- Mar 18, 2003
- 47,493
- 27,114
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
The Mormon Churchs own longstanding priesthood ban was, according to Bott, not racist. Rather, it was a blessing. Prior to 1978, blacks werent spiritually mature enough to be ordained with such authority. Bott compared blacks to a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her fathers car, and told Horowitz that misusing priesthood authoritylike crashing dads Oldsmobilecould have put blacks in the lowest rungs of hell, reserved for serial killers, child rapists, world-class tyrants, and people who abuse their priesthood powers.
On Wednesday, Bott apologized to his students for the uproar. He also claimed that he had been misquoted. Yet he provided similar justification for the priesthood ban in a blog post from 2008 that was only taken down after this weeks story broke.
"and this is why Ham was cursed."
Except, of course that Ham WASN'T "Cursed" - his SON was.
so it wasn't a mormon teaching!!!
But let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332
When Mormon missionaries come to the door of literally thousands of potential converts they will assure the unsuspecting that they represent "Jesus Christ" and are preaching His Gospel. However, that is not the case on many accounts. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) cannot escape their racist past. For nearly 150 years, the Mormon Church had taught that ALL blacks were cursed. Hence, a black Mormon male could not hold the highly regarded LDS Priesthood1 because of his dark skin. And since he could not hold this Priesthood, he could not enter the Mormon Temple. This doctrine in no way, shape, or form can be substantiated in Scripture. Only in the LDS scriptures does this racist doctrine exist.
To determine official LDS doctrine from unofficial speculation let us read the statements that were made by the General Authorities of the LDS Church as well as citations from the LDS "standard works." So then, official LDS teaching cannot be evaded or denied as many Mormons (especially uninformed missionaries) often do.
Tenth President Joseph Fielding Smith explains:
There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there [pre-existence] received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less. . . . There were no neutrals in the war in Heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 65-66; emphasis added).
LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie furthers this teaching:
Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions impose on them during mortality are known to us as the 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 Able being a black skin. . . . Noah's son married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood. . . . the negro are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concern. . . . " (Mormon Doctrine, 527-28; 1966 orig. ed., changed in the current ed.; emphasis added).
My personal view is that the ban was in place because of the racism in the world, not because of the Church, and the ban was lifted when the racism against the black African finally for the most part ended. Is it really coincidence that it ended the moment America and other nations became less intolerant? Nope. The Priesthood of God is not to be mocked. A man still under slavery and the remnants of it simply could not be given the Priesthood.
and here is the rest...
Is this Christian? Did Jesus or the Apostles teach prejudice on the basis of skin color? These racist teachings, which were clearly taught by the leaders of the Mormon Church, echo those of the Skinhead, K.K.K. and other destructive groups. This, is not Christianity:
Then Peter open his mouth, and said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34; emphasis added)
God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean (ibid., 10:28)
Let us conclude by examining the LDS scriptures, which indicates plainly that dark skin was a sign of Gods curse:
The truth is: Mormonism does not represent Jesus Christ or His Church. The LDS teachings of the "Negro" are not consistent with, as well as, contradict Scripture.
In 1978, the LDS god changes his Mind
Because of this racist teaching, the LDS Church was under enormous political pressure. Hence, June 8, 1978, LDS President, Spencer W. Kimball, after spending many hours in the "Upper Room" of the LDS Temple, claimed that God had removed the curse. All worthy black men could now receive the Priesthood.
This, was a major doctrinal change. Mormons will usually argue: "But it was said that eventually the curse would be removed." However, this assertion cannot be found before 1978. Therefore, we will again, appeal to the official teachings of the LDS General Authorities. What the LDS General Authorities did teach was that the curse would not be removed in this life. LDS Prophet Brigham Young explains, under, so-called, divine revelation:2
Young declared:
I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of man, that they may not call Scripture (ibid., 13:95).
As observed, and with most non-Christian cults, the god of Mormonism is a changing god. It changes its mind. The God of the Bible does not change:
"For I am the LORD, I change not. . . ." (Mal. 3:6).
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou are the same, and thy years shall have no end (Ps. 102:25-27).
