Reader comments
Much has changed for LDS blacks since '78
124 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
RE: Does God Love Blacks?? | 9:47 a.m. June 11, 2008
God loves all his children, and just because they weren't allowed the
priesthood until 30 years ago doesn't mean God doesn't love blacks. If
you use that kind of justification, you may as well say God didn't love
anyone until the 1830s when the LDS church was first established. It was no
mistake that the church was born when it was. Why was it not formed 1000 years
earlier? Because the time was not right. The same applies to black men and the
priesthood. It was a door that was opened when God decided it was time, it is
His plan that progresses as we as His children progress. I don't think His
love for everyone should ever be called into question, just because the
circumstances of our lives and society may not be to our liking.
Polygamy v Race | 10:01 a.m. June 11, 2008
The comparisons between polygamy and the priesthood ban is valid. Some have
reasoned that God withheld the priesthood privilege to blacks because they and
the Church (and the world at large) were not ready. And yet apparently God used
the opposite logic in revealing plural marriage. Clearly this nation was not
ready to accept a religion practicing plural marriage. It was the primary
catalyst in JS's martyr, the Saints expulsion, continued persecution in
Utah, and numerous members leaving or never joining the Church over time.
The argument assumes God used a certain kind of logic for instituting plural marriage - regardless that no one is ready here it comes at the point of a angelic sword anyway. And the reverse logic for the priesthood policy - I will withhold blessing from a particular race of people because people are not ready.
Even more interesting to me is that both supposed revelations caused and continue to cause tremendous problems for the Church and seriously bring into question whether such decisions would be made by a loving, all-knowing God or by fallible men?
The argument assumes God used a certain kind of logic for instituting plural marriage - regardless that no one is ready here it comes at the point of a angelic sword anyway. And the reverse logic for the priesthood policy - I will withhold blessing from a particular race of people because people are not ready.
Even more interesting to me is that both supposed revelations caused and continue to cause tremendous problems for the Church and seriously bring into question whether such decisions would be made by a loving, all-knowing God or by fallible men?
RE: Polygamy v Race | 11:04 a.m. June 11, 2008
It appears the arguement of polygamy is not going to go away in this forum, even
though the subject is entirely different. It hasn't been suggested that the
"we weren't ready" response is not valid because it doesn't
apply to polygamy and who knows what other issue the church has had in the past.
It is a different scenario with different circumstances, which requires
different reasoning. I don't know enough about the situation to give a
logical answer, but I do know that even though JS martyr, the expulsions and
persecutions were terrible things, they all caused the members to settle in
Utah. Perhaps terrible things that were necessary for progress? I don't
know. Its worth thinking about.
Comments continue below
John Lambert | 11:22 a.m. June 11, 2008
Anthony,
I really enjoyed you post. Some days I wonder if there is anything worthwhile posted here, but your post convinces me otherwise.
I think you point out another good point. This issue can not be understood without the spirit. Even when we give explanations we recieved through the spirit, if the people hearing them have hardened their hearts then the spirit will not reach them.
What suprises me is that I have not seen someone who is upset that the church does not just go in and start preaching the gospel in China in defiance of the government. If we really believe the gospel needs to be preached to everyone now than why let some human government half us. It is not an exact analogy, but the gospel is spread in order.
Missionaries first entered Brazil in about 1927. A temple was dedicated in 1978 or 51 years latter. For Ghana the dates are 1978 and 2004 or a space of 26 years.
I really enjoyed you post. Some days I wonder if there is anything worthwhile posted here, but your post convinces me otherwise.
I think you point out another good point. This issue can not be understood without the spirit. Even when we give explanations we recieved through the spirit, if the people hearing them have hardened their hearts then the spirit will not reach them.
What suprises me is that I have not seen someone who is upset that the church does not just go in and start preaching the gospel in China in defiance of the government. If we really believe the gospel needs to be preached to everyone now than why let some human government half us. It is not an exact analogy, but the gospel is spread in order.
Missionaries first entered Brazil in about 1927. A temple was dedicated in 1978 or 51 years latter. For Ghana the dates are 1978 and 2004 or a space of 26 years.
