What race will you be in your planet? Can a Mormon answer me this please?

[QuietTimes]

I was talking to a good friend today and she told me that her In Laws who are Mexican were converting to Mormonism and they were told by the elders that through their good works they both would be able to attain their god like status but would be white rather than Mexican.
That because of Cain they had to do more good works before they could be Mormon.

Also her SIL that converted is married to a Caucasian and that he would merit much more favor with god for converting a colored person.

Is this what is thought of non whites?

 

[thecourt]

This talk of planets is another example of false information on the internet and otherwise about life after death for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Again, refer to www.mormon.org or ask myself for accurate information.

 

[QuietTimes]

Well then give me the right information please.

 

[ibkc]

I was talking to a good friend today and she told me that her In Laws who are Mexican were converting to Mormonism and they were told by the elders that through their good works they both would be able to attain their god like status but would be white rather than Mexican.
That because of Cain they had to do more good works before they could be Mormon.

Also her SIL that converted is married to a Caucasian and that he would merit much more favor with god for converting a colored person.

Is this what is thought of non whites?

Yes, this is true - that’s their belief. They believe that the color of skin is an indication of the level of a person’s holiness and that the ancestors of dark-skinned people did something to displease God, who then “marked” them with non-white skin.

When asked directly about it, Mormons dissemble like crazy, as you can see from the first response you received.

Google the phrase “white and delightsome” for lots of eye-opening info.

 

[QuietTimes]

This talk of planets is another example of false information on the internet and otherwise about life after death for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Again, refer to www.mormon.org or ask myself for accurate information.

I looked in as much as possible and it does not seem to really cover many of the Mormon teachings. I say this because I have a good friend that is Mormon also and we have discussed many of the teachings for LDS.I have not talked to her in a while and that is why I thought of asking here but this website is very superficial it seems.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This talk of planets is another example of false information on the internet and otherwise about life after death for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Again, refer to www.mormon.org or ask myself for accurate information.

Yes, people just sat down one day and said, “let’s make up mormon beliefs”. Oh wait. Joseph Smith did do that.

Dodge the question that was asked…mormon missionary tactic #1.

 

[QuietTimes]

Well why was it not answered and I was directed to a website that is not very heavy with teachings
Can you answer my question?

 

[tundramom]

You won’t get a clear and concise answer from any Mormon. You might get speculation.

I’ve heard the phrase that trying to pin down Mormon theology is like “nailing jello to a wall”. It’s quite true.

There is no answer for this because each Mormon will first of all tell you that it’s not clear in Mormon teaching and then they won’t be able to admit to you anything because they’re supposed to give you “milk before meat”.

I will tell you that I was taught that yes, black, hispanic, chinese et al will become “white” if they accept Mormonism. That will be denied by current mormons.

in Christ
Steph

 

[BDawg]

I was talking to a good friend today and she told me that her In Laws who are Mexican were converting to Mormonism and they were told by the elders that through their good works they both would be able to attain their god like status but would be white rather than Mexican.
That because of Cain they had to do more good works before they could be Mormon.

Also her SIL that converted is married to a Caucasian and that he would merit much more favor with god for converting a colored person.

Is this what is thought of non whites?

Hello QuietTimes,

Despite the inability of Mormons to offer a straight answer, according to some posters here, I’ll give it a whack.

There is some truth to what this person said, but it is mixed with false things, too, so the result is that it’s extremely confused.

Here’s the scoop:

