:What is the attitude of the church to Blacks?
Pretty much the same as the attitude of the church toward whites, or
yellow,s, or reds, or oranges, or greens, &c.--they should be used
judiciously when figuring out color schemes for the interior decoration of
one's house, paying close attention to the need not to overwhelm the
occupants of a room with harsh colors.
David, who's partial to muted purples
--
Remove the % from my e-mail address to reply
David Bowie http://babel.ling.upenn.edu/~bowie
dbowie@mail%.sas.upenn.edu PhD student in Sociolinguistics
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
What is the attitude of the church to Blacks?
Bruce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
************
Its embracing..everyone is looked upon like a brother and sister ( unless
their daughter starts to date one..lol)..and they are welcomed..( definitely
welcomed as some wards dont HAVE a black person..heck some whole cities ahve
few blacks per population)..BUT then again..are you talking 1998 or 1997? 21
years makes a whole big difference.
Fawn
David Bowie wrote in message <6jujak$lpn$2...@winter.news.erols.com>...
>Bruce wrote in message <6jv591$lup$2...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>
>:What is the attitude of the church to Blacks?
>
>
>Pretty much the same as the attitude of the church toward whites, or
>yellow,s, or reds, or oranges, or greens, &c.--they should be used
>judiciously when figuring out color schemes for the interior decoration of
>one's house, paying close attention to the need not to overwhelm the
>occupants of a room with harsh colors.
>
>David, who's partial to muted purples
I would like to add that in Jell-o, white and black should be avoided.
Stick with yellows, reds, oranges, and, if you must, greens.
Dave - who has always liked puce; but doesn't have a clue what it looks
like.
Well, I will have to introduce you to coconut jello and cola jello, then.
> Dave - who has always liked puce; but doesn't have a clue what it looks
> like.
-JR
--
Welcome to the seige mentality!
'Fearful' The Specials
Jason Roberts wrote in message ...
>In article <6jutn9$6qp$1...@usenet40.supernews.com>, "Dave Fuller"
><crazy_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> David Bowie wrote in message <6jujak$lpn$2...@winter.news.erols.com>...
>> >Bruce wrote in message <6jv591$lup$2...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>
>> >:What is the attitude of the church to Blacks?
>
>
>> >Pretty much the same as the attitude of the church toward whites, or
>> >yellow,s, or reds, or oranges, or greens, &c.--they should be used
>> >judiciously when figuring out color schemes for the interior decoration
of
>> >one's house, paying close attention to the need not to overwhelm the
>> >occupants of a room with harsh colors.
>
>> >David, who's partial to muted purples
>
>
>> I would like to add that in Jell-o, white and black should be avoided.
>> Stick with yellows, reds, oranges, and, if you must, greens.
>
>
>Well, I will have to introduce you to coconut jello and cola jello, then.
Hmm . . . is there another option? Perhaps a week of reading posts from
Darrick or Robert Coyle? The cola jello, maybe. The coconut jello, I am
not real found of coconut.
da vark
Dave Fuller wrote:
> David Bowie wrote in message <6jujak$lpn$2...@winter.news.erols.com>...
> >Bruce wrote in message <6jv591$lup$2...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
> >
> >:What is the attitude of the church to Blacks?
> >
> >
> >Pretty much the same as the attitude of the church toward whites, or
> >yellow,s, or reds, or oranges, or greens, &c.--they should be used
> >judiciously when figuring out color schemes for the interior decoration of
> >one's house, paying close attention to the need not to overwhelm the
> >occupants of a room with harsh colors.
> >
> >David, who's partial to muted purples
>
> I would like to add that in Jell-o, white and black should be avoided.
> Stick with yellows, reds, oranges, and, if you must, greens.
>
> Dave - who has always liked puce; but doesn't have a clue what it looks
> like.
Puce is a greenish gold
--
Mo
Genealogy at
URL-http://www.micronet.net/users/~mo'splace
(if your server doesn't like the ' will have to enter manually in "location")
The same as it is toward whites, browns, and, thank goodness - reds!
-red davis.
