Is Mormonism racist?

[Katzpur]

This question is posed to any Mormon who would like to answer. According to the Mormon church, how did Black people become brown skinned, have wooly hair, and thick lips? This subject came up in another thread and Mormons were angry that it was off topic, so here is the forum for that question. Please reveal the truth to us.

God created all of us. He created me blonde, blue-eyed and fair skinned. He created my husband black-haired, brown-eyed and olive skinned. Obviously he created other people with wolly hair and thick lips. How do you think the races originated?

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not Mormon, but it seems that a few leaders of the past had racist views.. As did most religions. As did most Americans. Just do some research on the churches that were against freeing of slaves back in the mid 1800's.

Thank you Jeffrey. I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Katzpur]

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?

Snowbear,

Yes, the leaders of our Church are considered prophets. Our prophets have said many things over our 175-year history. One of the most interesting things Joseph Smith (our founder) said was, "A prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such." In other words, prophets are nothing more than good, but fallible individuals whom God has called to serve Him and to act as His spokesmen. Whenever a prophet has spoken for and in behalf of God, there is a process by which his words are declared official doctrine. Once this happens, whatever has been revealed to him becomes a part of the LDS canon of scripture. It is added to our book, "The Doctrine and Covenants." It would be safe to say that any teaching that cannot be found in our scriptures is not doctrine; it is the opinion of one man. People outside our Church frequently misunderstand this fact, but it is very clear to those of us who are members of the Church.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

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.

Joseph Smith (founder of the Church) appeared to have been incredibly color-blind (particularly for that period of time). He personally ordained Black men to the Priesthood. The "problems" started with Brigham Young. I am reading a book about the history of the Black Latter-day Saints right now. It's written by Darius Grey, a Black man who has been a member of the Church since long before the ban was lifted. It's a very good read.

 

[Bishka]

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?

Yes, most of what our prophets say are revelation from God, but you know the answer to this. It's been answered a million times over.

I'll let Kathryn get this if it hasn't been gotten already, I'm still a bit fuzzy from being sick.

 

[Halcyon]

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 BoM specifically says the Lamanites had dark skin because they were cursed by God. Are you now saying you don't believe that was the case?

 

[Katzpur]

The BoM specifically says the Lamanites had dark skin because they were cursed by God. Are you now saying you don't believe that was the case?

Halycon,

In the thread, "1954, Jim Crow and the LDS" I am posting about 80% of a paper I heard read at an LDS apologetics conference last year. I'm posting the contents of this paper a little bit at a time, since I don't have it online and have to type it all in by hand. Read what I've written so far. The next part (which I'll write later today) will address this issue.

 

[Fluffy]

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.

Which specific leaders of "Mormon leadership" are you referring to and what percentage of the "Mormon leadership" do you feel "exemplifies racism"?

Do you feel this is due to the fact that they are Mormon and racism therefore being an integral part of what Mormonism is about or due to the social attitudes at the time?

 

[Snowbear]

Thanks for the answers jonny and katz.

 

[spacemonkey]

Are Mormons racist?

Not if you're Karl Malone!:biglaugh:

 

[Ody]

The BoM specifically says the Lamanites had dark skin because they were cursed by God. Are you now saying you don't believe that was the case?

Wait, but don't they not know what happened to the Lamanites?

 

[Katzpur]

Wait, but don't they not know what happened to the Lamanites?

Could you rephrase your question, Alan? I'm afraid I didn't understand it.

 

[Ody]

Could you rephrase your question, Alan? I'm afraid I didn't understand it.

The LDS Church doesn't note on what happened to them, right?

 

[Katzpur]

The LDS Church doesn't note on what happened to them, right?

We believe that some (not all) of the American Indians are descended from the group of people known in the Book of Mormon as the Lamanites.

 

[jeffrey]

George Washington owned slaves. Does that make all the following Presidents bad, or make our country ill fated because of that? A lot of things I might disagree with in the Mormon faith. But there is alot I might disagree with in many faiths. The bottom line to me is they do good. They feed, house and clothe the poor. Could they do more? Sure they could, but they do more then most other religions.

 

[Zsr1973]

Thank you all for good information. To be honest, other people's doctrines don't bother me, whether complimentary to my people or not. I have been taught extensive information on the progression of man in this world's history. We all have big skeletons in our closets.

If there is a fallacy in the Mormon's teachings about the Nubian race, it can or will be disproven by science. However, first we must hear the Mormon's own interpretation of their teachings since they are the keepers of that doctrine.

What I like about Mormon doctrine is the strength they put in the family unit. That is what I respect the most about their teachings.

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you all for good information. To be honest, other people's doctrines don't bother me, whether complimentary to my people or not. I have been taught extensive information on the progression of man in this world's history. We all have big skeletons in our closets.

You're welcome. Yes, we can all claim a few skeletons. I'm glad you recognize that.

If there is a fallacy in the Mormon's teachings about the Nubian race, it can or will be disproven by science. However, first we must hear the Mormon's own interpretation of their teachings since they are the keepers of that doctrine.

And I'm glad you recognize that. A lot of people don't. They like to try to define our doctrines for us.

What I like about Mormon doctrine is the strength they put in the family unit. That is what I respect the most about their teachings.

Thanks for the kind words. We appreciate hearing a compliment now and then.

 

[Halcyon]

Halycon,

In the thread, "1954, Jim Crow and the LDS" I am posting about 80% of a paper I heard read at an LDS apologetics conference last year. I'm posting the contents of this paper a little bit at a time, since I don't have it online and have to type it all in by hand. Read what I've written so far. The next part (which I'll write later today) will address this issue.

Hey katz, i read the Jim Crow thread, but i didn't see anything relevant, have you not gotten to that part yet?

