The Church of Latter Day Saints' "god" is racist

  • Thread starter Thread starter SirThomasMore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Diana - You’re speaking about the American branch of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore I’m sure you’d be hard pressed to see any direct quotes from the popes that say Cain was cursed with black skin because of his sin.

If your prophets were speaking with the divine guidance of god why did they speak wrong? And why did ‘god’ later change his mind and thus his doctrine?

And as a little side note in my area there are NO white priests. In all of the years I’ve lived here I have seen ONE white priest and that was when I was a child. Mind you I don’t live in America so maybe that’s why things are different here. 🤷
 
If I remember correctly, we just had one of these ‘mormons are racist’ threads not to long ago and diana pulled out some racist words of popes on that thread. I am beginning to feel some deja vu here. 🙂

Of course, we can always look at just how the catholic explorers treated the native populations in the new world. I don’t remember the treatment being so brotherly or sisterly. But I could be wrong. Instead, of stirring the pot, maybe it would be best to reflect on catholic europe and protestant europe’s role in enslaving the world for profit and foreign markets.

Then, if we are in the mood, we can continue to call the mormon church racist and their god too. But then again, wasn’t god racist in the old and new testaments? It seems so. I don’t remember christ going beyond the jews and the old testament was basically dealing with the jews. What about the rest of the world? Where was god?
 
What about the rest of the world? Where was god?
The world wasn’t ‘that big’ (population wise) and the rest of the world rejected Him and/or ignored Him in favor of other gods with prettier names and more comfortable commands.
 
.

The point is not simply that LDS General Authorities have believed and taught viciously racist doctrines. Most of us, myself included, understand that these men were a product of their times. It is folly to judge men of a past time by the standards of our time. I think we all get that.

The point is, rather, that these were men who claimed to be prophets, seers and revelators - claimed to know the very mind of God and to receive frequent revelation directly from God. These men should not have been able to teach such disgusting doctrines and racist caracatures of black people and claim they were from God if they were truly in intimate contact with God, either through the Holy Ghost or with Jesus Himself. To do so declares that they have branded God himself a hateful racist.
Prophets are not perfect. Were OT prophets perfect? Hardly. I can see problems in the OT when it came to race. The jewish people were favored by god. Was that racist? I just think that catholics need to put the race issue to rest. America was a racist country and all churches were guilty of the times. But if someone wants to single out mormons or protestants…fine…but it is a little hypocritical unless that person also includes catholics.
 
The world wasn’t ‘that big’ (population wise) and the rest of the world rejected Him and/or ignored Him in favor of other gods with prettier names and more comfortable commands.
Did you ever hear of the roman wars against the barbarians? Why wasn’t god among the barbarians? Why was His message only directed toward the jews. And why was christ Jewish? It seems to me He should have been a citizen of the world and not from one ethnic group. Was that racism? And even to this day, we see problems in the fact, that one group of people consider themselves to be the chosen people.

Now I don’t care if god was selective but…to begin threads about mormonism and racism…well…what can I say? I say let well enough alone.
 
That’s quite a statement to make when we have been around for 2000 years and the LDS just popped on the scene with racist policies from the start. Please back up your statement that “Catholics are still dealing with the problem of racism and the preisthood”. By far, the greatest number of men becoming priests in the Catholic Church today are right out of Africa. If the Church is racist, how can this be?
Do you really want me to do this?

Really?

Because I don’t want to do this. The problem is, I can…and those who have known me over the past year know that I can. I would rather concentrate on what the church is doing NOW…and you are correct, Catholicism is working very hard to overcome a very racist past. This is a good thing.

I will mention two things to illustrate the problem…The Catholic church has been present in the Americas since the early 1500’s. During that time slavery was endemic–and very much supported by official Catholic policy. The first African American priest, Father Tolton, wasn’t ordained until the very late 1800’s…and he had to go to Rome to get training because American Catholics would not allow him to attend Seminary here. This is one of the reasons Father Tolton is now being considered for sainthood; his courageous stand against bigotry in the US–FROM the Catholic hierarcy here.