1. Joseph Smith ordained blacks of African descent to the priesthood, but after he died, Brigham Young imposed a ban on ordaining blacks, because he said the priesthood was the “seed of Cain.” His rhetoric about the subject was taken lock, stock, and barrel from the American Protestant rhetoric of his own background. There was no specific revelation that anybody ever mentioned that justified changing the policy of Joseph Smith, so many Mormons nowadays figure that Brigham Young just did that because his upbringing taught him that it was the right thing. (Mormons have no belief in prophetic infallibility, either for modern or ancient prophets.) In 1978, LDS prophet Spencer Kimball had a revelation that the ban should be lifted. Many of us ask why such a thing was allowed by God in the first place, and usually have to come to the conclusion that God allows us to make a lot of mistakes and take lumps for them. (Catholics offer essentially the same reasoning for why God allowed so many “rotten Popes” in the Medieval period. We don’t think we’ve had any “rotten Prophets,” but allow that they have been human beings.)
2. The Book of Mormon does mention that the skin color changed for some Israelites who had migrated to the New World, and it says that this was a “mark” of the curse they had brought on themselves by rebelling against God. The purpose of the “mark” was to keep the people of God from intermarrying with people who rejected God. (Note also that the Israelites back in the Old World had prohibitions against marrying outside the faith, too.) There was never any priesthood ban on these people, and in fact, many of them converted and there was quite a bit of mixing that went on during the Book of Mormon narrative. The promise of God was that these Israelites would one day be redeemed and become a “white and delightsome” people. That wording has been changed in more recent editions to read “pure and delightsome.” Was this change justified? That is, was the term “white” supposed to be taken metaphorically all along? People argue about that.
3. The Book of Mormon never says that the people who had been “marked” should be treated badly, and in fact, it says, “and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33).
4. The fact is that people interpret texts like the Bible and Book of Mormon according to their own cultural presuppositions. In times past, people naively read things into the Book of Mormon that just aren’t there. For instance, they thought that the narrative was about cultures that spanned the whole hemisphere. However, if one reads the book carefully, it is clear that the area was only a few hundred miles across, around a “narrow neck of land.” Now the balance is shifting toward a belief that it happened in part of Mesoamerica, which fits this description, and that there were probably lots of other groups inhabiting the Americas, as well. In that case, the “mark” of dark skin might have been just the product of the rebellious group intermixing with the native villagers. In any case, you will find Mormons who believe it was more of a “magical” kind of thing, and would interpret the Book of Mormon to mean that the “mark” might magically be removed in the future, and you will find ones who believe what I just described.
5. Finally, we can get to your question. Question: What “race” will we be in the afterlife? Answer: God’s race, i.e., heavenly beings. Question: What “color” will those people be? Answer: The color will be “white,” but that does not mean “Caucasian.” It means as white and bright as the Sun. Human racial categories won’t have any meaning there.

I hope this helps. If you want more specific information about this issue, see blacklds.org/

 

[tundramom]

BDawg,
Are you an African American?

in Christ
Steph

 

[QuietTimes]

Hello QuietTimes,

Despite the inability of Mormons to offer a straight answer, according to some posters here, I’ll give it a whack.

There is some truth to what this person said, but it is mixed with false things, too, so the result is that it’s extremely confused.

Here’s the scoop:

1. Joseph Smith ordained blacks of African descent to the priesthood, but after he died, Brigham Young imposed a ban on ordaining blacks, because he said the priesthood was the “seed of Cain.” His rhetoric about the subject was taken lock, stock, and barrel from the American Protestant rhetoric of his own background. There was no specific revelation that anybody ever mentioned that justified changing the policy of Joseph Smith, so many Mormons nowadays figure that Brigham Young just did that because his upbringing taught him that it was the right thing. (Mormons have no belief in prophetic infallibility, either for modern or ancient prophets.) In 1978, LDS prophet Spencer Kimball had a revelation that the ban should be lifted. Many of us ask why such a thing was allowed by God in the first place, and usually have to come to the conclusion that God allows us to make a lot of mistakes and take lumps for them. (Catholics offer essentially the same reasoning for why God allowed so many “rotten Popes” in the Medieval period. We don’t think we’ve had any “rotten Prophets,” but allow that they have been human beings.)
   I know we have had less than exemplary popes, but this does not affect their abillity to speak on matters of faith and moral.
2. The Book of Mormon does mention that the skin color changed for some Israelites who had migrated to the New World, and it says that this was a “mark” of the curse they had brought on themselves by rebelling against God. The purpose of the “mark” was to keep the people of God from intermarrying with people who rejected God. (Note also that the Israelites back in the Old World had prohibitions against marrying outside the faith, too.) There was never any priesthood ban on these people, and in fact, many of them converted and there was quite a bit of mixing that went on during the Book of Mormon narrative. The promise of God was that these Israelites would one day be redeemed and become a “white and delightsome” people. That wording has been changed in more recent editions to read “pure and delightsome.” Was this change justified? That is, was the term “white” supposed to be taken metaphorically all along? People argue about that.
   See this is where it starts getting skewed, because I am asking this very question and I get am getting a metaphor.
3. The Book of Mormon never says that the people who had been “marked” should be treated badly, and in fact, it says, “and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33).
4. The fact is that people interpret texts like the Bible and Book of Mormon according to their own cultural presuppositions. In times past, people naively read things into the Book of Mormon that just aren’t there. For instance, they thought that the narrative was about cultures that spanned the whole hemisphere. However, if one reads the book carefully, it is clear that the area was only a few hundred miles across, around a “narrow neck of land.” Now the balance is shifting toward a belief that it happened in part of Mesoamerica, which fits this description, and that there were probably lots of other groups inhabiting the Americas, as well. In that case, the “mark” of dark skin might have been just the product of the rebellious group intermixing with the native villagers. In any case, you will find Mormons who believe it was more of a “magical” kind of thing, and would interpret the Book of Mormon to mean that the “mark” might magically be removed in the future, and you will find ones who believe what I just described.
5. Finally, we can get to your question. Question: What “race” will we be in the afterlife? Answer: God’s race, i.e., heavenly beings. Question: What “color” will those people be? Answer: The color will be “white,” but that does not mean “Caucasian.” It means as white and bright as the Sun. Human racial categories won’t have any meaning there.