> Bruce
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
David Bowie <dbowie@mail%.sas.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<6jujak$lpn$2...@winter.news.erols.com>...
> Bruce wrote in message <6jv591$lup$2...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>
> :What is the attitude of the church to Blacks?
>
>
> Pretty much the same as the attitude of the church toward whites, or
> yellow,s, or reds, or oranges, or greens, &c.--they should be used
> judiciously when figuring out color schemes for the interior decoration
of
> one's house, paying close attention to the need not to overwhelm the
> occupants of a room with harsh colors.
>
> David, who's partial to muted purples
Jason R. Smith wrote:
My understanding was that that situation ceased to exist TWENTY YEARS ago
Jason,
what my father would call a "dead horse"
THE CHURCH=HIERARCHY
The leaders of the Church actually want many black members. They are afraid
of offending blacks; both inside and outside the Church. They really want many
blacks in the Church.
THE CHURCH=RANK AND FILE
Mostly Mormons are apathetic. Some older rural Mormons still believe that
blacks are inferior, and shouldn't marry whites. However, especially among the
more educated urban Mormons, they don't mind blacks in the Church at all. Some
former Baptist white Mormons in the South don't like blacks in their wards and
branches, but they usually keep this to themselves.
THE CHURCH=OFFICIAL DOCTRINE
In the Scriptures of the Church (specifically The Book of Moses and The
Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price), blacks are considered to be the
descendants of Cain. The doctrine that blacks were "less valiant" in the
preexistence cannot be found in Mormon scriptures, but in the talks given by
Mormon prophets and apostles from circa 1852 to about 1950. Since then, only
silence regarding the "less valiant" doctrine (except of course for Mormon
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie...who wrote *Mormon Doctrine*).
THE CHURCH=HISTORY
Historically, Mormon leaders have been both racist and anti-racist. Joseph
Smith was certainly an anti-racist; although he still considered blacks of
African descent to be Cainites. He refuted that common white belief in his day
that blacks were "naturally inferior" to whites; citing that if Negroes were
educated like whites, they would be their equals. Brigham Young, however,
seemed to believe that blacks were naturally inferior, although he once said
that the white race would be "cursed" for how they treated the Negro.
Certainly John Taylor and Joseph Fielding Smith believed that blacks were
natural inferiors; although there is evidence that Joseph Fielding Smith (the
grandnephew of Joseph Smith) changed his mind on this years later. Other
Mormon Presidents like David O. McKay and Spencer W. Kimball were clearly
anti-racists, and decried those who believed in black inferiority. Mormon
apostles have also been either racist or anti-racist; depending upon the
individual--as well as the time they lived. Rank-and-file Mormons generally
followed the white American consensus at the time. I would say that Mormons
usually followed the American Mid-West attitude towards blacks: they didn't
burn any crosses, but they would still segregate them.
Generally speaking, blacks raised white (i.e. in white neighborhoods) will
find the Church very welcoming, warm, and friendly. Blacks raised in black
neighborhoods will find the Church dominated by white Mormon culture. They
will want to sing and move and shout in Sacrement Meetings; like in black
Pentecostal churches. They won't be allowed to do so. Because of the clash of
cultures, blacks raised in black culture will find--even in the most liberal
Mormon wards--an uneasiness. Fearing negative press, the Church leaders have
refused to grant blacks their own wards and branches; as they do to Tongans,
Samoans, Vietnamese, and people of non-Anglo cultures.
In article <6jv591$lup$2...@news.alphalink.com.au>,
"Bruce" <bh...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>
> What is the attitude of the church to Blacks?
In article <6k4p2l$h9k$3...@gte2.gte.net>,
"Jason R. Smith" <coria...@starcomm.net> wrote:
>
> I'm glad you folks think this is so funny. I think it's kind of sad,
> especially when I see these black mormons in LDS videos that don't even
> seem to know that historical and canonized church doctrine leaves no other
> option of belief about them except that they are cursed because of their
> skin.
>
> David Bowie <dbowie@mail%.sas.upenn.edu> wrote in article
> <6jujak$lpn$2...@winter.news.erols.com>...
