mormonism racist?

[Autodidact]

Exactly: "descendent of Cain" was denoted by dark skin, regardless of where they were born.

I don't think so. I'll have to go back and look, but I think Fijians etc. were always in, or in pretty early, while African-Americans were out until 1978. I'll get back to you after consulting Google (or perhaps bing.)

eta: O.K., after consulting Mr. Google, the most common interpretation seems to be "Black African ancestry" so e.g. polynesians were not included. So, are you saying that some (more than one) African-American men were admitted to the priesthood between 1848 and 1978? Could you give more info?

 

[Katzpur]

oops, your mentor just sold you out... bummer.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following your reasoning in the slightest.

 

[Autodidact]

There may have been an "official ban" but it was not a ban authorized by God. When I have used the word "official," I have used it to mean "doctrinally binding." I'm assuming you have, too. In this context, that may not have been the most accurate word to have chosen. It was "official" in that any policy enacted by the General Authorities is "official." "Official" does not necessarily mean "revealed by God as true." In 1954, David O. McKay, then President of the Church, stated, “There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the Church of any kind pertaining to the Negro. ‘We believe’ that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the Priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.” You and I can understand what that means. Any non-Mormon who wants to understand what it means should not have too difficult a time doing so. It will unfortunately go right over the heads of those whose only point in posting here is to win a debate that is ultimately not ever going to be won by either side.
...
.

Well, Katz, since I don't believe there is such a thing as God, I of course don't think any ban was authorized by a non-existent being. I'm not sure in what sense Deep Shadow meant "official" or why it mattered, and you might want to ask him. It is clear that the LDS leadership used the word repeatedly to describe the ban.

I think the rest of your post is about whether the ban was "doctrine" or not, which we have not broached here.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., so we have now established, and I hope all agree, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had an official ban against men of African descent being admitted to the priesthood, and that only took ten pages or so and only one Mormon had to cover his virtual ears and hum loudly to avoid that truth. Great.

So the next question: was this ban racist? Was a ban denying full participation to a group of people based solely on their race a racist ban? Anyone care to comment?

 

[Katzpur]

tell me, what makes you so sure that god authorized other things in your religion? how do you know any part of the bom of it was actually inspired?

I wouldn't even know where to begin, Tomas, but I can assure you that I came to my conclusions after a great deal of study, soul-searching and prayer. To put it in a nutshell, I find answers in Mormonism that I cannot find in any other Christian religion. It is the only Christian faith in which I cannot find any internal inconsistancies. Mormonism's understanding of the relationship between God and man is so ennobling and uplifting. Its explanation of God's purpose in creating us in the first place is so much more satisfying to me than the explanation offered by any other Christian Church. It gives me a realization that I am here because God loves me and wants me to have joy. He didn't create me so that I could worship Him but that I could become like Him. He has provided a means by which every single solitary human being who has ever lived can rejoin Him and their loved-ones for eternity. The LDS concept of Heaven is the most universal of any Christian Church. According to our belief, hardly anyone will end up in Hell. I believe in the Mormon God because He's the one that works for me. If Mormonism isn't true, it should be. There is no more beautiful religion in the world. As far as the Book of Mormon goes, I believe it's true because I've studied it and am convinced that, on a number of levels, it would have been impossible for Joseph Smith to have merely written it. It's not my intention to argue the point with you. You asked a question. I just answered it. Please try to show a little bit of respect in your response.

 

[DeepShadow]

The next obvious question here, as AD points out, is whether the ban was racist. The question here is, what was denied them? The priesthood authority. Not baptism, not membership,

This ties back into my previous posts about the Levites. I don't believe it was racism when the priesthood was exclusively Levite. The other eleven tribes still had all the ordinances and other blessings.

 

[DeepShadow]

Was a ban denying full participation to a group of people based solely on their race a racist ban? Anyone care to comment?

It wasn't denying full participation, that's for sure.

 

[Katzpur]

The next obvious question here, as AD points out, is whether the ban was racist. The question here is, what was denied them? The priesthood authority. Not baptism, not membership,

This ties back into my previous posts about the Levites. I don't believe it was racism when the priesthood was exclusively Levite. The other eleven tribes still had all the ordinances and other blessings.

But the Blacks didn't have the blessings of the temple, at least as long as they were not able to hold the priesthood. True, they may have received those blessings by proxy, and you might say it would have all worked out in the end, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to have to relinquish the power to exercise your priesthood in your own home, even if someone else could step in and take your place.

 

[DeepShadow]

But the Blacks didn't have the blessings of the temple, at least as long as they were not able to hold the priesthood. True, they may have received those blessings by proxy, and you might say it would have all worked out in the end, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to have to relinquish the power to exercise your priesthood in your own home, even if someone else could step in and take your place.

