Race, God, and the LDS Church

[Marc Anthony]

Okay, the last thread on this was very amped up and uncharitable on both sides. I'll try and give this one a shot again, but I'll try to be both clear and more charitable about it. I ofer, right now, my sincerest apologies to any LDS I have offended because they thought I was implying that their Church is racist (which I'm not implying).

However, here is the real point I, at least, was trying to make (I speak for nobody else).

SirThomasMore provided Mormon Prophets making claims that the Mormon God taught racism. The Prophets said, several times, that racism was one of God's teachings.

Later, other Prophets came and said that this claim, that God taught racism, was wrong. But why should we believe the later Prophets over the earlier Prophets? How do we know the later Prophets were right? Did God change his mind? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. So why are we believing one Prophet over another?

I only find it suspect that a teaching of GOD could be found to be wrong. The only conclusion I could draw is that it was not a teaching of God.

Responses?

[ParkerD]

Originally Posted by Marc Anthony

Okay, the last thread on this was very amped up and uncharitable on both sides. I'll try and give this one a shot again, but I'll try to be both clear and more charitable about it. I ofer, right now, my sincerest apologies to any LDS I have offended because they thought I was implying that their Church is racist (which I'm not implying).

However, here is the real point I, at least, was trying to make (I speak for nobody else).

SirThomasMore provided Mormon Prophets making claims that the Mormon God taught racism. The Prophets said, several times, that racism was one of God's teachings.

Later, other Prophets came and said that this claim, that God taught racism, was wrong. But why should we believe the later Prophets over the earlier Prophets? How do we know the later Prophets were right? Did God change his mind? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. So why are we believing one Prophet over another?

I only find it suspect that a teaching of GOD could be found to be wrong. The only conclusion I could draw is that it was not a teaching of God.

Responses?

Marc Anthony,
If you don't make a distinction between someone's personal opinion (not, by the way, "Mormon Prophets" but an apostle and a seventy) and what the scriptures say on a subject, then all you will have is a personal opinion that has led you to a conclusion that is erroneous, but has nothing to do with "Mormon Prophets".

I would think that someone such as yourself would be able to figure out that a person such as Dianaiad, who had a marriage where she faced the kind of question (in her mind, if she wanted to dwell on that subject) you have brought up, before and after her marriage--would have sufficient background on that subject to explain it accurately to a non-LDS who was curious. I think she has tried to do that in this forum on many occasions. You could try believing that she knows what she is writing about, having fair reason to become an expert about it.

[MelanieAnne]

I submit the answer is clear. It is preposterous to suggest that God would be racist. God made everyone, and everyone is dear to Him. God's preference is clearly that everyone return to Him. But He leaves it up to us. No group is more dear to God than another and anyone who thinks that one group is favored is misguided. Hence, it is clear that God is not racist. God CANNOT be racist. The very idea that God could be racist is silly.

The Mormon faith, whether their adherents wish to recognize it or not, has racist beginnings. And these racist beliefs were initially attributed to God by their "prophets". Subsequently, these same racist policies were reversed, in the face of the Mormon Church losing its tax exempt status. This occurred, it should be noted, after it became US national policy for churches to be forbidden from political speech. It is an open question as to whether this reversal would have occurred absent the actions of the US Congress.

The problem here is one of Mormon prophecy and prophets and how much faith can be put in what Mormon prophets say. If the original prophets were true, then later prophets were false, and vice versa. But no matter which one might choose, this issue puts the Mormon church on display for all to see that, according to them, God once was racist and now He's not. That's simply not credible. It is not surprising that this issue is one that Mormons wish to distance themselves from.

God is not, and cannot be racist. The very idea that God could have directed anyone to be racist, in whatever form, is repugnant.

[twopekinguys]

Originally Posted by ParkerD

Marc Anthony,
If you don't make a distinction between someone's personal opinion (not, by the way, "Mormon Prophets" but an apostle and a seventy) and what the scriptures say on a subject, then all you will have is a personal opinion that has led you to a conclusion that is erroneous, but has nothing to do with "Mormon Prophets".

I would think that someone such as yourself would be able to figure out that a person such as Dianaiad, who had a marriage where she faced the kind of question (in her mind, if she wanted to dwell on that subject) you have brought up, before and after her marriage--would have sufficient background on that subject to explain it accurately to a non-LDS who was curious. I think she has tried to do that in this forum on many occasions. You could try believing that she knows what she is writing about, having fair reason to become an expert about it.

But the BoM isn't opinion is it?

We have this from 2 Nephi:

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

"And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."

"And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."

Considering the fact that lds consider the BoM scripture, it isn't really opinion now is it?

[SirThomasMore]

Originally Posted by ParkerD

Marc Anthony,
If you don't make a distinction between someone's personal opinion (not, by the way, "Mormon Prophets" but an apostle and a seventy) and what the scriptures say on a subject, then all you will have is a personal opinion that has led you to a conclusion that is erroneous, but has nothing to do with "Mormon Prophets".

that is simply not true and I will make sure you do not get to use that apologetic. It gets very tiring that every time one your prophets or apostles says something in a sermon, writing, or speech that the world finds repugnant, you quickly circle the wagons around the idea it was just opinion.

