Mormonism and Racial Supremacy

[HopefulNikki]

You must remember the some of the pages I have given are not 'official', but they do present what I would say 90-95% of the LDS Church memebers believe.

100 years ago, wouldn't you say 90-95% of the LDS Church members believed that black people had dark skin because they were cursed by God? If we're not going to abide by racist sentiments that aren't "official" teaching, then it's only fair on the flip side to say that these things are just the "personal interpretations" of
Mormonism by individuals.

 

[HopefulNikki]

That doesn't change the fact that it's his personal interpretation. Also, people are confusing the event in the Book of Mormon with the lie that blacks get their dark skin from the pre-existance.

So then again, where did he get the idea that the teaching was from God? I'm assuming he didn't just pull it out of thin air.

 

[Bishka]

Interesting...if Mr. Peterson was just voicing his own personalized opinion, then why in the world would he say, "At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others."

Is he just lying here? Where did he get the idea that the Lord Himself taught these things?

FALLIABLE men make mistakes. Nikki, where do you get the idea that these men are perfect? Has any of us ever said out leaders were perfect?

 

[Bishka]

100 years ago, wouldn't you say 90-95% of the LDS Church members believed that black people had dark skin because they were cursed by God? If we're not going to abide by racist sentiments that aren't "official" teaching, then it's only fair on the flip side to say that these things are just the "personal interpretations" of
Mormonism by individuals.

Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. You didn't meet every single one of them and see how they felt about it did you.

Yes, you are right, those were PERSONAL interpretations by FALLIABLE men who made a MISTAKE. You got it yet Nikki? Or do I keep having to yell until someone gets it.

 

[jonny]

I suppose that depends on who you ask. If he was at one time head of the Mormon chuch, then yes, he would have been considered a prophet by other Mormons. I'm pretty certain that no Mormon religous leader is a considered a prophet outside of the Mormon church though.

He was never the head of the LDS church. This is the list of LDS Church Presidents:

• Joseph Smith
• Brigham Young
• John Taylor
• Wilford Woodruff
• Lorenzo Snow
• Joseph F. Smith
• Heber J. Grant
• George Albert Smith
• David O. McKay
• Joseph Fielding Smith
• ??? can't remember...but I know it wasn't Mark E. Peterson
• Spencer W. Kimball
• Ezra Taft Benson
• Howard W. Hunter
• Gordon B. Hinkley

 

[Bishka]

So then again, where did he get the idea that the teaching was from God? I'm assuming he didn't just pull it out of thin air.

Misinterpreted the scripture -- it's not that hard to do, look at all the different denominations of Christiantity based on their interpretation of the Bible.

Why are you still harping on about this?

We've explained it over and over to you.

A statement, made by an imperfect man who minstrpreted scripture and because of the culture at the time (race segregation), people took it. They were wrong, and our church and leaders have admitted we were wrong and took steps to rectify that.

What else do you want, us dancing around naked in doing some pagan dance?

It was NEVER official doctrine, never. IT was never in our canon, and no matter how much you want to try to interpret that verse, it's not what you are trying to make it out to be.

Besides, apparently you didn't read my part about Joseph Smith ordaining black men to the presisthood when he {Joseph} was a prophet. You oh-so-skipped over that part.

I believe it started with Brigham Young, but I cannot be sure. Even so, Brigham Young was a man, that's all, he wasn't perfect, neither are you and neither am I. Give people a little slack here.

 

[Bishka]

He was never the head of the LDS church. This is the list of LDS Church Presidents:

• Joseph Smith
• Brigham Young
• John Taylor
• Wilford Woodruff
• Lorenzo Snow
• Joseph F. Smith
• Heber J. Grant
• George Albert Smith
• David O. McKay
• Joseph Fielding Smith
• ??? can't remember...but I know it wasn't Mark E. Peterson
• Spencer W. Kimball
• Ezra Taft Benson
• Howard W. Hunter
• Gordon B. Hinkley

HAROLD B LEE!!!!

I had to sing the song!