True enough. I'll have to give this one some more thought.

 

[tomasortega]

Aren't you supposed to be looking up "correlation"?

first off. this debate is not about the word correlation. "correlation" is a condition or requirement you threw in, in hopes to get hung up on it, clouding over the topic at hand . which is, "is mormonism racist"


now, i have shown one verse in the book of mormon, that describes black skin as a curse, among other less than favorable descriptions.

i have also provided one verse from the book of mormon that describes light skin as a reward, among other very favorable descriptions.

so i have made the case that the book of mormon contains white on black racism.

logically, in order for you to disprove or cancel out my evidence for racism, you would have to provide at least one verse from the bom, describing white skin as a curse and one describing black skin as a reward . thats simple logic. +1 and -1 cancel eachother out and equal 0.

but of course, given that the bom is in fact racist, and no No tribes were "cursed with a skin of whiteness" or became "black and delightsome", like a coward, you deviated off the subject and got hung up on impertinent technicalities of "correlation".

That's what's going on in the Book of Mormon: one group turns darker when they get wicked. Five other groups do not. One group turns lighter when they get righteous. Two others do not. Hence, no correlation.

so one group is not enough? more groups need to be cursed with dark skin and rewarded with light skin for it to be called racism? :sarcastic

if, at least one group turned lighter when they got wicked, and at least one group turned darker when they got righteous. THEN AND ONLY THEN WOULD MY ARGUMENT BE DEFEATED.

tell me. if i go out in public and announce that black skin is a filthy curse while white skin is a beautiful and delightsome reward just as in the bom. would you and the people in that crowd surrounding me really think i am NOT A racist. and that i would need to spew my hate to at least one or two other crowds in order to be considered a racist?? how absurd.

JOHN: "HEY JAMAL, I THINK YOUR BLACK SKIN IS FILTHY, AND A CURSE FROM GOD"
JAMAL: "WELL, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REPEAT THAT TO AT LEAST 2 MORE PEOPLE, OTHERWISE IT DOESNT COUNT, AND YOU ARE NOT A RACIST"


REALLY?

no offense, but you can take your correlation and place it nice and neat up you know where. if you are so set on disproving the bom's racism, then find me verses directly contradicting mine. otherwise im not wasting my time with you any longer.

 

[Autodidact]

It wasn't denying full participation, that's for sure.

Does a priest have any rights, powers, authorities or potential advancement that a non-Priest does not?

 

[Autodidact]

btw, I find it interesting that the Mormons in this thread have been most concerned about whether the ban was official or was doctrine. As Katzpur points out, no one disputes that the ban existed for 130 years. Of course, to a Black man denied the priesthood, it makes no difference--he's still banned. At least one poster, maklelan, was quite offended at me pointing this out.

 

[Autodidact]

Are you saying, DeepShadow, that by denying Black men the priesthood they were not denied anything valuable? That the priesthood is not important to Mormons?

 

[tomasortega]

I don't see anything objectionable in that video. The men in that video are not racist. They're obviously trying to explain that the racist ideologies were the result of misinterpration and assumption. I'd go point by point through the video, but I don't think you'd respond, and it would waste a lot of my time.

heh, ....so you dont see anything objectionable do you?? oh, and not only that, but that mormon is not racist either?? well lets see here...let me bring up that link again.

YouTube - Racist LDS Mormons Preach the Curse of Black Skin to Muslims


4 minutes and 45 seconds through the video your mormon buddy says, and i quote: "THOSE WHO WE NOW SEE JOINING THE CHURCH OUT OF SOUTH AMERICA, WE ARE SEEING THEM BECOME LIGHT. AND THEY ARE GETTING SO..(GULP, [LIGHT?})..WHEN WE SEE THEM IN OUR STUDENT BODIES, YOU CANT SEE A DIFFERENCE.

clearly this man of god has no obsession or interest with skin color RIGHT??looool.

then he goes on: "basically,everybody thought that the black people were cursed in those days, thats why they were willing to enslave them..."

now immediately after daddy white says that, the genius camera man zooms in on little johnny's disturbed face...just priceless :clap that poor kid is thinking, "what the heck am i doing here" clearly his conscience bothered the crap out of him. poor kid.

then, big daddy white went on to admit that the mormon prophets were not actually true prophets because god never gave them such revelations (not unusual for an inexistent being) and they obviously let the outside world (racist america) influence their decisions to bann blacks, all while claiming their uninspired decision came from the holy dear sweet god jesus above.

then 6 minutes and 50 seconds into it, the muslim gives the knockout punch which i gave earler in this thread :" if misunderstandings in the lds church occured back then, then certainly misunderstandings can occur also today" and who is to say what is and what is not a misunderstanding anylonger? what if the whole bom is one big misunderstanding and joseph smith was just as mistaken as the prophets were back then when the black ban was instated?? but i guess thats a discussion for another time.

oh, crap, i forgot, im on the great maklelan's ignore list, how precious

 

[Scott C.]