Nope. It was doctrine. (Edited)

[Marc Anthony]

Originally Posted by ParkerD

Marc Anthony,
If you don't make a distinction between someone's personal opinion (not, by the way, "Mormon Prophets" but an apostle and a seventy) and what the scriptures say on a subject, then all you will have is a personal opinion that has led you to a conclusion that is erroneous, but has nothing to do with "Mormon Prophets".

I would think that someone such as yourself would be able to figure out that a person such as Dianaiad, who had a marriage where she faced the kind of question (in her mind, if she wanted to dwell on that subject) you have brought up, before and after her marriage--would have sufficient background on that subject to explain it accurately to a non-LDS who was curious. I think she has tried to do that in this forum on many occasions. You could try believing that she knows what she is writing about, having fair reason to become an expert about it.

There were several quotes that SirThomasMore posted and several of them were from Prophets. This was an official teaching of the LDS Church.

[TikiTokiguy]

It took till 1978 for them to give African Americans the priesthood? 1978? End of the 70's? Wow.

[PaulDupre]

Originally Posted by ParkerD

If you don't make a distinction between someone's personal opinion (not, by the way, "Mormon Prophets" but an apostle and a seventy)...

All of the LDS apostles are sustained at every General Conference as "prophets, seers and revelators".

Joseph Smith himself began applying this three-fold title to all of the living apostles. At the dedication of the Kirtland Temple in 1836, Joseph Smith invited the members of the Church to acknowledge the Twelve Apostles as "prophets, seers, and revelators" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 109).

[TikiTokiguy]

Originally Posted by PaulDupre

All of the LDS apostles are sustained at every General Conference as "prophets, seers and revelators".

Joseph Smith himself began applying this three-fold title to all of the living apostles. At the dedication of the Kirtland Temple in 1836, Joseph Smith invited the members of the Church to acknowledge the Twelve Apostles as "prophets, seers, and revelators" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 109).

Also Lieutenant-General and ordained King of the Kingdom of God by the Council of Fifty.

William Marks: "I was also witness to the introduction (secretly) of a kingly form of government, in which Joseph suffered himself to be ordained king to reign over the house of Israel forever."

[4Squarebaby]

Originally Posted by TikiTokiguy

It took till 1978 for them to give African Americans the priesthood? 1978? End of the 70's? Wow.

Perhaps they believe that God waited until Caesar and the people said okay

[Marc Anthony]

Originally Posted by TikiTokiguy

It took till 1978 for them to give African Americans the priesthood? 1978? End of the 70's? Wow.

This is the point I'm NOT making here though. It's basically irrelevant. What's relevant is that the LDS were claiming that God taught racism and then backed off on those claims when it became politically incorrect, and then tried to act (and are still trying to act) like there was no contradiction there.

[SnakeMauler]

All Catholics and anyone else in the world who is aware of modern day science knows for a fact that Native Americans aren't "red" because of "punishment from God" However, it would be politically incorrect to discredit everything LDS stands for by the grounds of intrinsic racism, even if they didn't ordain black priests until the 70's or something (with the exception of maybe a few).

Fact of the matter is, and I'm just gonna say it, call me racist or not, black people aren't really into any of the stuff that Mormonism stands for. Becoming a God when you die? Many black people are Christians because of ancestral connections to slaves who perhaps drew parallels between themselves and the Hebrews of the Old Testament and saw God as their deliverer from slavery.

And finally, if I could pick one demographic that would be LEAST likely to dress up like the guys in this picture and go from door to door and try to convert people, it'd be black people.

Btw, God never taught racism. If anything, he sought out certain groups not because of their outward appearance, but because of their actions, which is the true way to discern anyone's characters. Fact is, most of those wierdo's the Israelites were fighting did things like roll their children into the fire and pedestry. They needed to go

-Snakemauler

[Marc Anthony]

Originally Posted by SnakeMauler

All Catholics and anyone else in the world who is aware of modern day science knows for a fact that Native Americans aren't "red" because of "punishment from God" However, it would be politically incorrect to discredit everything LDS stands for by the grounds of intrinsic racism, even if they didn't ordain black priests until the 70's or something (with the exception of maybe a few).

I 100% agree, which is why that's NOT what I'm doing. My problem more has to do with the fact that racism was an official teaching of the LDS Church, that their Prophets repeatedly claimed was told to them by God, and then as soon as it became politically incorrect the LDS Church had another "Prophet" claim that God didn't really teach that. So at one point racism was given to the LDS by God and at another point it wasn't? Which Prophet is right?

[4Squarebaby]

Originally Posted by SnakeMauler

.

And finally, if I could pick one demographic that would be LEAST likely to dress up like the guys in this picture and go from door to door and try to convert people, it'd be black people.


-Snakemauler

Oh I don't know about that point, blacks are over represented among the Jehovah Witnesses, what would be the biggest difference a long sleeve shirt with a tie or going all out with a sports coat?

[MelanieAnne]

Sigh