I hope this helps. If you want more specific information about this issue, see blacklds.org/

And as I read the answers it does not make sense, then why would the issue of sin and Cain even be in there would this not apply to all LDS no matter what?

 

[QuietTimes]

I just got a PM by another Mormon and they said that the race and planet issue is garbage and why am I buying into this.
I don’t think I am buying anything in fact I would like to know,

If my husband and I were mormon, where would go after death?

Along with that

I guess I will be “white and brite” as a previous poster stated, but not a race, I will be Gods race and white and delightsome.

 

[adstrinity]

I thank you for that answer, BDawg, it makes sense to me how the Mormons view this.

I must correct you on, though, I have never heard a Catholic accept a corrupt Pope with the, “Oh, well, we just have to deal with what God gives us to make us better.” We’ve been given bad Popes, but, they didn’t affect the Teaching of the Church. It’s not that we’ve had to learn anything from them, but, we use them to show we are the true Church because they didn’t do anything against God that was binding on all the faithful.

 

[ibkc]

1. Finally, we can get to your question. Question: What “race” will we be in the afterlife? Answer: God’s race, i.e., heavenly beings. Question: What “color” will those people be? Answer: The color will be “white,” but that does not mean “Caucasian.” It means as white and bright as the Sun. Human racial categories won’t have any meaning there.

I commend you for a matter-of-fact approach to your answers all the way up to this point. What you write here sounds very nice and if it is indeed the current Mormon teaching, then great. But it needs to be pointed out that if it is, in fact, official Mormon teaching and not just your own take on things, that this is relatively new in the LDS Church. We have been over this territory many times on this forum and your “prophets” have stated quite clearly in the past that there are races in heaven, and that black people’s only hope of getting to the celestial kingdom is as servants.

 

[RC_Matt]

I just got a PM by another Mormon and they said that the race and planet issue is garbage and why am I buying into this.
I don’t think I am buying anything in fact I would like to know,

If my husband and I were mormon, where would go after death?

Your husband could become a god and you a goddess; you would be worshipped as such by your own creation. This reference on the LDS website explains it:

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html

That is only if you’re a good Mormon; otherwise there are two lower heavens to which you could be assigned. They’re supposed to be nice places, but you don’t get to be a god.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There was a long discussion on this topic not to long ago. It is here.

One thing I would add to that discussion. Mormons keep claiming that blacklds.org is not a Mormon website…it is. Everyone that works on that website has that as a “calling”, which, is the Mormon version of ministry. So, it is a Mormon ministry. The history given there has been propaganda-ized.

 

[QuietTimes]

There was a long discussion on this topic not to long ago. It is here.

One thing I would add to that discussion. Mormons keep claiming that blacklds.org is not a Mormon website…it is. Everyone that works on that website has that as a “calling”, which, is the Mormon version of ministry. So, it is a Mormon ministry. The history given there has been propaganda-ized.

Is this because you say so?

Mormons against Blacklds.com vs. mormons for blacklds?

There are many ministries that claim to be catholic and are not for instance prochoice catholics.