Are you saying, DeepShadow, that by denying Black men the priesthood they were not denied anything valuable? That the priesthood is not important to Mormons?

Of course the Priesthood is important to Mormons. Blacks were denied the rights to the Priesthood, which meant they did not have all of the privileges of other church members. There's no question about that. And yes, the ban was based on race. I would think that by definition, anything that is based on race, is racist. Isn't that the definition of racist? The fact is that the LDS church taught for many, many years that for some reason, not fully understood, God was denying the priesthood to Blacks. It also taught that this restriction did not mean that God loved Blacks less. It did not mean that they were inferior in any way. It did not mean that there should be any form of social discrimination either. The doctrine was that Blacks could inherit the Celestial Kingdom, just like anyone else, if they lived faithful lives, just like anyone else. A Black man's faithful life in the LDS church would not include the faithful exercise of Priesthood duties, since God did not assign those duties to them.

Lots and lots of Mormons attempted to explain why God did what he did. During the period of the ban, there were a minority of practicing. believing LDS who thought the leaders of the church were wrong and that the ban was not from God. I don't have any idea as to the number, but my gut says the percentage of such church members was less than 10%. In 1978, the First Presidency announced that the time had now come when God would give the Priesthood to all worthy males, regardless of race. Almost all members of the LDS church understood that the time had now come when God would give the Priesthood to all males. The minority of church members who thought the church was wrong on this issue from the beginning, saw the revelation as God correcting a past mistake. Personally, I believe that God banned Black men from the Priesthood until 1978. God lifted the ban in 1978. Thanks be to God that he did so.

 

[Watchmen]

Well, Katz, since I don't believe there is such a thing as God, I of course don't think any ban was authorized by a non-existent being. I'm not sure in what sense Deep Shadow meant "official" or why it mattered, and you might want to ask him. It is clear that the LDS leadership used the word repeatedly to describe the ban.

I think the rest of your post is about whether the ban was "doctrine" or not, which we have not broached here.

I'm pretty sure I said it wasn't "doctrine."

 

[Watchmen]

Yes - it was a racist policy because it discriminated based on color of skin, determining who would get to do certain things and who would not. If I was a manager at a company and I implemented a policy that said anyone can work here and get the benefits of employment, but only white people get to be managers no one would hesitate to call the policy racist. I don't think we should lose our logic and common sense just because we're now applying essentially the same thing to religion. Luckily, my policy (regardless of whether it was official or not!) was corrected by the CEO. Now anyone, regardless of race, can be managers!

 

[Autodidact]

Of course the Priesthood is important to Mormons. Black were denied the rights to the Priesthood, which meant they did not have all of the privileges of other church members. There's no question about that. And yes, the ban was based on race. I would think that by definition, anything that is based on race, is racist. Isn't that the definition of racist? The fact is that the LDS church taught for many, many years that for some reason, not fully understood, God was denying the priesthood to Blacks. It also taught that this restriction did not mean that God loved Blacks less. It did not mean that they were inferior in any way. It did not mean that there should be any form of social discrimination either. The doctrine was that Blacks would could inherit the Celestial Kingdom, just like anyone else, if they lived faithful lives, just like anyone else. A Black man's faithful life in the LDS church would not include the faithful exercise of Priesthood duties, since God did not assign those duties to them.

Thank you. I agree. There was a ban. It was official. It lasted over a century, and it was racist. So we agree that the LDS church perpetrated racism. (Whether the racism came from God or from the Church I'll leave to you Mormons to sort out.) Do you agree that racism is immoral?

 

[Autodidact]

Yes - it was a racist policy because it discriminated based on color of skin, determining who would get to do certain things and who would not. If I was a manager at a company and I implemented a policy that said anyone can work here and get the benefits of employment, but only white people get to be managers no one would hesitate to call the policy racist. I don't think we should lose our logic and common sense just because we're now applying essentially the same thing to religion. Luckily, my policy (regardless of whether it was official or not!) was corrected by the CEO. Now anyone, regardless of race, can be managers!

But the previous policy was racist.

 

[Autodidact]

So, Mormons, does it amaze you when people accuse the Mormon Church of racism, since we have just established that it practiced a racist policy for 150 years?