John Lambert | 11:29 a.m. June 11, 2008
To Black Panther and others,
Why were woman whose husbands were not temple worthy not allowed to recieve the endownment until the time Ezra Taft Benson was president of the Church? Why in the 1950s were men in Tonga not ordained elders until after their marriage but in most other places they were ordained before being sent off as single missionaries if not before?
Why when the Israelites said they did not want to go on the Mountain did God relent and let just Moses go up. Why when the church believes baptisms must be performed for everyone have we agreed to not perform baptisms for Holocaust victims except when they are direct ancestors of church members? We are deneying the priesthood to many victims of the holocaust just as we were deneying it to many blacks. The situation is not the same, but there are some parallels.
I do not know many of the answers. I can think of possibilities. In India at least until recently they only baptized people who were fluent in English. Do you know how many people this kept out of the church?
Why were woman whose husbands were not temple worthy not allowed to recieve the endownment until the time Ezra Taft Benson was president of the Church? Why in the 1950s were men in Tonga not ordained elders until after their marriage but in most other places they were ordained before being sent off as single missionaries if not before?
Why when the Israelites said they did not want to go on the Mountain did God relent and let just Moses go up. Why when the church believes baptisms must be performed for everyone have we agreed to not perform baptisms for Holocaust victims except when they are direct ancestors of church members? We are deneying the priesthood to many victims of the holocaust just as we were deneying it to many blacks. The situation is not the same, but there are some parallels.
I do not know many of the answers. I can think of possibilities. In India at least until recently they only baptized people who were fluent in English. Do you know how many people this kept out of the church?
John Lambert | 11:34 a.m. June 11, 2008
Actually, the church will baptise non-English speakers in India, but they have
to come to meetings in English for a long time first.
What would have happened if the church had allowed blacks to hold the priesthood? I do not know. Originally the missionaries in Brazil and Argentina taught in German. Will you call that racist? The first five or so branches in Peru all had meetings in English. Will you call that racist?
What would have happened if the church had allowed blacks to hold the priesthood? I do not know. Originally the missionaries in Brazil and Argentina taught in German. Will you call that racist? The first five or so branches in Peru all had meetings in English. Will you call that racist?
John Lambert | 11:40 a.m. June 11, 2008
To re:We weren't ready:
I have known Black people who their first reaction on coming to the LDS Church was "This must be a KKK meeting", just because everyone was white. This is a man who got baptized because of various factors, but it helped the members were truly friendly, and that was in about 1985.
I know of people who went inactive at least for a time because they felt it was not right that in their ward where most of the residents and about half the members were black, most leadership positions were filled by whites.
If you have followed the articles the DN had leading up to the commemoration there was one on a former BP who is now a temple sealer in the Oakland Temple. There were some comments of people who wondered if he had reprented for being a BP and others who claimed having been a BP was no big deal and common and people were over reacting. Even today these issues strike a chord with people, and Latinos out number African-Americans in the US now, and it has been over 40 years since anti-interracial marriage laws were overturned.
I have known Black people who their first reaction on coming to the LDS Church was "This must be a KKK meeting", just because everyone was white. This is a man who got baptized because of various factors, but it helped the members were truly friendly, and that was in about 1985.
I know of people who went inactive at least for a time because they felt it was not right that in their ward where most of the residents and about half the members were black, most leadership positions were filled by whites.
If you have followed the articles the DN had leading up to the commemoration there was one on a former BP who is now a temple sealer in the Oakland Temple. There were some comments of people who wondered if he had reprented for being a BP and others who claimed having been a BP was no big deal and common and people were over reacting. Even today these issues strike a chord with people, and Latinos out number African-Americans in the US now, and it has been over 40 years since anti-interracial marriage laws were overturned.
In CA | 12:24 p.m. June 11, 2008
A little history:
1954 - Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS
1964 - Johnson signs Civil Rights Act of 1964
1968 - Johnson signs Civil Rights Act of 1968
1992 - Race riots in LA after white cops beat R. King
As this article says, much has changed. And there is a celebration for it. But where were these righteous critics at the anniversary celebration of the 1954, 1964, and 1968 events. Was there one? how can you condemn one organization when your own house is not in order? Why did it take you 178 years to fix, or even 192 years? And your problems of racism still exists. What the LDS church has done for me and my race is more that any government.