Do the math: it took Catholics nearly 400 years to ordain an American black Catholic priest.

It took us less than 150 years to extend the priesthood to men of black African descent, (in case you don’t have your calculator out, that is less than half the time it took you…) and like Catholicism, a great deal of the growth we have in priesthood numbers is coming from Africa at the moment. 😉

As well, according to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, there are approximately 3 million African American Catholics in the USA, out of 64.5 million Catholics. That works out to be approximately 4.5% of the Catholic population. If the ratio of black priests to white priests is to be equal to the population (that is, that if black members comprise 4.5% of the Catholic population, then 4.5% of the US priesthood should be black) then out of the 46000 priests in America, 2070 of them should be black. However, again according to the US Conference of Catholic bishops, you only have 250 African American priests in the USA. That’s less than .5%. not *five percent,*that’s ***POINT five percent. *** half of one percent of US Catholic priests are black, whereas, all things being not racist, almost 5% of the American priesthood should be black. Y’all have had half a millenium to fix this, and you haven’t managed.

As for the CoJCoLDS, the ratio is absolutely equal; every worthy male member of the church holds the priesthood, no matter what color he is. We did it on a sunny summer morning, thirty years ago, with one short announcement.

I’m not making up the facts, m’friend. What I AM saying is…the Catholic church is very large; monolithic and slow to change. It IS changing. It’s come a very long way from the Pope who told the Portuguese to go enslave the 'Saracens" (read, black Africans) in perpetuity and thus pretty much began the very profitable slave trade. Good for you.

Good for everybody concerned, and I’m serious about that.

All I am saying is that I will NOT put up with any Catholic criticising LDS history for racism. For one thing, it just so happens that Joseph Smith ordained a black man to the priesthood in America considerably before the Catholics did–by about, oh…fifty or sixty years.
 
just a quick question for anyone out there. please educate me. im wracking my brain, trying to figure out, if in Catholic history, there has ever been an official statement that blacks cannot hold the priesthood, or are under the mark of cain? or that their state in the afterlife will be less than equal with white believers? and a quick question for my Mormon friends. what was the view of the native americans who converted in the early days of Mormonism. being the decendants of the Laminites, were they allowed to hold the priesthood? no trying to be sarcastic. i am really interested in my own history as well as yours. we have all had failings in the way we have dealt with other cultures, and peoples from time to time. hopefully, we can learn from eachother, so these things do not repeat themselves. Peace 🙂
 
I think the point has been completely missed by our LDS friends. Perhaps we assumed they would see it and so did not express it clearly enough.

The point is not simply that LDS General Authorities have believed and taught viciously racist doctrines. Most of us, myself included, understand that these men were a product of their times. It is folly to judge men of a past time by the standards of our time. I think we all get that.
No you don’t. If you did, you’d leave those quotes in the past where they belong…or else you would also acknowlege racist doctrines taught by your own leaders. However, y’all don’t. First, you have determined for yourselves that every word that comes from the mouth or pen of any LDS leader is, for your purpose, a declaration of LDS dogma–even though we keep TELLING you that these men were often speaking for themselves and not for God—AND we ourselves understand quite well the difference between when they were speaking ‘scripture’ and when they were speaking opinion. At the same time you excuse far worse statements from your own leaders because–they were speaking for themselves. Even when those statements were made church policy for centuries and resulted in the death and enslavement of millions, they are still dismissed as ‘opinion’ only. It is a double standard that frustrates me–and SHOULD frustrate you.
The point is, rather, that these were men who claimed to be prophets, seers and revelators - claimed to know the very mind of God and to receive frequent revelation directly from God.
Sometimes, yes…and when they did so, the words they spoke ended up in SCRIPTURE. That doesn’t mean that every word they spoke or wrote was scripture. THEY certainly didn’t claim that for themselves…and again, you are invoking an incredible doublestandard.
These men should not have been able to teach such disgusting doctrines and racist caracatures of black people and claim they were from God if they were truly in intimate contact with God, either through the Holy Ghost or with Jesus Himself. To do so declares that they have branded God himself a hateful racist.
…double standard, again. You have Pope after Pope after leader whose policies were so much more bloody, so incredibly cruel and racist–and yet you claim that God never left the church, or ceased guiding it. How can that be? Compare the two; if we went off the rails into racism, we were brought back, by revelation, and told to straighten up and behave. It took God less than a century and a half.