> > Bruce wrote in message <6jv591$lup$2...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
> >
> > :What is the attitude of the church to Blacks?
> >
> >
> > Pretty much the same as the attitude of the church toward whites, or
> > yellow,s, or reds, or oranges, or greens, &c.--they should be used
> > judiciously when figuring out color schemes for the interior decoration
> of
> > one's house, paying close attention to the need not to overwhelm the
> > occupants of a room with harsh colors.
> >
> > David, who's partial to muted purples
> > --
> > Remove the % from my e-mail address to reply
> > David Bowie http://babel.ling.upenn.edu/~bowie
> > dbowie@mail%.sas.upenn.edu PhD student in Sociolinguistics
> > And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Joseph Smith anti-racist?
Is that why when asked whether he supported abolition, he replied:
"No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests
from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do
not believe in setting the negroes free." (Joseph Smith, *Teachings of
the Prophet Joseph Smith*, pg. 120)
> I'm glad you folks think this is so funny. I think it's kind of sad,
> especially when I see these black mormons in LDS videos that don't even
> seem to know that historical and canonized church doctrine leaves no other
> option of belief about them except that they are cursed because of their
> skin.
'Canonized'?
Source, please.
-JR, who has actually read the scriptures in question.
In article <6k5nds$mhb$1...@gte2.gte.net>,
"Jason R. Smith" <coria...@starcomm.net> wrote:
>
JS>From: "Jason R. Smith"
JS>I'm glad you folks think this is so funny. I think it's kind of sad,
especially when I see these black mormons in LDS videos that don't even seem to
know that historical and canonized church doctrine leaves no other option of
belief about them except that they are cursed because of their skin.
How do you know what black mormons do or do not know?
They probably know that it wasn't "canonized church doctrine". They then would
know more than you do about the issue.
The LDS Church does not believe that black members of the church are "cursed".
Postal
Nice try tho.
Honors students get the harder tests.
And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in
unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people,
full of idleness and all manner of abominations. (*Book of Mormon*, 1
Ne. 12:23)
And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his
gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this
people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a
loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been
amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and
this because of their unbelief and idolatry. (*Book of Mormon*, Morm.
5:15)
Through Ham (a name meaning black) "the blood of the Canaanites was
preserved" through the flood, he having married Egyptus, a descendant
of Cain. (Abra. 1:20-27.) Ham was cursed, apparently for marrying
into the forbidden lineage, and the effects of the curse passed to
his son, Canaan. (Gen. 9:25.) Ham's descendants include the
Negroes, who originally were barred from holding the priesthood but
have been able to do so since June, 1978. (Bruce R. McConkie,
*Mormon Doctrine*, pg. 343)
In the pre-existant etrnity various degrees of valiance and
devotion to the truth were exhibited by different groups of out
Father's spirit off-spring. One-third of the spirit hosts of heaven
came out in open rebellion and were cast out without bodies, becoming
the devil and his angels. (D & C 29:36-41; Rev 12:3-9) . . .
Those who were less valiant in pre-existance and who thereby had
certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are
known to us as *negroes*. Such spirits are sent to earth through the
lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God
and his murder of Abel being a black skin. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8, 12,
22) Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, and thus
preserving the negro lineage through the flood . . .
Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no
circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the
Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27) The gospel message is not carried
affirmatively to them . . .
The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the
foundation of pre-existence. Along with all races and peoples he is
receiving here what he merits as a result of the long pre-mortal
probation in the presence of the Lord . . .
The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of
certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the
priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this
inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based
on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual
valiance of those concerned in their first estate." (Bruce R.
McConkie, *Mormon Doctrine*, 1958 ed., pgs. 476-477; 1966 ed., pgs.
526-527)
As with all men, Negroes are the mortal descendants of Adam and
the spirit children of the Eternal Father. They come to earth to
gain mortal bodies and be subject to the probationary experiences of
this present life.
In the providences of the Lord, the gospel and all its attendant
blessings are offered to one nation and people after another. During
Jesus' mortal ministry he and his disciples took the gospel to the
house of Israel only; after his resurrection the word went forth to
the Gentiles also. Those who live when the gospel is not on earth
may receive its blessings in the spirit world after death.