By the way, just in case there was any confusion, my question was meant to be taken totally literally, i'm not implying that the LDS church is racist. I was simply wondering if there had been a change of belief, because jonny's post seemed to contradict what i've read in the BoM?

 

[Katzpur]

Hey katz, i read the Jim Crow thread, but i didn't see anything relevant, have you not gotten to that part yet?

By the way, just in case there was any confusion, my question was meant to be taken totally literally, i'm not implying that the LDS church is racist. I was simply wondering if there had been a change of belief, because jonny's post seemed to contradict what i've read in the BoM?

As I explained in my last post on that thread, I sort of stopped posting because I didn't think anyone was interested. (I have to type it all by hand since I don't have it online.)

In a nutshell...

In June, 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received the relvelation lifting the ban against Blacks holding the Priesthood (Native Americans, East Indians, Pacific Islanders, etc. were already permitted to hold it). Along with the statement which was presented to the membership of the Church that day, came a new level of understanding as to how certain passages in the Book of Mormon should be interpreted. All references to skin color are now understood as being symbolic in nature, as are certain similar references in the Bible.

Here, from http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQRace.shtml#equal is some additional information that should clarify our understanding of the verses in question:

The dark skin is mentioned as the mark of a general way of life; it is a Gypsy or Bedouin type of darkness, "black" and "white" being used in their Oriental sense (as in Egyptian), black and loathsome being contrasted to white and delightsome (2 Nephi 5:21-22). We are told that when "their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes" they shall become ... "a pure and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6 [the word "pure" was once printed as "white" but was corrected by Joseph Smith in the 1840 Book of Mormon to be "pure," though later printings missed the correction until 1981]), and at the same time the Jews "shall also become a delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:7). Darkness and filthiness go together as part of a way of life (Jacob 3:5,9); we never hear of the Lamanites becoming whiter, no matter how righteous they were, except when they adopted the Nephite way of life (3 Nephi 2:14-15), while the Lamanites could, by becoming more savage in their ways than their brother Lamanites, actually become darker, "a dark, filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been . . . among the Lamanites" (Mormon 5:15). The dark skin is but one of the marks that God places upon the Lamanites, and these marks go together; people who joined the Lamanites were marked like them (Alma 3:10); they were naked and their skins were dark (Alma 3:5-6); when "they set the mark upon themselves; . . . the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God," when he said, "I will set a mark on them. . . . I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren. . . . I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee [Nephi] and thy seed" (Alma 3:13-18). "Even so," says Alma, "doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation" (Alma 3:19). By their own deliberate act they both marked their foreheads and turned their bodies dark. Though ever alert to miraculous manifestations, the authors of the Book of Mormon never refer to the transformation of Lamanites into "white and delightsome" Nephites or Nephites into "dark and loathsome" Lamanites as in any way miraculous or marvelous. When they became savage "because of their cursing" (2 Nephi 5:24), their skins became dark and they also became "loathsome" to the Nephites (2 Nephi 5:21-22). But there is nothing loathsome about dark skin, which most people consider very attractive: the darkness, like the loathsomeness, was part of the general picture (Jacob 3:9); Mormon prays "that they may once again be a delightsome people" (Words of Mormon 1:8; Mormon 5:17), but then the Jews are also to become "a delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:7)--are they black?

And from later in the same article:

"White" need not refer to skin color, as is clear from the following passages from the biblical book of Daniel: "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed (Daniel 11:35). "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand (Daniel 12:10). In both of these passages, the meaning of the word "white" is most obviously pure; to "make white" is to purify. When Joseph Smith first translated the Book of Mormon, he gave the literal rendering of "white" for the passage in 2 Nephi 30:6. For the 1840 edition, it was changed to "pure," which better reflected the meaning of the word used by Nephi. Subsequent editions, however, relied on the 1837 Book of Mormon, which still read "white." This oversight was not rectified until the 1981 edition.

 

[Snowbear]

... A lot of people don't. They like to try to define our doctrines for us....

And some of us make no attempt whatsoever to try to define your doctrines for you. We simply ask questions of you to clarify those doctrines. Unfortunately, it seems we rarely get clear answers.... even in this thread, we are getting conflicting answers.

I do appreciate that you've taken the time to type out what President Kimball said.
Though again I wonder.... why was a 'revelation' needed to change what you told me earlier was not 'doctrine?'

Whenever a prophet has spoken for and in behalf of God, there is a process by which his words are declared official doctrine. Once this happens, whatever has been revealed to him becomes a part of the LDS canon of scripture. It is added to our book, "The Doctrine and Covenants." It would be safe to say that any teaching that cannot be found in our scriptures is not doctrine; it is the opinion of one man.

Based on your answer to me, and what you've said later, I'm reading from you mormons (rather than telling you what you believe... that's not my intent in any way) the revelations which you imply are from God (since they are given to prophets and put in the doctrines and covenants) can be changed later by different 'revelations'??

Just to be clear... since it has been a point of contention in the past... I am not in any way trying to smear you or your religion. A question was asked in this thread about a generally believed (by us non-mormons... in my case based on what I was told by actual mormons) part of the mormon church's ... revelation?? doctrine?? policy?? history?? teaching?? skeleton?? whatever you want to call it... has been blatantly racist. I am merely trying to understand where this ... revelation?? doctrine?? policy?? history?? teaching?? skeleton?? whatever you want to call it... came from. In your previous answer, you implied it was simply a teaching by someone who is considered a prophet, but that this teaching was not considered a prophecy from God, since prophets are only people unless they are actually prophesying. Please clarify, as rather than learning about your religion, I'm just getting more confused.

Thanks