How long did it take Him to fix Catholicism?
The point is that these racist doctrines, taught for the first 150 years of the LDS church and still enshrined in their scriptures, prove that LDS leaders are neither prophets, seers, nor revelators.
Careful… I would say, rather, that being told to knock it off and get our act in gear would indicate that God WAS talking to us.

Whereas, again…what excuse do you have for the very long and racist history of Catholicism? If a hundred and fifty years of mistaken opinion regarding this issue proves US untrue, what does 1500 years of far worse say about Catholicism?

You can’t have this both ways, m’friend.
 
Racism is certainly an interesting topic. Coming from a catholic boyhood, I can say that many catholics in the USA were racist, especially the Irish and Italian catholics.

lololololol…there you go again! I am not talking people on the street…I gave quotes from alleged prophets and apostles…you crack me up with your silly comparisons
 
I think the point has been completely missed by our LDS friends. Perhaps we assumed they would see it and so did not express it clearly enough.

The point is not simply that LDS General Authorities have believed and taught viciously racist doctrines.

No…they just can’t face that their prophets were not from god, so they deflect any way they can
 
No you don’t. If you did, you’d leave those quotes in the past where
Whereas, again…what excuse do you have for the very long and racist history of Catholicism? If a hundred and fifty years of mistaken opinion regarding this issue proves US untrue, what does 1500 years of far worse say about Catholicism?

You can’t have this both ways, m’friend.
Diana…stop hiding behind silly comparisons and face facts…your alleged prophets were nothing but racists
 
If you have studied the Old Testament at all, you know that there were many, many groups of people who were much more cultured and wealthy that the small Jewish tribes in which God chose to reveal himself too. Why did he choose them…he ALWAYS seems to chose the less powerful and least likely people to carry his message. Perhaps to show that all things are possible with the one true God. It was like taking baby steps with humankind…one holy family(Noah)…one holy tribe(Jacob)…one holy nation(Moses)…one holy kingdom(David)…and Finally a world-wide kingdom to include everyone. It was 2000 years of trying to get the world ready for Jesus Christ…with the Jewish people constantly slipping back into the ways of the “world”…everytime they mixed with the other ethnic groups and their “pagan” practices they would fall back into sin and prolong the coming of our Lord. You have to understand God’s whole plan in our salvation before you start complaining of racism and you also have to not think as someone from the 21st century…but instead from the mindset of someone 2000-4000 years ago. He is our Creator and the Jewish people were his choice to bring salvation to the world.
 
Do you really want me to do this?

Really?

I am guessing not, but let us have it.

All I am saying is that I will NOT put up with any Catholic criticising LDS history for racism. For one thing, it just so happens that Joseph Smith ordained a black man to the priesthood in America considerably before the Catholics did–by about, oh…fifty or sixty years.
The difference is that your prophets speak with the authority of god, making decrees that would bear the weight of God’s will. The Popes, while always being the vicar of Christ, are only infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals. So there is a difference of TYPE, not DEGREE, in the decrees of the pope and the scripture spoken by your prophets. If it is true that every word Joseph Smith and Brigham Young spoke (regarding the faith, since I hardly think their food preference, color choices etc would be considered scriptural by even the most anti-mormon among us) was scripture, as Joseph Smith (I think it was him) said, then how may that change? How can scripture of yesterday become the falshood of today? How can God’s will change?

Is God not perfect? Perfection by its very nature is unchanging, since to change would indicate a lack of perfection. If God is perfect and what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young is Scripture, which is the word of God breathed out through men, then how can that change?

I am not trying to be argumentative (even when I dont try, I know I am) but it has always confused me. Catholic Dogma and Doctrine has not changed in 2000 years, yet in 200 years almost every fundamental tenet taught by Joseph Smith has changed: Polygamy, Race, Priesthood, and I am sure there are many more that can be added by others here.