1954 - Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS
1964 - Johnson signs Civil Rights Act of 1964
1968 - Johnson signs Civil Rights Act of 1968
1992 - Race riots in LA after white cops beat R. King
As this article says, much has changed. And there is a celebration for it. But where were these righteous critics at the anniversary celebration of the 1954, 1964, and 1968 events. Was there one? how can you condemn one organization when your own house is not in order? Why did it take you 178 years to fix, or even 192 years? And your problems of racism still exists. What the LDS church has done for me and my race is more that any government.
jraypatsfan | 1:33 p.m. June 11, 2008
Well its easy to uplift one another with faith promoting storys, however the
church was just adding to the segregation of our nations people. Its also kind
of funny that this happened during the civil rights movement, ask yourselves one
question was there ever a valid reason to not allow them to hold the priesthood?
When do you people stop making excuses for bigotry. The facts are there you cant
deny it. The book of mormon teaches it so does the bible. If you honeslty belive
that the cananites and the wicked Nephites were cursed with a skin of darkness
based on ancient civilization lore then you obviously need to take a different
world perspective and start thinking for yourself. A fine example of inside the
box thinking. If jesus were to manifest himself in our time as a man i would
belive that most christian organizations would persecute him the same he was
before he was crucifed. So with that it goes the same for African Americans,
they were judged by man claiming to do gods work before they could even stand up
for themselves and be judged by a church authority and declared worthy of those
blessings.
Jeff Wheeler | 2:06 p.m. June 11, 2008
There are many speculations on this matter. The problem i have with this modern
day revelation is that nobody who is a faithfull member of the church questions
it. I mean for an organization that is so geared on bringing the truth to the
world, it seems that this revelation they had to allow this otherwise they would
have been operating out of the boundrys of the law. If any of you that blather
on about this topic have any basis for why that was a revelation, other than the
prophet said so please bring it to the table otherwise its a moot issue, because
contrary to what the LDS church teaches not everything said is true. Bruce R.
Mckonkie is a fine example of a man who was intelligent but also demeaning to
other races and religions. So instead of welcoming all races to have the
priesthood maybe they should concentrate on a proclimation to the world sorry
for being biggots.
7 Oranges & 12 Apples = ??? | 2:33 p.m. June 11, 2008
The math that many of you LDS members don't add up.
Here's why:
Do we agree that the Lord loves His children equally?
Yes.
Do we agree that the Savior died for everyone,whites, yellows, reds, blacks?
Yes.
Do we agree that we do not suffer the sins of Adam?
Yes.
Do we agree that Heavenly blessings are for all of the Lord's children?
But then:
Why does the Lord's timing differs from whites to blacks, when everyone is equal?
Because we can't know what the Lord knows.
Why does the Lord's sacrifice extends fully only to the whites, and not fully to the blacks?
Because we can't know what the Lord knows.
Why does the blacks gets cursed over the sins of Cain, but not Adam?
Because we can't know what the Lord knows.
Why does the Lord's blessings are only for the righteous whites, not the righteous blacks?
Because we can't know what the Lord knows.
This is the essence of the LDS religion. Don't make sense, it doesn't matter, " Because we can't know what the Lord knows."
The truth of the matter, is, the Lord will never separate His children.
Otherwise, He wouldn't be God.
Here's why:
Do we agree that the Lord loves His children equally?
Yes.
Do we agree that the Savior died for everyone,whites, yellows, reds, blacks?
Yes.
Do we agree that we do not suffer the sins of Adam?
Yes.
Do we agree that Heavenly blessings are for all of the Lord's children?
But then:
Why does the Lord's timing differs from whites to blacks, when everyone is equal?
Because we can't know what the Lord knows.
Why does the Lord's sacrifice extends fully only to the whites, and not fully to the blacks?
Because we can't know what the Lord knows.
Why does the blacks gets cursed over the sins of Cain, but not Adam?
Because we can't know what the Lord knows.
Why does the Lord's blessings are only for the righteous whites, not the righteous blacks?