In all past ages and until recent times in this dispensation,
the Lord did not offer the priesthood to the Negroes. However, on
June 1, 1978, in the Salt Lake Temple, in the presence of the First
Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, President Spencer W.
Kimball received a revelation from the Lord directing that the gospel
and the priesthood should now go to all men without reference to race
or color.
This means that worthy males of all races can now receive the
Melchizedek Priesthood, perform ordinances, and hold positions of
presidency and responsibility. It means that members of all races
may now be married in the temple, although interracial marriages are
discouraged by the Brethren, and that the full blessings of the
gospel may be made available to their ancestors through vicarious
temple ordinances. It also means that Negro members of the Church may
now perform missionary service and should bear the burdens of the
kingdom equally with all other members of the Church.
This new revelation is one of the signs of the times. It opens
the door to the spread of the gospel among all people before the
Second Coming in fulfilment of many scriptural promises. It has
been received with joy and rejoicing throughout the Church and is one
of the evidences of the divinity of the Lord's great latter-day work.
(Bruce McConkie, *Mormon Doctrine*, 1979 ed., pgs. 526-527)
Jason Roberts <jkro...@students.wisc.edu.nolongpig> wrote in article
<jkrobert-230...@node031.medadmin.wisc.edu>...
> In article <6k4p2l$h9k$3...@gte2.gte.net>, "Jason R. Smith"
> <coria...@starcomm.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm glad you folks think this is so funny. I think it's kind of sad,
> > especially when I see these black mormons in LDS videos that don't even
> > seem to know that historical and canonized church doctrine leaves no
other
> > option of belief about them except that they are cursed because of
their
> > skin.
>
>
KBPOSTALC9 <kbpos...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199805240727...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Blacks?
>
> JS>From: "Jason R. Smith"
>
> JS>I'm glad you folks think this is so funny. I think it's kind of sad,
> especially when I see these black mormons in LDS videos that don't even
seem to
> know that historical and canonized church doctrine leaves no other option
of
> belief about them except that they are cursed because of their skin.
>
Well Darren Littke has plead guilty and how is his
family is hiding him to prevent him from being
served with a Protective Order.
One must ask themselves if this is acceptable
behaviour for a member of your faith. If anyone
knows the current Bishop or Stake President of
Darren Littke, his father Joseph Littke in Monroe,
Utah or his brother Brett in Provo one might want
to give them a call.
I know too many religion professors that will disagree with you. There is
plenty
of speculation on the issue but we aren't really sure.
One must ask themself is this really a curse as to prior to 1978, blacks
could
be baptized and given the Gift of the Holy Ghost. In Old Testiment times,
only
male members of the Tribe of Judah could hold the priesthood. Did this
damn
the remaining tribes?
I personally believe that everyone is making too much of the issues of the
Blacks and the priesthood. If we worry too much about this issue when we
should be spending more time reading the scriptures, helping the needy,
denying our families of our responsibilities, etc., hold the priesthood or
not
will not be an issue at the judgement day.
There are too many curses that are referenced in the Bible and they are
placed
there as a warning of what could happen. Being an idol people or sins
being
passed down unto the third and fourth generations are potentially as bad
and
could make obtaining exhaltation increasing more difficult than being
denied
the priesthood.
Wayne
--
Jason R. Smith - 1 Peter 3:15
Jason Roberts <jkro...@students.wisc.edu.nolongpig> wrote in article
<jkrobert-250...@t-cssc-4-6-p13.dialup.wisc.edu>...
> In article <6k8klu$bon$2...@gte2.gte.net>, "Jason R. Smith"
> (snip)
>
> Does this mean that you take back the claim that you can show this
alleged
> 'curse' from the scriptural canon? Why not be a man and just say so,
then?
>
> -JR, who tires easily of this stuff.
>
> --
> Welcome to the siege mentality!