I do not mean change as in developed, which would be perfectly acceptable. Yet they have been completely done away with (in the case of polygamy) or hidden away (like the prayer of revenge I think it was called). I cannot understand this.

Just a small mind trying to wrap itself around big problems I suppose…

FSC
 
I agree with Paul. Comparing Catholicism to Mormonism on racism is really comparing apples to oranges. The LDS Church has stated that the priesthood ban was a commandment of the Lord. Catholics on the other hand know that any “racism” was just that: human failure. We never dogmatized any racist teaching. We have never universally denied a racial group access to a sacrament due to their race. We have never universally denied any blessings of God due to the race.

We didn’t need God to reveal that the priesthood is to be opened to all races since it always has been in the Catholic Church. We have never taught that it is a command of the Lord to restrict the priesthood, nor has any Pope taught that there is something “wrong” with blacks that they cannot be ordained. The Mormon Church has taught this.

Also, it’s just silly to say that because there is a lower percentage of blacks in the Catholic priesthood today than there are black Catholics, that this is due to racism. This is like saying that the reason why the college I attended has a smaller percentage of blacks than the US population is because of racism. There are multiple other factors to consider, and it is not logical to compare the Catholic priesthood to the Mormon priesthood on this, since requirements to be ordained to them are not the same.
 
just a quick question for anyone out there. please educate me. im wracking my brain, trying to figure out, if in Catholic history, there has ever been an official statement that blacks cannot hold the priesthood, or are under the mark of cain? or that their state in the afterlife will be less than equal with white believers? and a quick question for my Mormon friends. what was the view of the native americans who converted in the early days of Mormonism. being the decendants of the Laminites, were they allowed to hold the priesthood? no trying to be sarcastic. i am really interested in my own history as well as yours. we have all had failings in the way we have dealt with other cultures, and peoples from time to time. hopefully, we can learn from eachother, so these things do not repeat themselves. Peace 🙂
In the early 1800’s it was the common idea, shared by pretty much everybody (including Catholics) that the ‘mark of Cain’ was the black skin. While as far as I am aware Catholics have never had an official statement that blacks could not hold the priesthood, the official policy was…to not allow it. Certainly it was not allowed in the Americas.

For me, it’s a case of ‘what you do is shouting so loudly I cannot hear what you say’ in terms of Catholic history and racism…I look at how long it took for Catholics to ordain blacks to the priesthood, and the relative numbers now–and the incontravertable fact of Catholic involvement in the slave trade and the eventual restriction of slavery to people of very dark skin–and frankly, I just don’t buy the ‘we wuz innocent’ routine.

As for the Mormons, the priesthood was denied to men of black African descent. it wasn’t the skin color, per se–it was that specific line. Native Americans could and did hold the priesthood, as did the Dravidians of India, Australian aborigines and Melanesians, who were frequently far darker of skin than those of black African, or ‘Hamitic’ descent.
 
just a quick question for anyone out there. please educate me. im wracking my brain, trying to figure out, if in Catholic history, there has ever been an official statement that blacks cannot hold the priesthood, or are under the mark of cain? or that their state in the afterlife will be less than equal with white believers? and a quick question for my Mormon friends. what was the view of the native americans who converted in the early days of Mormonism. being the decendants of the Laminites, were they allowed to hold the priesthood? no trying to be sarcastic. i am really interested in my own history as well as yours. we have all had failings in the way we have dealt with other cultures, and peoples from time to time. hopefully, we can learn from eachother, so these things do not repeat themselves. Peace 🙂
No, there has never been an official statement by the Pope or the Magisterium that states that blacks cannot hold the priesthood. Our priesthood has never been restricted by race. If a black in America in the past could not be (or was impeded) ordained, if they, in theory, went to another country (which I believe is what happened to the first black American priest), they would not be restricted from ordination. Catholicism has never had a policy that blacks are restricted from the priesthood. Mormonism on the other hand has had such a policy, and it was taught that this was a commandment from God.
 
In the early 1800’s it was the common idea, shared by pretty much everybody (including Catholics) that the ‘mark of Cain’ was the black skin."

