It was subtle enough that I missed it, partly because I just skimmed most of the page and partly I guess because I associate that sentiment with fundies, not traditional churches. But if the cardinal thinks religious freedom is America’s most cherished liberty, he has some serious re-prioritizing to do.
It’s enshrined in the First Amendment. But yes, Dolan used his congratulations to repeat some bullshit Romney and Ryan touted on the campaign trail. Of course more Catholics voted for Obama than for Romney anyway, to say nothing of how New York Catholics probably voted.
This may come as a shock to many, but April R’s claim is easily disprovenusing a simple Google search.
[bolding mine]
Ouch. To me, that is really the unsalvageable problem of the Book of Mormon. We can nitpick the hundreds of anachronisms, DNA evidence, plagiarism, but even if all those problems magically went away, the basic theme of the book is: bad people have their skin turned dark by God. Over and over, this happens. It’s hard to see it in the 21st century as anything BUT sad, misguided 19th century racism in faux-scriptural form.
Yes, but as April R is kind enough to point out, it doesn’t say “black”. (It says “skin of blackness”.) And it doesn’t say “punishment”. (It says “a sore cursing because of their iniquity” in which they become “loathsome” to the “white and delightsome” good people.)
you didn’t have to do a google search to get that scripture, it’s in the BOM. However the interpretation of that verse varies and my interpretation isn’t any less valid than yours. Mine is however, less racist. The curse was separation from God, the mark was the darkened skin but the curse was not the skin color it was the rejection of God and the consequences of that rejection, but they were not black as you define black. How many Native Americans are “black?”
Plus the BOM also teaches in Jacob 3:9
So before you start criticizing religion or Mormons or whoever you think is filthy or because you don’t agree with them maybe you should look at yourself first and recognize your own filthiness.
So the fact that black people couldn’t hold the priesthood - which meant they essentially couldn’t be Mormons - is a coincidence and is not related to that passage?
I already linked to a website run by black Mormons to help answer any questions you may have about that. It’s up thread somewhere. I don’t feel as qualified to answer those things as a black Mormon would be since it affects them much more than it affects me personally. So you can look at that site.
here it is http://www.blacklds.org/
Or people could automatically dismiss them just because they are Mormon, which seems to be the theme in this thread so far.
Yes, my link points to the latest version of the BOM at Scriptures – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Your interpretation was “no mention of turning them black.” Your statement was either ignorant or dishonest. It was trivially easy to find the “mention of turning them black.” Yours was not only a less “valid” interpretation, it is objectively false.
“Blackness” was Joseph Smith’s choice of words (or Nephi’s, if you believe such a person existed). If you don’t think it’s an appropriate word to describe the Lamanites, that’s Smith’s problem not mine.
Yeah, that’s really kind. I suggest you go visit some Lamanites and tell them that you don’t revile against their loathsomeness, because it’s really the Lord God making them filthy because their fathers were filthy. What a beautiful book.
The Book of Mormon is filthy, and you are defending it by pretending that it doesn’t say what it clearly says. “No mention of turning them black” bullshit. I’ve never said or done anything “filthy” on the level of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. If you’re going to call me filthy, cite your sources.
I’m not sure how this is supposed to answer the question I asked you.* The Book of Mormon says dark skin is a sign of a curse from God. Are you saying this is not connected related to the fact that black men couldn’t hold the priesthood until 1978? I’m not sure if that is actually within your own lifetime, but if not, it’s close.
*Although of course it confirms exactly what I said: “1978: Revelation on Priesthood gives the priesthood to all worthy men regardless of color.” Before that, there were about five black American guys ordained - one of Joseph Smith’s first supporters and his son and grandson were three of those - and Mormon denominations in the Philippines and Fiji wised up decades before the mainstream church did.
And are you sure that’s the position you want to take? Verse 23 says that half-black children are also “cursed”. Does that mean that the children appear black, or does that mean that that the children are rejected by God? Clearly the “loathsome” black skin is the curse.
If the American people had understood the unique version of North American history, temple garments, blood oaths, veils, ritual handshakes and other aspects peculiar to the LDS religion do you think they would have still voted for Romney? It’s to Obama’s credit that his campaign never strayed into these topics. I wonder if he would have gone there if his opponent was a Scientologist?