 

[Katzpur]

While I'd love to hear it, I can't help but expect that it will be some sort of "spiritual" interpretation of "dark skin"...which just makes me laugh. You guys are insistent that some ambiguous phrase like "image of God" in Genesis is literal, physical similarity, but when it comes to the BoM talking about dark skin, which for the first 100+ years of their existence Mormons took literally (even if it wasn't "official"), you guys suddenly adhere to spiritualized interpretation.

1. It appears that you're doing just fine researching the subject on your own. You're already quite an expert, aren't you?

2. You've attempted to second-guess what my response is going to be and have already told me you anticipate that it's going to be laughable.

3. Can you give me one good reason why I should expend any effort whatsoever in continuing this conversation? Would you, if you were me?

 

[HopefulNikki]

Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. You didn't meet every single one of them and see how they felt about it did you.

Right, Becky, because we can't know any statistics about historical people groups unless we were there. You and I both know that those kinds of teachings were prevalent in the Mormon church.

Yes, you are right, those were PERSONAL interpretations by FALLIABLE men who made a MISTAKE. You got it yet Nikki? Or do I keep having to yell until someone gets it.

We both know it was a mistake...or did YOU miss MY plain statement that I don't think modern Mormons are racist? If you're going to claim that it was all just a big mistake, then how can you know that what the modern Mormon church teaches is accurate? In a few decades, are sentiments going to change again, so that things which are today "the definite word of Lord Himself" are just the words of "fallible men who made a mistake"?

 

[Bishka]

Right, Becky, because we can't know any statistics about historical people groups unless we were there. You and I both know that those kinds of teachings were prevalent in the Mormon church.

Don't be so serious in your next post Nikki, it ruins the atmosphere.:areyoucra What would you say prevelant? And how would you back your statement?

If you're going to claim that it was all just a big mistake, then how can you know that what the modern Mormon church teaches is accurate? In a few decades, are sentiments going to change again, so that things which are today "the definite word of Lord Himself" are just the words of "fallible men who made a mistake"?

How can I know?

1. I pray about it myself and receive my own personal revelation about it
2. I read the scriptures to see if it is even in there
3. I research the fact and see if any other prophets or other leaders have mentioned that.

How we know the Lord's word? The prophet -- and what's in our scriptures.

 

[HopefulNikki]

1. It appears that you're doing just fine researching the subject on your own. You're already quite an expert, aren't you?

LOL. Yes, because I criticize your responses, that makes me a know-it-all. I'll keep that in mind the next time I see you question the teachings of someone else's faith, on a website dedicated to discussing and debating religious topics .

2. You've attempted to second-guess what my response is going to be and have already told me you anticipate that it's going to be laughable.

Is your interpretation of the verses in question that they are literally talking about dark skin, or a "spiritual darkness"? If it is the former, I can't see how you are questioning the assumption by many that Mormon teachings are racist; if it's the latter, then I suppose my "second-guessing" was right.

3. Can you give me one good reason why I should expend any effort whatsoever in continuing this conversation? Would you, if you were me?

No, Kat, there's no reason to discuss or debate religion on a website of religious forums. It appears that I've struck a nerve with this issue, so if you don't want to respond anymore, you don't have to. Then again, you never did have to in the first place, I just thought it would be a provocative thread (understatement of the year, apparently...).

 

[HopefulNikki]

How we know the Lord's word? The prophet -- and what's in our scriptures.

You just said that your prophets aren't perfect, and that all kinds of people have all kinds of interpretations of the scriptures, including Mormons...so again, how do you know when to believe the prophets, and what interpretation to ascribe to?

 

[Bishka]

You just said that your prophets aren't perfect, and that all kinds of people have all kinds of interpretations of the scriptures, including Mormons...so again, how do you know when to believe the prophets, and what interpretation to ascribe to?

I just said, I pray, I research it and if it isn't right to me, then it isn't right to me.

Basically, if it's not in our canon, it's not doctrine. Simply as that Nikki.