Even the Book of Mormon agrees with this point:
Now, the decrees of God are unalterable. . . . (Alma 41:8).3
In the end, Mormons reject the words of the Lord Jesus Christ: Preach the Gospel to all nations (cf. Matt. 28:19-20), thus "all nations" certainly includes Africa.
a skin of blackness
is what the text says. I quoted the text from the LDS site. How is that perverting their scripture?
You make a false accusation.
how does a revelation from God change full circle??
"Skin" is the BOM's version of "spirit/countenance", also known as GARMENT, ROBE, etc.... Robes of righteousness, of darkness, etc.
It is YOU who make the false accusation by perverting our scripture to say something it's not saying.
Read what the BIBLE itself say's, identifying skins, garments, etc. in relation to righteousness, spirit, countenance, etc.
Job 7:5
5 My flesh is clothed with worms and clods of dust; my skin is broken, and become loathsome.
Job 30:30
30 My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.
Genesis 3:21
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Exodus 22:27
27 For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.
Exodus 34:29
29 ¶And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses’ hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
Exodus 34:30
30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
Exodus 34:35
35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone: and Moses put the veil upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.
Jeremiah 13:
22 ¶And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare.
23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
24 Therefore will I scatter them as the stubble that passeth away by the wind of the wilderness.
25 This is thy lot, the portion of thy measures from me, saith the Lord; because thou hast forgotten me, and trusted in falsehood.
26 Therefore will I discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear.
Lamentations 4:
7 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:
8 Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick.
-------
Anything look familiar, especially the last, compared to the BOM? haa haa
"Skin" is the BOM's version of "spirit/countenance", also known as GARMENT, ROBE, etc.... Robes of righteousness, of darkness, etc.
It is YOU who make the false accusation by perverting our scripture to say something it's not saying.
Read what the BIBLE itself say's, identifying skins, garments, etc. in relation to righteousness, spirit, countenance, etc.
Job 7:5
5 My flesh is clothed with worms and clods of dust; my skin is broken, and become loathsome.
Job 30:30
30 My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.
Genesis 3:21
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Exodus 22:27
27 For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.
Exodus 34:29
29 ¶And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
Exodus 34:30
30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
Exodus 34:35
35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses face shone: and Moses put the veil upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.
Jeremiah 13:
22 ¶And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare.
23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
24 Therefore will I scatter them as the stubble that passeth away by the wind of the wilderness.
25 This is thy lot, the portion of thy measures from me, saith the Lord; because thou hast forgotten me, and trusted in falsehood.
26 Therefore will I discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear.
Lamentations 4:
7 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:
8 Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick.
-------
Anything look familiar, especially the last, compared to the BOM? haa haa
So in 2 Nephi 5:21 God did not change the actual color of the epidermis of those being cursed?
Do you really think this that interpretation fits the context of that passage?
Were the coats of skins (Gen 3:21) other than the epidermis/pelts of animals?
Your response really does not make your point.
Are the spots of leopards something other than contrasting pigmentation on the epidermis of leopards? Or do leopards have spotted countenances?
Is this approach the conclusion of a scriptorian?
I see this. Skin can be taken different ways.
I grant that, but the issue is how it is used in 2 Nephi 5:21.
That the word "wave" can refer to a hair curl does not show that a surfer looking for a wave is looking a hairdoos.
In 2 Nephi 5:21 the word "skin" is referring to the epidermis.
These waves are neither hair nor surf.
I grant that, but the issue is how it is used in 2 Nephi 5:21.
That the word "wave" can refer to a hair curl does not show that a surfer looking for a wave is looking a hairdoos.
In 2 Nephi 5:21 the word "skin" is referring to the epidermis.
These waves are neither hair nor surf.
And you could be right. Nephi MAY have been talking of skin color. The LDS doesn't see it that way, though. Did you read the whole book of Nephi, to get an idea of how he communicates his scripture, or did you use a part that jumped out at you from someone's study?
Christians do the same thing with the Bible. Find something that is a contradiction and it isn't a contradiction to them because "Gods word" never contradicts itself. Is the problem blind Christians or that the Bible is not "Gods word"?
if the LDS don't see it that way why did they not allow blacks in to the mormons untill 1978???? was it there own prejudices???