Well, I’m guessing April R can’t answer your question because she simply doesn’t know. She has said that she’s a convert to Mormonism and has repeatedly argued things that simply aren’t true. I do feel bad for her; God knows the missionaries don’t tell you any of the dirt when you convert.
But to answer your question, no, the priesthood ban did NOT result from the Book of Mormon. Native Americans were allowed to have the priesthood and there was even a really fucked up system where Native American kids were yanked out of their homes and fostered for a time with white Mormon families. There was even one Native American General Authority in 1975, three years before African Americans were allowed to have the priesthood.
Basically, black people were denied the priesthood because of the Bible (Cain and Ham) and Brigham Young’s boisterous, vile, and overwhelming racism. Native Americans were seen as wayward Jews, who could reclaim their heritage by converting “back” to Mormonism. Actually, the Mormon leadership even taught that native Americans would turn white after converting!!! I mean, just wow.
Woah, slow down. I was saying that blackness doesn’t necessarily mean looking like someone from Africa. Black can just mean darker skin color. Most of my friends who are black aren’t the color of coal. Black can mean a number of things, so chill out. Also, I was saying in reference to that scripture that before one casts dispersion on others they should look to themselves first. You can substitute filthy for sinful, judgmental, egotistical, narrow minded, whatever. The point is, I see a lot of criticism being thrown around about Mormons but no self reflection going on about your won short comings. Glass houses and all that. It’s easy to criticize others because you don’t have to reflect on yourself while you are doing it.
and Marley, just search the site. I am sure since that is a often asked question they address it somewhere. And if not, you can go to mormon.org and go to the chat with us link and ask people a little more knowledgeable and able to put things more coherently than I can and maybe post their answer here for us to critique.
http://mormon.org/chat
Do you think that applies anymore or are you just digging for things to be angry about? One of the first black men in the Church to get sealed in the temple to his wife married a non-black woman.
I don’t think Obama would have gone there despite his opponents religion no matter what it was. He is too classy for that.
Thanks, but I don’t need you feeling sorry for me. I feel bad you feel the need to make people who remain in the Church feel bad. I think I remember you saying you are an Ex-Mo. I respect your decision if that is true, but it is neither an ex-mo’s place to try and make others leave because they did nor do I have to tolerate it when someone actively works against what I believe in. Just like an ex-mo doesn’t want me imposing my beliefs on them, I don’t want or need them impose their non-belief on me.
Honestly, I couldn’t care less whether you believe or not. I’m trying my hardest to put accurate information in the hands of those who want it (people like Marley). You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts or entitled to spread false information online. I don’t think you are doing anything malicious or on purpose, but it is important to me to clarify anything incorrect about Mormonism, good or bad, on this site.
I don’t think I have said anything false. Maybe unclear, but not false. I try to find resources which back up what I am saying, but most get dismissed as apologetics or simply wrong because they are directly from a Mormon source. I can’t fight blanket dismissal of what I am saying, so I try my best. I have already admitted in past threads that I have a lot to learn about the Church and I enjoy learning more all the time, but anyone can put a spin on anything to make it fit what they want to believe or think, even “facts.”
I am surprised this thread has gone on for 7 pages, I would have thought people would have gotten tried of discussing the Church by now. There are more important issues to debate other than if one agrees with Mormonism or not. I personally say let it be, believe what you want. It doesn’t matter what I or anyone in the Church has to say if all one wants to do is debate. Honest inquiry and sincere desire to discuss is fine, but I rarely come across that online. In person people are great to talk to, and we have fantastic conversations about faith and belief and it’s enlightening. But online it just seems to be easier to be mean and hateful. I guess it’s the nature of the internet. It’s less important to be civil on a message board than it is IRL.
That would make sense if you were the only one who read and responded in this thread, but you are not. “Ex-mos” have just as much right to post what they believe to be the truth of the matter as you do. So far in this thread all the evidence has seems to be one sided, but if got any counter-evidence(and not just reinterpretations of what seem to be clear-cut verses) I would love to see it. Fossil records, archeological digs, genetic matches, etc.-if you’ve got any hard evidence to counter all that we’ve seen so far, please throw it out for all to see.