-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Mormonism racist?
- Thread starter Zsr1973
- Start date
- Status
Are not the leaders of the mormon church considered prophets? And are not the prophets' teachings (especially the founder of your church) considered to be revelations from God? If this is the case, how can you say that the words of the early racist leaders are the words of "mere men" in this one example, yet the rest of the teachings and scriptural interpretations of the mormon church are not of "mere men" but are revelations from God Himself to your prophet leaders?beckysoup61 said:
I was hoping this was a misunderstanding; certainly I am not into 'bashing' Religions. But a search revealed http://www.reformmormonism.org/racism-apology.htm
A Public Apology
[SIZE=-1]Mormonism's turbulent history with racism has been well documented, despite some difficulty in pinning down mandates and revelations relative to the issue. Because Reform Mormonism shares a common history with LDS and other forms of Mormonism until its formation in 2002, Reform Mormons must come to terms with this history and be prepared to extend an explanation for it.
It has been 25 years since the LDS church changed its policy of denying priesthood admission to blacks (they still deny it to gays and women.) Yet much of the LDS church remains unresolved on the history of this issue as well as its implications for the church. This state of non-resolution has been compounded by the arrival of better history of the issue within the church, clearly demonstrating powerful conflicts in doctrine and application of doctrine, but no explanation of these conflicts, and worse, no acknowledgement of error or attempt to repair decades of damage. This lack of resolution remains one of the reasons why the modern LDS church does not attract and retain new North American black members at a rate comparable to its attraction of other races.
[/SIZE]
So, it would appear that historically, the Church was, but they are doing their best to be seen to clean up their act, and a public apology takes guts. My hat off to them.
A Public Apology
[SIZE=-1]Mormonism's turbulent history with racism has been well documented, despite some difficulty in pinning down mandates and revelations relative to the issue. Because Reform Mormonism shares a common history with LDS and other forms of Mormonism until its formation in 2002, Reform Mormons must come to terms with this history and be prepared to extend an explanation for it.
It has been 25 years since the LDS church changed its policy of denying priesthood admission to blacks (they still deny it to gays and women.) Yet much of the LDS church remains unresolved on the history of this issue as well as its implications for the church. This state of non-resolution has been compounded by the arrival of better history of the issue within the church, clearly demonstrating powerful conflicts in doctrine and application of doctrine, but no explanation of these conflicts, and worse, no acknowledgement of error or attempt to repair decades of damage. This lack of resolution remains one of the reasons why the modern LDS church does not attract and retain new North American black members at a rate comparable to its attraction of other races.
[/SIZE]
So, it would appear that historically, the Church was, but they are doing their best to be seen to clean up their act, and a public apology takes guts. My hat off to them.
ChrisP
Veteran Member
The Reform Mormons are the same as the Church of the LDS? I think that's a different group Michel. Althought the policy has changed I'm not sure if an apology from the LDS was received. On the other side of the coin name one other Christian group allied with slavery/racist tendencies in the past which HAS apologised? They will be few and far between.
To be honest I'd much rather see an apology actioned than vocalised, but if people prefer to hear it than see it done
To be honest I'd much rather see an apology actioned than vocalised, but if people prefer to hear it than see it done
It would be clearly wrong for us to emulate the God of the Bible and blame the current generation for the sins of its ancestors, but Snowbear makes the correct obsevation. Early Mormon leadership appears to have been pervasively racist, suggesting that only a God interested in bludgeoning his true believers would select such blunt instruments. To believe, and believe in, such a leadership is truly and act of faith.
Nehustan
Well-Known Member
But I guess Chris, that Michel is right. Once one admits something the implication is that it will be actioned, and it's very hard to action something that one is in denial about. While I agree that thought (word) should not replace action, it invariably will preceed it.