Because we can't know what the Lord knows.
This is the essence of the LDS religion. Don't make sense, it doesn't matter, " Because we can't know what the Lord knows."
The truth of the matter, is, the Lord will never separate His children.
Otherwise, He wouldn't be God.
Re: We are on earth but a short | 2:43 p.m. June 11, 2008
According to you, we should just trust the Lord and not need to understand that
God prefers whites than blacks?
We should just trust the Lord that, that until recently, in His infinite wisdom, He loves His white children more than His black children?
We should just trust the Lord, that, blessings for the righteous are limited only to the whites, and until 30 years ago, blacks were not righteous enough?
Is this all LOGICAL to YOU Mormons?
Is it LOGICAL that God has even a hint of differentiation of His love towards those that He also died, and bled?
Did He feel less pain, on the cross, when paying for the whites, that He favors them, whereas, the blacks He withheld because He suffered more?
Does any LOGIC applies to God's law and love?
Or is the answer so simple that, we don't know what God knows, so we should just trust even though it doesn't make the slightest sense.
I have the spirit telling me, "Do you think that this is my doing?? Do you think that I love my children differently?
Then you don't know me."
We should just trust the Lord that, that until recently, in His infinite wisdom, He loves His white children more than His black children?
We should just trust the Lord, that, blessings for the righteous are limited only to the whites, and until 30 years ago, blacks were not righteous enough?
Is this all LOGICAL to YOU Mormons?
Is it LOGICAL that God has even a hint of differentiation of His love towards those that He also died, and bled?
Did He feel less pain, on the cross, when paying for the whites, that He favors them, whereas, the blacks He withheld because He suffered more?
Does any LOGIC applies to God's law and love?
Or is the answer so simple that, we don't know what God knows, so we should just trust even though it doesn't make the slightest sense.
I have the spirit telling me, "Do you think that this is my doing?? Do you think that I love my children differently?
Then you don't know me."
I'll pray for you | 3:28 p.m. June 11, 2008
For all of you with hate in your hearts, with nothing better to do than bash the
mormon religion, I will pray for you. The simple fact is, the LDS church has
done more for blacks, asians, latinos, whites, and any other race on the Earth
than any of you haters sitting at your computers, looking for a reason to bash a
good thing in this world. Go talk to the millions of non-white people in the
world who lives have been changed and blessed by the LDS church if they think
have been treated with anything but love. Before you point a judging finger, why
don't you ask yourself what you have done for your fellow man. But you
don't want to do that, you just want to complain and point a finger and
pass judgement. It not worth arguing with people with hate in the hearts,
because all they want to do is tear down things that are good. And for that, I
will pray for you all.
John Lambert | 4:06 p.m. June 11, 2008
I would recomend people to study the DVDs or writtings of Marvin Perkins and
Darius Gray. I wish I had the DVDs, and I wish knowledge of what they have said
on this issue was more widely known. Jeffrey R. Holland also made a good
statement on the issue to Helen Whitney.
Chris Plummer RE: I'll pray for | 4:11 p.m. June 11, 2008
Don't bother. Your self righteous prayers wont' do a lick of good.
It takes 5 seconds to post a comment on this board, plenty of time left to help
out our fellow man.
H. Ross Perot | 4:17 p.m. June 11, 2008
Look, here's the deal, see. IF, in point of fact, the mormon church is true
(as it claims), and is 'led by a prophet', then what differenc does it
really make as to the circumstances surrounding the fact that blacks
couldn't hold their priesthood? If God exists (and for the record, I
believe He does), and this is His "policy" or "doctrine",
then you can argue points until you are blue in the face. It's kinda like
spittin' in the wind.
However, IF, in point of fact, the mormon church is NOT true, then what have they (blacks) been denied? And why should they care?
As a southern baptist, I certainly don't care what the mormon church teaches or practices one way or the other. And I'm certainly not going to get worked up over it.
However, IF, in point of fact, the mormon church is NOT true, then what have they (blacks) been denied? And why should they care?
As a southern baptist, I certainly don't care what the mormon church teaches or practices one way or the other. And I'm certainly not going to get worked up over it.