Ah…so then your alleged prophets did NOT talk to god or hear from god, they just shared common ideas…got it

"While as far as I am aware Catholics have never had an official statement that blacks could not hold the priesthood, the official policy was…to not allow it. Certainly it was not allowed in the Americas. "

Prove that it was not allowed…prove that the Pope made ANY statements like your alleged prophets and apostles…

For me, it’s a case of ‘what you do is shouting so loudly I cannot hear what you say’ in terms of Catholic history and racism…I look at how long it took for Catholics to ordain blacks to the priesthood, and the relative numbers now–and the incontravertable fact of Catholic involvement in the slave trade and the eventual restriction of slavery to people of very dark skin–and frankly, I just don’t buy the ‘we wuz innocent’ routine.

Cool…because we are not selling anything…we are GIVING it away that your alleged prophets were horrible racists

As for the Mormons, the priesthood was denied to men of black African descent. it wasn’t the skin color, per se–it was that specific line. Native Americans could and did hold the priesthood, as did the Dravidians of India, Australian aborigines and Melanesians, who were frequently far darker of skin than those of black African, or ‘Hamitic’ descent.
Wrong. Read your illustrious leaders’ quotes again…it was COLOR.
 
In the early 1800’s it was the common idea, shared by pretty much everybody (including Catholics) that the ‘mark of Cain’ was the black skin. While as far as I am aware Catholics have never had an official statement that blacks could not hold the priesthood, the official policy was…to not allow it. Certainly it was not allowed in the Americas.

For me, it’s a case of ‘what you do is shouting so loudly I cannot hear what you say’ in terms of Catholic history and racism…I look at how long it took for Catholics to ordain blacks to the priesthood, and the relative numbers now–and the incontravertable fact of Catholic involvement in the slave trade and the eventual restriction of slavery to people of very dark skin–and frankly, I just don’t buy the ‘we wuz innocent’ routine.

As for the Mormons, the priesthood was denied to men of black African descent. it wasn’t the skin color, per se–it was that specific line. Native Americans could and did hold the priesthood, as did the Dravidians of India, Australian aborigines and Melanesians, who were frequently far darker of skin than those of black African, or ‘Hamitic’ descent.
The thing that you seem to be stuck on is the AMERICAN Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is so much larger than that. Were there black priests before then outside the US? I dont know, perhaps you do. I can only assume yes, since northern africa was Catholic for hundreds of years before Islam conquered it. This is drastically opposed to the Mormon Church which stated the inferiority of Blacks (never stated by Catholic Doctrine) dogmatically in the ONLY country they could be found. And enforced that inferiority for 3/4 of its history…

Meh, oh well.

FSC
 
In the early 1800’s it was the common idea, shared by pretty much everybody (including Catholics) that the ‘mark of Cain’ was the black skin. While as far as I am aware Catholics have never had an official statement that blacks could not hold the priesthood, the official policy was…to not allow it. Certainly it was not allowed in the Americas.

For me, it’s a case of ‘what you do is shouting so loudly I cannot hear what you say’ in terms of Catholic history and racism…I look at how long it took for Catholics to ordain blacks to the priesthood, and the relative numbers now–and the incontravertable fact of Catholic involvement in the slave trade and the eventual restriction of slavery to people of very dark skin–and frankly, I just don’t buy the ‘we wuz innocent’ routine.

As for the Mormons, the priesthood was denied to men of black African descent. it wasn’t the skin color, per se–it was that specific line. Native Americans could and did hold the priesthood, as did the Dravidians of India, Australian aborigines and Melanesians, who were frequently far darker of skin than those of black African, or ‘Hamitic’ descent.
oh…and Diana? you can stop with the deception that this was all 1800s…some of your worse racists were McKonkie and Peterson…Peterson was in the 1950s…
 
The point is that these racist doctrines, taught for the first 150 years of the LDS church and still enshrined in their scriptures, prove that LDS leaders are neither prophets, seers, nor revelators.
They are just men, nothing more and nothing less. Smith to Monson are men and that is all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top