. They bear far more of the responsibility for this sort of thing in my opinion.

 

[NewSeeker]

Here’s an example of an apostle, one of the Lord’s anointed, a “prophet, seer, and revelator”, teaching over the pulpit in conference that dark skin can become white skin through membership in the church. This is from General Conference in October 1960, from a talk given by Spencer W. Kimball, who would become church president and prophet in the 1970s. President Kimball is regarded as one of the most beloved LDS prophets. In his 1960 talk, he’s referring to the church’s now defunct “Indian Placement Program”. We participated in that program when I was growing up in Utah. I had two Navajo “sisters” live with us when I was 11-17 years old.

From Pres. Kimball’s 1960 conference sermon:

**"The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as AngIos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

"At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl-sixteen-sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents-on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. "** :bigyikes:

Here’s the link to the full talk in LDS church archives if anyone is interested.

search.ldslibrary.com/article/view/125037

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Here’s an example of an apostle, one of the Lord’s anointed, a “prophet, seer, and revelator”, teaching over the pulpit in conference that dark skin can become white skin through membership in the church. This is from General Conference in October 1960, from a talk given by Spencer W. Kimball, who would become church president and prophet in the 1970s. President Kimball is regarded as one of the most beloved LDS prophets. In his 1960 talk, he’s referring to the church’s now defunct “Indian Placement Program”. We participated in that program when I was growing up in Utah. I had two Navajo “sisters” live with us when I was 11-17 years old.

From Pres. Kimball’s 1960 conference sermon:

**"The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as AngIos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

"At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl-sixteen-sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents-on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. "** :bigyikes:

Here’s the link to the full talk in LDS church archives if anyone is interested.

search.ldslibrary.com/article/view/125037

I’d love to hear how LDS view this General Conference talk.

 

[NewSeeker]

Bigotry, no matter how sweetly presented or well-intended, is still bigotry. I submit that the temple worker would be shocked that such a thing could be said about her, but it is true. It was probably simply ignorance on her part, which doesn’t excuse bigotry, but can, perhaps, explain it.

I blame those who have taught bigotry as doctrine much more. They bear far more of the responsibility for this sort of thing in my opinion.

I agree. Socialization is a powerful thing. The temple worker’s view didn’t emerge from a vacuum. The Book of Mormon enshrines the teaching as part of the church’s canon and church leaders, like Spencer W. Kimball, helped make sure the teaching was disseminated throughout the church. It was around 1960 when my mom in law went to the temple for the first time. In the end, it’s as ReturningHome says, this was once an official teaching of the church. It has been downplayed substantially in recent years. But those who deny it was official are either lying or are in denial.

NS