So, What If It's True? | 4:44 p.m. June 11, 2008
So, in the past, some LDS church leaders said they believed that blacks were
born into dark-skinned/negro (take your pick) bodies because they weren't
as valiant as
"whites" in the pre-earth portion of our life. What if it's true? Satan wasn't as valiant as even the anti-Mormons among us now. Was Judas as "valiant" as Jesus or Peter or Pres. Hinckley? Does being less valiant mean that Heavenly Father loves the less valiant any less? Nope.
And when any of us, black or white, choose to be "less valiant", don't we suffer the loss or postponement of some blessing? Go read your scriptures and look at your own life and you will see that that is the case.
Were blacks less valiant in pre-mortality? I don't know. Maybe they were and God said "Ah....I will fulfill the curse they brought upon themselves AND I will teach my children to love one another regardless of how they look on the outside for they are ALL my children and I love them ALL the SAME".
Who knows?
This I do know: God lives, He loves us ALL, the LDS church is His church in its fullness.
The caravan moves on....
"whites" in the pre-earth portion of our life. What if it's true? Satan wasn't as valiant as even the anti-Mormons among us now. Was Judas as "valiant" as Jesus or Peter or Pres. Hinckley? Does being less valiant mean that Heavenly Father loves the less valiant any less? Nope.
And when any of us, black or white, choose to be "less valiant", don't we suffer the loss or postponement of some blessing? Go read your scriptures and look at your own life and you will see that that is the case.
Were blacks less valiant in pre-mortality? I don't know. Maybe they were and God said "Ah....I will fulfill the curse they brought upon themselves AND I will teach my children to love one another regardless of how they look on the outside for they are ALL my children and I love them ALL the SAME".
Who knows?
This I do know: God lives, He loves us ALL, the LDS church is His church in its fullness.
The caravan moves on....
John Lambert | 6:29 p.m. June 11, 2008
To: So What If It's True,
Blacks were not less valiant in the pre-existence. It is people like you who still kick around ideas like that that are frustrating to the spread of the gospel.
Would you like it if I said "perhad whites were less valiant in the pre-existance" or "perhanps Canadians were less valiant in the pre-existance". No, you would say that is totally false.
It is also totally false to say that Africans were less valiant in the pre-exisitence. The point that men like Elder Holland and Elder Child have been trying to make is that such statements are false. I do not care who you can quote as having said them, they are still false.
God loves us all, and you may think you love us all. However to even suggest that people have their "race" because of valiance in the pre-existance is uncalled for. Jesus taught the aposltes that neither the blind man not his parents did sin, thus dispelling the idea that blindness had come upon people because of sin. When will you realize that just because people look different than you do does not make them products of sin?
Blacks were not less valiant in the pre-existence. It is people like you who still kick around ideas like that that are frustrating to the spread of the gospel.
Would you like it if I said "perhad whites were less valiant in the pre-existance" or "perhanps Canadians were less valiant in the pre-existance". No, you would say that is totally false.
It is also totally false to say that Africans were less valiant in the pre-exisitence. The point that men like Elder Holland and Elder Child have been trying to make is that such statements are false. I do not care who you can quote as having said them, they are still false.
God loves us all, and you may think you love us all. However to even suggest that people have their "race" because of valiance in the pre-existance is uncalled for. Jesus taught the aposltes that neither the blind man not his parents did sin, thus dispelling the idea that blindness had come upon people because of sin. When will you realize that just because people look different than you do does not make them products of sin?
John Lambert | 6:39 p.m. June 11, 2008
I have thought about this issue. I just have to say that I do realize that
the issues that I post are probably not quite as disturbing to people as the
issues of Blacks and the priesthood.
However I do think the polygamy analogy is false. There is nothing in the scriptures that supports or clearly says that black people can not hold the priesthood. Perkins argues that the term black in the scriptures never refers to skin color, but is always symbolic. There is clearly no scriptural reference on anyone after the flood being a descendant of Cain.
I would urge people to re-read official declration 2.
I do wish things would change faster. I wish thhere were more African-Americans recieving the blessings of the gospel. However, I think many church members need to search their hearts and replace their hate of African-Americans and their institutions with love. I can tell you that going on a diatribe against the NAACP in church will certainly cause an African-American investigator not to return.
