Mormonism and the Free State of Jones

[Alla27]

Hmm. Does crime make a person unfavorable before God?

According to my religion God revealed that He does not favor sin(breaking the law).
Earthly parent is not happy when his/her child disobey.

For sure, we should presume that being black or white or Chinese does not make any difference, though.

I agree. But color of the skin has nothing to do with not having a certain blessing. God takes away blessings for different reasons. Some of them are: 1) to test faith, 2)to punish for breaking the law. It has nothing to do with equality or skin color.

 

[durangodawood]

According to my religion God revealed that He does not favor sin(breaking the law).
Earthly parent is not happy when his/her child disobey.

I agree. But color of the skin has nothing to do with not having a certain blessing. God takes away blessings for different reasons. Some of them are: 1) to test faith, 2)to punish for breaking the law. It has nothing to do with equality or skin color.

Thats the poison idea right there: that you can tell who's "lost a blessing" simply by one's racial identity... which was the situation for blacks in the LDS Church until so late

 

[Alla27]

Thats the poison idea right there: that you can tell who's "lost a blessing" simply by one's racial identity... which was the situation for blacks in the LDS Church until so late

It is the poison when someone says that one race is more superior than another before God. But when God chooses to test one race it is a blessing for that race. Every test of faith is an opportunity for spiritual growth. Every test of faith is like a refining fire. God tests all races. But because all His children are different He gives deferent tests. Each child of God has different talents, different needs. Each child of God is unique.

 

[durangodawood]

It is the poison when someone says that one race is more superior than another before God. But when God chooses to test one race it is a blessing for that race. Every test of faith is an opportunity for spiritual growth. Every test of faith is like a refining fire. God tests all races. But because all His children are different He gives deferent tests. Each child of God has different talents, different needs. Each child of God is unique.

You really want to have it both ways here.
And its not working.
You say:

1. A particular race may be tested as a whole, and therefore every individual of that race may be treated differently than other races by the Church.

2. Each individual is unique, and so presumably should be treated according to their individual merits.

Those are not compatible.

Theologies that judge and treat individuals according to their race have been found immoral, and, typically, revised. LDS was shockingly late to reach that judgement.

 

[Alla27]

You really want to have it both ways here.
And its not working.
You say:
1. A particular race may be tested as a whole, and therefore every individual of that race may be treated differently than other races by the Church
2. Each individual is unique, and so presumably should be treated according to their individual merits.

Yes, each individual is unique. Each individual has unique talents or needs. Each individual makes choices.
This is how it works: each individual has his/her individual trials, tests and blessings according to the works and according to the capacities or faith. But sometimes God can give to one group of people (a family, or descendants of one common ancestor) THE SAME test of faith. Sometimes God can give to ALL His children one test. But each individual will make his or her own choices. God wants to know what those choices will be.
Some will curse God and complain. Some will be strong and pass the test. They will be rewarded accordingly. Every individual fails the test uniquely. Every individual passes the test uniquely. Rewards can be different.

Theologies that judge individuals according to their race have been found immoral, and, typically, revised.

I can agree with that.

LDS was shockingly late to reach that judgement.

No, we never judge people according to their race. God never judges people according to their race. But God judges people according to their works. He tests people(each individual or groups of people) and then judges their choices/works. Some pass the test of faith, some don't.

 

[durangodawood]

....No, we never judge people according to their race. God never judges people according to their race. But God judges people according to their works. He tests people(each individual or groups of people) and then judges their choices/works. Some pass the test of faith, some don't.

The LDS church treated people differently based on their race until 1978.
That's considered immoral, no matter what theology you coat it with.

Only the most morally retrograde institutions clung to that kind of racism for so long.

 

[Rescued One]

Mormon views on race didn't have anything to do with Cain as far as I know. It had something to do with what was supposed to have happened in the pre-existence. But Mormons explicitly prohibited slavery.

No, it was both.

Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7
22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Even native Americans were supposedly cursed with darker skin because of their wickedness:

Book of Mormon, Jacob 3
8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

This may have been a prevailing thought in upstate New York where Joseph Smith grew up. So even though Joseph Smith was opposed to slavery, he included this idea in Mormon scriptures.

 

[Rescued One]

Now let's talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation...

Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them....

The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites[Native Americans] and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there....
Elder Mark E. Petersen, in 1954
http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml

In the early seventies, Mormons still argued that they weren't responsible for Heavenly Father's decision to withhold the Priesthood from dark skinned people of African descent.

 

[fatboys]

The LDS church treated people differently based on their race until 1978.
That's considered immoral, no matter what theology you coat it with.

Only the most morally retrograde institutions clung to that kind of racism for so long.

Which is worse to treat people different because of race or to treat people different because they are different?

 

[durangodawood]

Which is worse to treat people different because of race or to treat people different because they are different?

This could mean many things.
Can you give me an example of what youre talking about? Or be more specific?

 

[fatboys]

This could mean many things.
Can you give me an example of what youre talking about? Or be more specific?

A person doesn't have to have different skin color to be treated differently. For example the Irish or polish or any other group that is different. When people start to point fingers at one group being more racist than another look at how you have treated others during your life. Do you have anything to be ashamed of? LDS denied the blacks the priesthood until 1978. There were reasons but they were never displayed as they were by other Christian churches. Never. LDS never treated them as bad as the Irish were treated. They never treated them as bad as Christian church's treated them. Even those who were against slavery. The church has renounced its stand on the ban so the point is moot.

