They haven’t been reading the bible. Those would be the Tribes of Isreal, or if you prefer the Hebrew or Jews.
I can safely say I’ve never met any Fundists or Fundies who really believe that whites are God’s chosen people.
And do we really want to talk about religious groups with histories of odd racial beliefs?
In a Mormon-related thread, Ted, that is inevitable.
I’m not aware of ANY religion that was fully integreated prior to the civil rights movement (in the US at least).
If the subject of the thread is a religious group that refused as recently as 1978 to allow blacks full membership, being damned as they are with the Curses of Cain and Ham, we can’t very well avoid it, can we?
Not to take this further afield, but there were comments earlier that the LDS Church isn’t misogynist but merely sexist. I don’t get that - isn’t sexism simply low-grade misogyny? Can you truly, fully love and respect someone on whom you wish to have limitations placed that wouldn’t be placed on you? If not, then what is it?
There are a number of ‘limitations’ I would have placed on those that I love, even if they were not placed on me (as I’m sure there are for you as well). There are no benfits I would restrict from those I loved, but limiting some things; absolutely.
Such as what?
But no other religion, not even Christian Identity, has beliefs about race as, well, odd as those the Mormons (historically) have had.
As far as being ‘racist’.
For me, or for you?
Anything ‘negative’ or undue responsibility (with no additional benefits).
An example; I would hope that no one I loved would ever have to die for their beliefs; in fact if it were in my power I would restirct it fully, even if such restriction were not avalible to me.
What I was saying, as someone raised a conservative Evangelical Protestant, & thus, technically, more or less a “Fundamentalist,” is that it’s an unfair shot at “Fundies” to claim that they’re all racist & sexist.
Unless “Fundamentalist” is to be restricted only to the hardcore legalists who think that however things were done two generations ago was appointed by God Himself.
The Religious Right base includes a lot of Christians–not “Christian Identity”–who are not against Blacks in positions of authority, nor against women in secular authority. Ever hear of Alan Keyes? Where do you think his support comes from?
Then again, I always thought some of those who venerated American tradition of a few generations ago & insisted on only using the King James Version were off the deep end; so I can’t say my family is typical Fundie. Further, my experience with hardcore Protestantism leans slightly toward the charismatic (& those people are big on racially mixed congregations), so I may just be unaware of how racist much of the Bible Belt is. And the sort of relatively non-racist, non-sexist evangelicals I know probably don’t much care about the sectarian theology of someone in purely secular authority. So maybe Mormonism isn’t a greater impediment to getting a nomination than race, Bible Belt-wise. But then again, the Bible Belt ain’t quite what it used to be, & neither is the GOP. If a relatively orthodox Protestant affiliation becomes more important in W. Bush’s America, it could become more important than something as superficial as skin melanin or commonplace as a uterus. But on second thought, I think Mormons, Blacks, & women aren’t as on the outs as some think.
Bah, I think you’re just wrong on all counts.
Excuse me? Full membership was not denied anyone. Get baptized into the LDS Church and you’re a member.
Really? I think my opinion is well-founded; however, I did indicate it as my opinion. Here’s what I based it on: My experience growing up for a portion of my life in the Bible Belt, seeing and hearing how quite a few members of that population act in regards to women or minorities have the gumption to be in charge of something.
Now, I do realize that I’m a tad older now than when I lived there. Maybe things have changed. I’ll tell you when I believe things have changed enough: when a woman or a Mormon runs for president and a huge portion of the Bible Belt vote for that candidate.
Hmm? Do you mean the Methodist Church might become more important than it is now, or the Baptist, or Presbyterian? Or just that belonging to “a relatively orthodox Protestant affiliation” – which has been an important thing throughout American history – might become even more important?
*Every * adult male Mormon is part of the Priesthood, right? If you aren’t a Priest, you aren’t really a *full * member, right? Until 1978, if you were black, QED, right?
Nope. You’re wrong. Every male Mormon is not a member of the Priesthood. Priesthood offices in the Church are just that, anyway, offices. Membership is a different story. One must be a member of the Church first before one can hold an office in the Priesthood.
Think of it like this, Elvis: there are plenty of Catholics, but not so many Catholic priests, right? Are all those lay Catholics not really members of their church?
I’d write more, but we’re getting ready to go to church. Bye.
And I would say female Catholics are full members of the Church, even though they can’t aspire to be priests. (Some Catholic feminists might disagree . . .)
Bad analogy, dangermom. For a Catholic to become a Priest, he must go through years of studying and make many vows, including celibacy. Many do not continue and do not receive the Priesthood. A Catholic Priest is better likened to a Bishop in the LDS church, the spiritual leader of a congregation.
A Mormon Priesthood holder, however, has to be a member of record in the church, a minimum of 12 years old, male, and judged to be worthy by advanced Priesthood holders after interviews. Virtually none are rejected.
If you were to compare the number of male non-priesthood holders that are active members vs. the number of active member male priesthood holders in the LDS church, you’d probably (WAG coming here - I admit it) have a ratio of 10,000 to 1 or more in favor of the priesthood holders, while in the Catholic Church that number would probably be reversed.
Absolutely correct. However, prior to 1978, to receive the full blessings of the LDS church, eventually leading to full exaltation in God’s presence, you could not be of African ancestry (i.e. black). African ancestry males could be members of the church, but could not hold the priesthood that practically every non-black male over the age of 12 could obtain. The church taught prior to 1978 that blacks could not participate in the LDS temples, and when they died, would not obtain the highest level of exaltation available to non-black members.
To their credit, the LDS church renounced this doctrine in 1978. But vestiges of this doctrine remain, including in the Book of Mormon, where it states that white people are delightsome, and black people are not “enticing” and “loathsome” to the Lord’s chosen people, and they are forbidden to “mix their seed” with the loathsome black people. (2 Nephi 5:21-23)
And that will be a problem of any member of the LDS church that seeks public office. The racism of the church in the past, even the recent past, will hang over them for a long, long time.