However I do think the polygamy analogy is false. There is nothing in the scriptures that supports or clearly says that black people can not hold the priesthood. Perkins argues that the term black in the scriptures never refers to skin color, but is always symbolic. There is clearly no scriptural reference on anyone after the flood being a descendant of Cain.
I would urge people to re-read official declration 2.
I do wish things would change faster. I wish thhere were more African-Americans recieving the blessings of the gospel. However, I think many church members need to search their hearts and replace their hate of African-Americans and their institutions with love. I can tell you that going on a diatribe against the NAACP in church will certainly cause an African-American investigator not to return.
To John Lambert | 10:25 p.m. June 11, 2008
I like your dismissal of past and current ideas that skin color was due to a
loack of worthiness in the preexistence. I agree with you. However, it does
require a dismissal of teachings by past prophets and apostles as taught from
the pulpit in General Conference. I am able to dismiss things taught by our past
prophets. Many in the Church are not able to do that and therefore struggle to
somehow uphold and make sense of their words.
To John Lambert (more) | 11:35 p.m. June 11, 2008
John, my point in asking "what if it's true" was only to say
"it really doesn't matter".
Why?
First, the Lord has judged them worthy to receive the Priesthood.
Second, Heavenly Father loves them as much as any other child.
Third, even IF they were less valiant, they can change (remember Pres. Hinckley stating that the purpose of the Gospel is to make bad men good and good men better?). I don't judge them as less valiant because a) that's not my job and b) I've got plenty of my own weaknesses to focus on.
That's good enough for me.
And, I will even say, if in fact Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has said blacks are not black-skinned because they were less valiant in pre-mortality, then I will accept his teaching as truth. (I'm not aware he or any other apostle has said this in the name of the Lord. Do you have any quotes? I do not portend to know every single thing they've ever said on the subject).
You want to try and make me out to be racist, go ahead, but that is not the case.
The caravan moves on (for ALL of us!)....
Why?
First, the Lord has judged them worthy to receive the Priesthood.
Second, Heavenly Father loves them as much as any other child.
Third, even IF they were less valiant, they can change (remember Pres. Hinckley stating that the purpose of the Gospel is to make bad men good and good men better?). I don't judge them as less valiant because a) that's not my job and b) I've got plenty of my own weaknesses to focus on.
That's good enough for me.
And, I will even say, if in fact Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has said blacks are not black-skinned because they were less valiant in pre-mortality, then I will accept his teaching as truth. (I'm not aware he or any other apostle has said this in the name of the Lord. Do you have any quotes? I do not portend to know every single thing they've ever said on the subject).
You want to try and make me out to be racist, go ahead, but that is not the case.
The caravan moves on (for ALL of us!)....
To "Half Way There, June 8, 9:38 | 11:57 p.m. June 11, 2008
Sorry to burst your bubble but polygamy in the early days of the LDS church was
NOT a mistake. It was the Lord's will and if, repeat IF, the Lord were to
command it again, you need to be willing to accept it and practice it or you are
not worthy to be called a true follower of Christ.
The Lord's ways are not our ways and WE need to be willing to bend to HIS ways and not vice versa in ALL things...
The Lord's ways are not our ways and WE need to be willing to bend to HIS ways and not vice versa in ALL things...
TV Evangelists | 10:01 a.m. June 12, 2008
Your statement: "The Lord's ways are not our ways and WE need to be
willing to bend to HIS ways and not vice versa in ALL things...?"
Numerous TV evangelists have used this line so many times to get their followers to believe on his teachings, and hence, dip into their pockets.
The Bakers also used it, and Reverend Jones, and David Koresh.
It's such a powerful tool to use since the teachings doesn't have to make sense, and if it doesn't make sense, then it's OK, because "The Lord's ways are not our ways".
Their followers bite it, hook, line and sinker.
Every religion have used this technique, and it works so well, why change it? So many leaders of religion have led their members using this clause because, it's the ultimate scripture that they can teach anything and get away with it, and I mean anything, including reverend Jones, doctrine of suicide. That's why more almost 1,000 people self-perished, because this doctrine was as effective on them, as it is with Mormons, or any other religion for that matter.