> -'Fearful' The Specials
>
It makes no difference at all! If the Latter-day Saints are not christians as
so many claim, then all, black or white should stay away and the doctrine is
moot. If the Gospel has been restored as they claim, then all, black or white,
would be best served by being members thereof, regardless of the doctrine.
For instance Fawn, your personal beliefs or that of any non-LDS organization
you might be a member of are of no consequence to me except perhaps where they
exhibit blatant hypocrisy - which seems to me to be often the case.
--
CharlesH
"... Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." Mark 9:24
It looks like you're left with zipo, flatulence at best.
:I'm glad you folks think this is so funny. I think it's kind of sad,
:especially when I see these black mormons in LDS videos that don't even
:seem to know that historical and canonized church doctrine leaves no
:other option of belief about them except that they are cursed because
:of their skin.
Several ungrounded presumptions here:
(1) That the people in those videos actually don't know the history
involved.
(2) That the "curse of Cain" thing was actually canonized.
(3) That the "curse of Cain" thing has ever actually been doctrine.
(4) That the curse of Cain" thing was based on skin color.
If you can demonstrate how any of these are grounded--particularly (1) and,
almost as interestingly, (2)--i'd appreciate seeing the nature of your
evidence.
David, who thinks JRS needs to lighten up
: What is the Church attitude to Blacks? Well, there are the following:
<snip stuff i can deal with this with reservations>
:THE CHURCH=RANK AND FILE
: Mostly Mormons are apathetic. Some older rural Mormons still believe
:that blacks are inferior, and shouldn't marry whites. However,
:especially among the more educated urban Mormons, they don't mind
:blacks in the Church at all. Some former Baptist white Mormons in the
:South don't like blacks in their wards and branches, but they usually
:keep this to themselves.
Call for evidence. Please note that, as counterevidence, the sociologist
Armand Mauss (actual results available in his book
(The_angel_and_the_beehive_, as well as elsewhere) has found that white
Mormons historically have had a more *positive* view of black Americans than
white Americans generally.
:THE CHURCH=OFFICIAL DOCTRINE
: In the Scriptures of the Church (specifically The Book of Moses and
:The Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price), blacks are considered
:to be the descendants of Cain...
Untrue claim.
:...The doctrine that blacks were "less valiant" in the
:preexistence cannot be found in Mormon scriptures, but in the talks
:given by Mormon prophets and apostles from circa 1852 to about 1950...
None of which square with the Mormon canon, and can therefore be dismissed
as personal opinion.
:...Since then, only
:silence regarding the "less valiant" doctrine (except of course for
:Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie...who wrote *Mormon Doctrine*).
(a) BRM wrote _Mormon_doctrine_ before he was ever called as an apostle.
(b) BRM removed that particular bit from MD, as it was wrong.
(c) MD, despite its title, is not a reliable source for finding Mormons
doctrine. Some have, only half-jokingly, called it +McConkie_doctrine_.
<snip attempt at historical analysis for bandwidth>
:...Rank-and-file Mormons generally
:followed the white American consensus at the time. I would say that
:Mormons usually followed the American Mid-West attitude towards blacks:
:they didn't burn any crosses, but they would still segregate them.
Please note that Armand Mauss's work (referenced above) directly contradicts
your claim--Mauss found that Mormons, including before 1978, were extremely
anti-segregationist. Where is your evidence beyond an attempted proof by
repeated assertion?
<snip what JR already dealt with>
David, who wishes people would stop generalizing from personal opinion
For instance Fawn, your personal beliefs or that of any non-LDS organization
you might be a member of are of no consequence to me except perhaps where they
exhibit blatant hypocrisy - which seems to me to be often the case.
--
CharlesH
"... Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." Mark 9:24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually I thank you for that....one camn tell MUCH about the charcter of a
person by who his enemies are as well as hid friends..and if because Im not
LDS and say what I feel istruth bothers you..I must be doing something right.
FAwn
In article <01bd8814$e9ff7b80$650dfacc@default>,
"Wayne Hamberg" <ham...@fiber.net> wrote:
>
> darr...@hotmail.com wrote in article <6k52qs$6f7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > The black skin is the 'mark' of the curse. They were cursed because
> they
> > were "less valiant" in heaven.