 

[BDawg]

I commend you for a matter-of-fact approach to your answers all the way up to this point. What you write here sounds very nice and if it is indeed the current Mormon teaching, then great. But it needs to be pointed out that if it is, in fact, official Mormon teaching and not just your own take on things, that this is relatively new in the LDS Church. We have been over this territory many times on this forum and your “prophets” have stated quite clearly in the past that there are races in heaven, and that black people’s only hope of getting to the celestial kingdom is as servants.

Hi ibkc,

I’ve never done a study of this particular topic that was as in depth as some others I’ve looked into, so there may be things that LDS leaders have said in the past that I haven’t heard of. But I certainly have never heard THAT one. The worst I ever heard was that some (like Bruce McConkie) thought that they would not receive the priesthood until Christ’s Millennial reign. I would appreciate it if you would dredge up whatever information you have on that.

It seems to me that the verse from 2 Nephi I quoted directly contradicts this.

 

[BDawg]

There was a long discussion on this topic not to long ago. It is here.

One thing I would add to that discussion. Mormons keep claiming that blacklds.org is not a Mormon website…it is. Everyone that works on that website has that as a “calling”, which, is the Mormon version of ministry. So, it is a Mormon ministry. The history given there has been propaganda-ized.

I know a couple of the people listed on the “About Us” page, and I happen to know that they started the site on their own. I have no idea whether subsequently the LDS Church gave them any kind of “official nod,” but I know they are on good terms with the Church.

 

[Chris-WA]

1. Joseph Smith ordained blacks of African descent to the priesthood, but after he died, Brigham Young imposed a ban on ordaining blacks, because he said the priesthood was the “seed of Cain.”

Did you mean Brigham Young imposed a ban on ordaining blacks because he said blacks were the seed of Cain, not the priesthood?

His rhetoric about the subject was taken lock, stock, and barrel from the American Protestant rhetoric of his own background.

So your blaming Protestantism for Brigham Young’s racism? it sounds like an attempt to shift the blame away from the LDS church.

There was no specific revelation that anybody ever mentioned that justified changing the policy of Joseph Smith, so many Mormons nowadays figure that Brigham Young just did that because his upbringing taught him that it was the right thing. (Mormons have no belief in prophetic infallibility, either for modern or ancient prophets.)

So I’ve just gotta ask this question: what good is a prophet if that person is allowed to teach error in matters of the faith as if it’s truth? If you can’t depend on your prophets to teach truth when it comes to your religion, what guarantee do you have that what they teach about the BoM or the D&C or the PoGP is true? I really would like an answer to this one. I mean, Brigham Young clearly taught, as did the prophets after him, that there was something wrong with blacks that made them unworthy of the LDS priesthood. He based this teaching on religious grounds. He publicly taught this as truth to the LDS church membership while he was prophet. The prophets after him supported his teaching for over 100 years, and your church is still suffering the effects today. Many Mormons currently believe that blacks are black because they were less valiant in the pre-existance than whites.

In 1978, LDS prophet Spencer Kimball had a revelation that the ban should be lifted. Many of us ask why such a thing was allowed by God in the first place, and usually have to come to the conclusion that God allows us to make a lot of mistakes and take lumps for them. (Catholics offer essentially the same reasoning for why God allowed so many “rotten Popes” in the Medieval period. We don’t think we’ve had any “rotten Prophets,” but allow that they have been human beings.)

No, it’s actually quite different in Catholicism. Mormonism’s big claim to be the one true church is that it is headed by real prophets chosen by God. But if you make these kinds of allowances for your prophets when it comes to teaching error, then again, what good are they? If you allow for such huge errors, such as the prohibition of blacks from the priesthood, then you put into question everything else they have taught as truth. What’s the difference between what Young taught about blacks to the church and what your current prophets teach to the church, for example, at general conference? Who is teaching error, and who is teaching truth? There is no way to tell the difference, is there?

The Catholic Church, though admitting that there have been a few awful popes, does not say that any of those popes have taught error or changed doctrine. The miracle is that even though there have been some real duds as popes, none of them managed to change the teachings of the church. We allow them to make mistakes because they are human, but it’s not at all like Mormonism in this respect. Mormons unwittingly allow their prophets to teach error as truth, but still uphold them as true prophets.