No ... rather, it's uncomfortable to you and others. It would be interesting, Michel, to see if you could find any other Christian denomination that so consciously, thoroughly, and persistently grounded its bigotry in scripture. Early Mormon leadership exemplifies racism much as early Catholic leadership exemplifies antisemitism.michel said:
I'm not dwelling on anything..... I'm using the oportunity of the original topic of this thread to ask a question of the mormons. It's actually something I've wondered about for quite some time... But since my communication skills pretty much suck, I have not been able to ask the question without coming across as condemning the mormon religion... which is not my intention at all, despite what some may think.michel said:
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
Jayhawker Soule said:
Antisemitism or anti-Judaism? I don't recall any early Catholic leaders opposing Jews for being ethnically Jewish only for their religious beliefs. Or don't you think there is a difference? Surely all religions have criticised other religions beliefs at one time or another and all religions have had their fair share of bad apples that have taken things way too far into actions that are destructive. I'd agree with Michel. You shouldn't attack a religion based on the past mistakes of its adherents, be they Catholic, Mormon, Jewish or anything else.
James
How very discerning. I'm sure the distinction was foremost in the minds of those slaughtered in pogroms as the crowd screamed "Christ killer!", or those subjected to forced conversion. Thanks for sharing.JamesThePersian said:
Snowbear said:
That's the danger though (of it being interpreted as an 'attack'); I must admit to having started (innocently) an awkward thread or two in my time. I just steer clear of as much confrontation as I can (except when replying to others).
And, Jay, I think James answered my point pretty clearly; that is how I meant what I said.
If we all focus on historical 'deliberate 'nasty deeds','misunderstandings' (whatever) going throughout History, I dare say so one nation would ever talk to another.
However painful, the past is the past; what counts is the 'here and now'. This is where I find the Buddhist dictate of 'letting go of the past' so positive. It may be difficult to put into practice, especially if the person doing it is one of the abused, but raking history permanently to blacken a relationship serves no productive purpose.
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
Jayhawker Soule said:How very discerning. I'm sure the distinction was foremost in the minds of those slaughtered in pogroms as the crowd screamed "Christ killer!", or those subjected to forced conversion. Thanks for sharing.
Did I not say that all religions had their share of such people? Criticising a religion for the heinous acts of some of its adherents is simply intellectually indefensible, which I'm pretty sure you appreciate. And pogroms? There were early Catholic leaders in pogroms? Whatever happened later, even if justified by twisting the meaning of those who argued against Judaism in earlier centuries, is the fault of those who perpetrated the acts, not those whose words were deliberately twisted. For every example you can come up with of antisemitic actions by 'Christians' in the name of their faith I can come up with the opposite - Serbs and Romanians aiding Jews at the risk of their own lives during the holocaust, the people of my wife's home town rallying to save a Jewish cemetary from the communists' bulldozers, heirarchs publicly condemning those (and not just in recent centuries) who persecuted Jews etc. Are you as willing to praise a religion for turning out such people as you are to denigrate it for turning out the monsters that will inevitably arise in any such organisation? It would appear not. There are bad and good in all religions just as there are those outside of all religions. Individuals are responsible for whatever crimes they commit, however they choose to try to justify them.
James
Some people will tell you that it's because of the "mark of Cain" that black people are black. This isn't and has never been church doctrine and the belief in Mormonism has pretty much died out just as it has in other Protestant religions. Mormons don't have an official doctrine about how black people became black and the Book of Mormon doesn't even deal with black people - it deals with Native Americans.Zsr1973 said:
The Book of Mormon does mention that the Lamanites had darker skin. I personally believe that their skin color was a result of them mixing with other races that were already in America when they arrived that had darker skin.
The truth is that there is no answer to your question according to the Mormon church. You'll get as many answers as there are people because it isn't something that the church dwells on.
Snowbear said:
I don't know of any racist doctrine that was ever presented as a revelation. Most of it was interpretations of the scriptures and even leaders of the church disagreed on these interpretations. The church finally did receive a revelation on the subject in 1978. This is what I accept as doctrine which is why I don't feel bad about not agreeing with some of the early statements made.
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
Hi.
It certainly WAS racist for over a century, and therefore compiled a track record bad enough for me to reject completely any possibility that it might have been God-sent!
"Better late than never," I suppose, but with origins like that, IMHO it's fatally and permanently flawed.
Peace,
Bruce
It certainly WAS racist for over a century, and therefore compiled a track record bad enough for me to reject completely any possibility that it might have been God-sent!
"Better late than never," I suppose, but with origins like that, IMHO it's fatally and permanently flawed.
Peace,
Bruce
- Status