>
> I know too many religion professors that will disagree with you. There is
> plenty
> of speculation on the issue but we aren't really sure.
>
> One must ask themself is this really a curse as to prior to 1978, blacks
> could
> be baptized and given the Gift of the Holy Ghost. In Old Testiment times,
> only
> male members of the Tribe of Judah could hold the priesthood. Did this
> damn
> the remaining tribes?
>
> I personally believe that everyone is making too much of the issues of the
> Blacks and the priesthood. If we worry too much about this issue when we
> should be spending more time reading the scriptures, helping the needy,
> denying our families of our responsibilities, etc., hold the priesthood or
> not
> will not be an issue at the judgement day.
>
> There are too many curses that are referenced in the Bible and they are
> placed
> there as a warning of what could happen. Being an idol people or sins
> being
> passed down unto the third and fourth generations are potentially as bad
> and
> could make obtaining exhaltation increasing more difficult than being
> denied
> the priesthood.
>
> Wayne
>
In 2 Nephi 5:21-23.
>JS>And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel,
>which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be
>scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond
>the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which
>hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and
>idolatry.
>(*Book of Mormon*, Morm. 5:15)
>
>And this mentions _race_ *where*?
2 Nephi 5:21-23.
>Postal
>So easy.
Yup.
Randy J.
>JS>And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel,
>which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be
>scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond
>the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which
>hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and
>idolatry.
>(*Book of Mormon*, Morm. 5:15)
>
>And this mentions _race_ *where*?
2 Nephi 5:21-23.
>Postal
>So easy.
Yup.
Randy J.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<chuckle>..well Ive been good for a whole week now..when do I get to be whiter
and more delightsome!!!!..
Summers is coming and the caramel color get sdarker..DRAT..anyone got any
Clorox so I can bathe in it to get my filthy, loathsome body more
delightsome?..
SHEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fawnie
> True, the "less valiant" teaching was never official
> doctrine, but Church leaders held that opinion UNIVERSALLY!
Call for evidence.
Hey, I'll make it easier for ya. Prove to me that David O McKay, Gordon B.
Hinckley, and Hugh B Brown felt that way.
-JR, noting that there are very few universals, and even fewer UNIVERSALS.
In article <jkrobert-270...@node031.medadmin.wisc.edu>,
J>From: thejo...@aol.com
KB>from: kbpos...@aol.com
KB>>And this mentions _race_ *where*?
J>2 Nephi 5:21-23.
2 Nephi 5:21-23
21 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.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto
thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 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 this mentions _race_ *where*?
Postal
No WONDER the LDS has embraced Adolf Hitler.
Postal,
I cannot respond to this without insulting you, therefore I will refrain. Your
response indicates to me that there is no point in my further corresponding
with you.
Randy J.
<Universal translator>
I can not answer your question. You have demonstrated that I have no
point. I can not admit that I am wrong, therefore I will not respond.
</Universal translator>
-JR, universal grammarian
> Randy J.
Nice try at a dodge, but I am not buying it.
Please be an adult and answer my challenge.
(Trying to learn what the burden of proof is would help you a lot also!)
-JR, wondering which religion DE will be next week.
> Evidence Jason? Okay, read EVERY SINGLE talk or letter from ANY General
> Authority on why blacks were cursed and you will find one of the following:
> 1) the "less valiant" teaching.
> 2) the Curse of Cain teaching without the "less valiant" teaching (but nothing
> refuting the less valiant teaching).
> As far as having something compilied, I suggest *Mormonism and the Negro* by
> Jerald and Sandra Tanner, or *Anti-Black Doctrines* in either *Mormonism,
> Shadow or Reality?* or *The Changing World of Mormonism*. (I'm not endorcing
> many of their conclusions, but they have plenty of quotes and compilations in
> their books). It's ALL there!
> Darrick Evenson
> In article <jkrobert-270...@node031.medadmin.wisc.edu>,
> jkro...@students.wisc.edu.nolongpig (Jason Roberts) wrote:
> > In article <6khj6a$q30$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, darr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > True, the "less valiant" teaching was never official
> > > doctrine, but Church leaders held that opinion UNIVERSALLY!