 

[Bishka]

No, Kat, there's no reason to discuss or debate religion on a website of religious forums. It appears that I've struck a nerve with this issue, so if you don't want to respond anymore, you don't have to. Then again, you never did have to in the first place, I just thought it would be a provocative thread (understatement of the year, apparently...).

Of course you've struck a nerve, you keep trying to say things, and we keep presenting evidence to the contrary and you keep pushing the issue. Over the time that me and Kathryn have both been here, I know I've gone through this argument on a thread at least 2 times, I'm not sure about Kathryn, but it get old after awhile. Having to defend ourselves against baseless accusations.

 

[Katzpur]

LOL. Yes, because I criticize your responses, that makes me a know-it-all.

No, people criticize my responses all the time. It was the confrontational tone of your OP that did it.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I see you question the teachings of someone else's faith, on a website dedicated to discussing and debating religious topics .

Well, don't hold your breath. You'll never see me starting a thread intended to characterize the beliefs of any religion as racist, violent or narrow-minded. It's just not my style. I'll debate the validity of specific doctrines, but that's not the same thing at all.

No, Kat, there's no reason to discuss or debate religion on a website of religious forums. It appears that I've struck a nerve with this issue, so if you don't want to respond anymore, you don't have to. Then again, you never did have to in the first place, I just thought it would be a provocative thread (understatement of the year, apparently...).

I have contributed well over 5000 posts on this forum, Nikki. As anyone on RF can tell you, I do not shy away from a good debate. This isn't a debate. It's mud-slinging.

 

[HopefulNikki]

Well, I'm off for a little while, need to take a break and do real life things other then argue with someone who apparently (I've been known to be wrong) doesn't care.

Well, I think that pretty much sums up today's episode on, "How To Make Mormons Angry." Thanks for viewing; join us next week when I offer practical tips on how to scare Jehovah's Witnesses right off your doorstep.

However, in all true seriousness, I do want to publicly apologize to the Mormons who I've offended here. My intention was to have a debate, not make enemies. I will no longer be posting on this particular thread, and hopefully I can make ammends to the people I've wronged in the future. Accept my humble apologies.

 

[Green Gaia]

Back during 1800's before and during the American Civil War, the Unitarians were the "city folk" (as opposed to the Universalists being the "country farming folk" - these are both generalities, of course). Many were business owners and one popular business was the textiles industry which of course relied on slavery in south for their product. So when the abolitionists (which included the Universalists) began their campaign to end slavery in America, the Unitarians turned a blind eye to the treatment of the slaves in the South because ending slavery would have hurt their businesses.

Any Unitarian today would be appalled by this inaction and contribution to human suffering.

All religions have skeletons in their closets because they are maintained and run by humans, and we make mistakes. Let's not treat those of other religions badly now because of what their ancestors may or may not have done in the past, especially if they've worked and continue to work to rectify the problem.

 

[Buttercup]

All religions have skeletons in their closets because they are maintained and run by humans, and we make mistakes. Let's not treat those of other religions badly now because of what their ancestors may or may not have done in the past, especially if they've worked and continue to work to rectify the problem.

Exactly ! :clap I was going to post a similar response, Amy. You supplied the words so well.

 

[Bishka]

Well, I think that pretty much sums up today's episode on, "How To Make Mormons Angry." Thanks for viewing; join us next week when I offer practical tips on how to scare Jehovah's Witnesses right off your doorstep.

However, in all true seriousness, I do want to publicly apologize to the Mormons who I've offended here. My intention was to have a debate, not make enemies. I will no longer be posting on this particular thread, and hopefully I can make ammends to the people I've wronged in the future. Accept my humble apologies.

You don't have to stop posting, it's just the way that you post and how you assumed was the problem.

Why not take our word for our history and doctrine?

 

[nutshell]

Thanks, Maize.

And for the people who have nothing better to do than send sarcastic remarks back and forth, can you at least do it without the and :sarcastic and :areyoucra . Those are starting to irritate me more than anything else. I've tuned out the words going back and forth and yes, that includes from both sides.