Numerous TV evangelists have used this line so many times to get their followers to believe on his teachings, and hence, dip into their pockets.
The Bakers also used it, and Reverend Jones, and David Koresh.
It's such a powerful tool to use since the teachings doesn't have to make sense, and if it doesn't make sense, then it's OK, because "The Lord's ways are not our ways".
Their followers bite it, hook, line and sinker.
Every religion have used this technique, and it works so well, why change it? So many leaders of religion have led their members using this clause because, it's the ultimate scripture that they can teach anything and get away with it, and I mean anything, including reverend Jones, doctrine of suicide. That's why more almost 1,000 people self-perished, because this doctrine was as effective on them, as it is with Mormons, or any other religion for that matter.
HarryFromNE | 6:03 p.m. Jan. 23, 2009
For some of the LDS/Mormon sources on race, the 'curse of Cain',
Mormon priesthood, see the following references. Please take note that the
Glover article is from a Mormon & concerns the background on why the LDS
Church ban was lifted- Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 5:20-25, 2 Nephi 30:6 (in
1830/1837 & 1841-1977 editions), Jacob 3:8. Alma 3:6, 3 Nephi 2:14-16/PofGP:
Moses 7:8,12,21-22, Abraham 1:21-27/ALSO: History of the Church 2:436-438, HC
4:501, HC 5:217-218
See also: LDS writer Mark L Glover, The Mormon Priesthood Revelation and the Sao Paulo, Brazil Temple, Dialogue:Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990
The Mormon Church was racist from their scriptures to their leaders, and the change in 1978 does not erase the past, especially not their scriptures (Gen. 4 was never a curse & never said to pass on to a race. That was racist trash of the day, which was incorporated into Mormonism's scriptures, and teachings in the Juvenile Instructor, JOD, and a number of other places.
See also: LDS writer Mark L Glover, The Mormon Priesthood Revelation and the Sao Paulo, Brazil Temple, Dialogue:Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990
The Mormon Church was racist from their scriptures to their leaders, and the change in 1978 does not erase the past, especially not their scriptures (Gen. 4 was never a curse & never said to pass on to a race. That was racist trash of the day, which was incorporated into Mormonism's scriptures, and teachings in the Juvenile Instructor, JOD, and a number of other places.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Jazz missing 4 to injuries 12:55 a.m.
- Pitta doesn't win award 12:47 a.m.
- Jazz manage a magical win 12:43 a.m.
- Speed skating tuneup Friday 12:41 a.m.
- BYU football: NCAA awards 12:30 a.m.
- Magic unable to continue road act 12:26 a.m.
- Fans should worry about lousy teams 12:24 a.m.
- U.S.-born Hispanics see gains 12:23 a.m.
- Editorial: Extremism spike alarming 12:23 a.m.
- No need for more stimulus 12:22 a.m.
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness
- Few details on missing W.V. mom
- Defense witness goes on offensive
- BCS = power conference monopoly
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.
- Unga might enter NFL draft
- 5 officers lose their certification
- Y.'s Emery bruised, but rarely beaten
- Crash landing next to I-15
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- Letters: Global warming a lie
256 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall193
- Palin signs books, chats with fans165
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil150
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax142
- Max Hall wants to look ahead124
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness123
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
Well, I did it. I gave in to the seductions of the ridiculously sexy...
Latest comments
I too agree that Booz and the team are NOT just going through the motions....
The springs have a long history of being clothing optional, and they provide...
He "needs more outside shooting to beat LA". He needs to design a real...
NCFAA Contribution to College Football Award: LaVell Edwards, Brigham Young,...
Why did the Jazz play so bad against LA and really well for a 1/2 against...
We Coug fans will be forever grateful for your three or four years of bearing...
When was the last time Utah even got to the dance three times in a row; let...
His speech was quite good, I agree with what Gingrich said. However, for...
I believe that a large part of the deterioration of the rivalry is a result...
Good win Jazz!!! Now give Fesenko some Red Bulls and lets see how well the...
Advertisements