> > Call for evidence.
> > Hey, I'll make it easier for ya. Prove to me that David O McKay, Gordon B.
> > Hinckley, and Hugh B Brown felt that way.
> > -JR, noting that there are very few universals, and even fewer UNIVERSALS.
> > --
TJ>From: thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6)
TJ>I cannot respond to this without insulting you, therefore I will refrain.
Really? I have been accused by some on a.b.m. of having no backbone, but I
assure you, I am thick-skinned and can deal with any response from you.
One would hope that your insulting response would have a point in relationship
to the issue at hand and would not merely be an ad hominum.
TJ>Your response indicates to me that there is no point in my further
corresponding with you.
Do you have a response to my statement or not? It was always my understanding
that Lehi and his descendants were of the Hebrew race. Weren't they?
Even if I agreed with you that this passage has to do with race, I would
disagree that it has anything to do with racism. It doesn't.
Postal
Who believes God is omnipotent and created humankind with all its wonderful
diversity. That does'nt make God a racist. (Does it?)
In article <jkrobert-280...@node031.medadmin.wisc.edu>,
It sheds some light on circumstances surrounding the 1978 change on blacks and
the priesthood in the LDS church.
pp. 69-72:
The church's concern for positive public opinion has taken numerous forms. The
best example, perhaps, deals with its 1978 decision to admit blacks to the
priesthood. For almost a century and a half people with any known trace of
Negro blood had been denied access to the Temple, to the priesthood, and thus
to full Mormon membership. During the 1960s and the civil rights movement,
this prohibition became a thorn in the side of the church. Two sociologists
note that because of the church's policy on nonwhites,
The late sixties found the Brigham Young University the focal point of militant
protests, boycotts, disrupted games, mass demonstrations, and "riots." At one
point the conflict among schoold within the WAC became so intense that the
conference almost disbanded. Administrators, already embroiled in student
demonstrations over Vietnam, began to separate themselves from the Mormon
school. Stanford University, for instance, severed all relations with Brigham
Young University.
There has been a good deal of debate over the reasons that church president
Kimball announed in 1978 the most significant "revelation" made to modern
Mormonism. Some observers cynically cite it as a political decision made in
response to a cluster of outside pressures on the church: bad publicity from
the media and civil rights organizations, hostility from the liberal white
community, and the ongoing Mormon pursuit of respectability.
In particular the teemendous potential for Third World Mormon growth could not
be realized if the race prohibition stood. This was a point driven home to
church leaders in 1975 after they announced the construction of a new temple in
Sao Paulo, Brazil, the first to be built in South America. The cynical view
holds that the "revelation" to admit blacks was conveniently timed: long enough
after the "cooling down" of the civil rights movement so that it was not
condemned as opportunistic but just ahead of the crest of significant Third
World conversions that the church and other groups, such as the JWs, were
making.
Defenders of the church argue that there was little external pressure on Pres.
Kimball for such a "revelation." The activist phase of the civil rights
movement, for example, had largely subsided by the late 1970s. The defenders'
view holds that the "revelation" cannot be explained away by circumstantial
evidence or the conjecture of adverse public opinion. No specific "smoking
guns" can be produced to link outside influences to the Prophet Kimball's
announcement; hence it is assumed to have come literally through revelation
from God Almighty.
In fact, evidence exists that the church made its much-publicized decision to
admit blacks to the Mormon priesthood after a deliberate, rational
consideration of public opinion, future membership growth, and similar factors.
In 1971 the First Presidency acquired the services of one of America's largest
general management and consulting firms, Cresup, McCormick and Paget (CMP) in
NYC.......On the advice of Mormon corporate advisers, such as J. Willard
Marriott and David Kennedy, LDS Pres Harold B. Lee requested that CMP study how
the church's communications organization could commit resoureces more
efficiently to improve internal communications as well as public relations. No
mention was made in the CMP report of the church's racial policy, but church
leaders seemed interested in applying modern management perspectives to their
own goals and problems........
In 1975 one final CMP study was carried out for the LDS church. This effort
produced the firm's longest report dealing with the role and organization of
the Presiding Bishopric itself, policy positions and administrative procedures,
and other internal matters. Most important, among the recomendations made by
the consulting firm were "a careful review" of certain potentially embarrassing
"doctrinal policies" such as the Negro issue and " a serious reconsideration"
of such policies in light of past public relations problems that they had
caused. The report strongly urged that church leaders reassess the race issue
and its "relevancy" for the future. The problem posed by building a new temple
in Sao Paulo, with a population largely of mixed blood, was specifically
mentioned in this report. Two additional consultants hired for the same
purpose voiced similar concerns about the wisdom of continuing a restriction of
the Mormon priesthood to whites....
Three years later, on June 9, 1978, church authorities announced the
"revelation" rescinding the traditional ban on a black priesthood. The
"revelation" had been preceded by a great deal of prayer, meditation, and
meetings among President Kimball and the Council of the Twelve. Whether one
wants to credit its inspiration to any divine agency is ultimately unimportant.
(Church leaders themselves admitted that the racial issue had been on their
minds for a long time.) What is important is that not long before the church
president's decision (conscious or subconscious) to announce a new racial
policy based on divine "revelation", several professional consulting firms in
which the church had previously demonstrated confidence suggested to church
leaders that they reconsider the status of blacks in the Mormon church as part
of a major overhaul of church policy.....
No other religious group in American society has conducted such a sustained
campaign to gain public respectability, nor has such respectability been so
integral a part of any other group's sense of its own destiny.
Randy J.
> In article <199805302223...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> <snip an intriguing read>
>
> I think that this does pose an interesting option, and certainly a much more
> credible option than threats of a loss of tax-exempt status, etc.
> I, personally, do not see a problem with the LDS church spending much time
> consulting with various PR firms, and with others as well. As mentioned,
> these consultations were not limited to the issue of the priesthood (though
> there was an erroneous claim that the priesthood was limited to whites. In
> actuality, the priesthood was restricted to people of african descent.),
€ Any which way but loose. . In actuality, the LDS church was Anti
"darkie" for 83 years after the Roman Catholic church saw the Light.
Presumably, "God" stopped off in Rome before he got around to visiting
Salt Lake City. If the RC church is one o' them apostate churches, hows
come they get their revelations eight decades before the LDS church?
> though some reports made extensive reports on this issue. Whether the LDS
> church asked specific questions about the issue of blacks (or, more acurately,
> africans) and the priesthood, this is not stated in this passage.
>
> Geoff Matthews, impressed by the refference.
€ which reference?
--
- Rich... - 805-386-3734, ag6k; take away plus from e-mail address
I think that this does pose an interesting option, and certainly a much more
credible option than threats of a loss of tax-exempt status, etc.
I, personally, do not see a problem with the LDS church spending much time
consulting with various PR firms, and with others as well. As mentioned,
these consultations were not limited to the issue of the priesthood (though
there was an erroneous claim that the priesthood was limited to whites. In
actuality, the priesthood was restricted to people of african descent.),
though some reports made extensive reports on this issue. Whether the LDS
church asked specific questions about the issue of blacks (or, more acurately,
africans) and the priesthood, this is not stated in this passage.
Geoff Matthews, impressed by the refference.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
As there are people who are 'black', or of dark skin (ie, people from India
can be very dark), who could hold the priesthood before 1978, I believe that
my point still stands. The issue was concerning those of african descent.
> > though some reports made extensive reports on this issue. Whether the LDS
> > church asked specific questions about the issue of blacks (or, more
acurately,
> > africans) and the priesthood, this is not stated in this passage.
> >
> > Geoff Matthews, impressed by the refference.
>
> € which reference?
The one that Jordan6 (Randy?) posted that I was replying to. It was a bit
long (2 pages in dejanews), so I snipped it, but would encourage you to look
it up. It may give you something else to harp about. <G>
Geoff Matthews
> --
> - Rich... - 805-386-3734, ag6k; take away plus from e-mail address
>