 

[durangodawood]

A person doesn't have to have different skin color to be treated differently. For example the Irish or polish or any other group that is different. When people start to point fingers at one group being more racist than another look at how you have treated others during your life. Do you have anything to be ashamed of? LDS denied the blacks the priesthood until 1978. There were reasons but they were never displayed as they were by other Christian churches. Never. LDS never treated them as bad as the Irish were treated. They never treated them as bad as Christian church's treated them. Even those who were against slavery. The church has renounced its stand on the ban so the point is moot.

I'm not talking about regular old mormon people. I really dont know if they are more or less racist than average. Nor do I know how much they resisted or accepted the the racist theology that prevailed until 1978. And so, I will assume the best.

Instead, I am talking about the the Church itself. The institution. Its theology.

I know very well that individual people are vulnerable to easy racism, to fears that engender racism, to social pressures that encourage racism. But institutions, otoh, have the luxury of a longer view. They develop policy with deliberation and foresight. And if the result is sickening racism, then the deeper values of the institution and its leaders are revealed.

1978 is so very late for an institution to reject racist ideology. I suspect the leadership is simply old old men, reluctant to let go of past attitudes, and are playing God under threat of wider condemnation from the larger 'outside' culture.

 

[fatboys]

I'm not talking about regular old mormon people. I really dont know if they are more or less racist than average. Nor do I know how much they resisted or accepted the the racist theology that prevailed until 1978. And so, I will assume the best.

Instead, I am talking about the the Church itself. The institution. Its theology.

I know very well that individual people are vulnerable to easy racism, to fears that engender racism, to social pressures that encourage racism. But institutions, otoh, have the luxury of a longer view. They develop policy with deliberation and foresight. And if the result is sickening racism, then the deeper values of the institution and its leaders are revealed.

1978 is so very late for an institution to reject racist ideology. I suspect the leadership is simply old old men, reluctant to let go of past attitudes, and are playing God under threat of wider condemnation from the larger 'outside' culture.

Here is the problem. It may have been racist by one or more leader. There was no revelation on it to deny them the priesthood. It wasn't a doctrine to deny them the priesthood. But we will never know the reason I have speculated myself as to why but in reality the ban only dusted in this life. Brigham Young the prophet who instigated the ban said that they would have as much a chance to reach the highest of Gods blessings and eternal life as anyone else. This life is just a blip on our eternal progression. When the ban was lifted it only gave them access to more blessings. They still would have all the rights and blessings afforded to anyone else of any other color. I am glad the ban was lifted and have been more blessed because of it. The point of harassing Mormons because of the late date doesn't really mean anything. I think part of the reason it wasn't even considered was that the pressure from the world view was against Mormons anyway and this was just way to make Mormons look bad. Nothing was even said about it fifteen years earlier. Other religions thought the negro was a lessor human being when the LDS thought they were no better or worse than anyone else.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I know very well that individual people are vulnerable to easy racism, to fears that engender racism, to social pressures that encourage racism. But institutions, otoh, have the luxury of a longer view. They develop policy with deliberation and foresight. And if the result is sickening racism, then the deeper values of the institution and its leaders are revealed.

Except institutions are made up of individuals, such as Brigham Young and the ban (this was not a decision of God).

1978 is so very late for an institution to reject racist ideology. I suspect the leadership is simply old old men, reluctant to let go of past attitudes, and are playing God under threat of wider condemnation from the larger 'outside' culture.

LDS perspective here-- the ban's creation was the result of human action. It stayed a long time. To make things right, actions was postponed until GOD declared it. Not going to rush into things with what humans think is best.

 

[light upon light]

1978 is way too late in the game for an institution of 'moral authority' to be abandoning racist doctrine.

What I see there is the opposite: moral laggards.

I think someday not too far off we will view religious and political prejudice as just as backwards and benighted as racial prejudice is.

 

[Rescued One]

Here is the problem. It may have been racist by one or more leader. There was no revelation on it to deny them the priesthood. It wasn't a doctrine to deny them the priesthood. But we will never know the reason I have speculated myself as to why but in reality the ban only dusted in this life. Brigham Young the prophet who instigated the ban said that they would have as much a chance to reach the highest of Gods blessings and eternal life as anyone else. This life is just a blip on our eternal progression. When the ban was lifted it only gave them access to more blessings. They still would have all the rights and blessings afforded to anyone else of any other color. I am glad the ban was lifted and have been more blessed because of it. The point of harassing Mormons because of the late date doesn't really mean anything. I think part of the reason it wasn't even considered was that the pressure from the world view was against Mormons anyway and this was just way to make Mormons look bad. Nothing was even said about it fifteen years earlier. Other religions thought the negro was a lessor human being when the LDS thought they were no better or worse than anyone else.

The Bible has no racist verses in it. Any so-called Christian who ever was racist was following the teachings of men instead of God. But your accusation against churches means nothing because racism is not in the Bible. OTOH, the Book of Mormon teaches racism.

 

[fatboys]

The Bible has no racist verses in it. Any so-called Christian who ever was racist was following the teachings of men instead of God. But your accusation against churches means nothing because racism is not in the Bible. OTOH, the Book of Mormon teaches racism.

Give me a break. They had slaves. The Jews would go into an area and kill men women and children. Jesus called the Samaritan woman a dog.

 

[Rescued One]

Give me a break. They had slaves. The Jews would go into an area and kill men women and children. Jesus called the Samaritan woman a dog.

FYI, slaves were not slaves because of their skin color!

Question: "Why did Jesus call the Canaanite woman a dog?"

The exact word Jesus used here, in Greek, was kunarion, meaning “small dog” or “pet dog.” This is a completely different word from the term kuon, used to refer to unspiritual people or to an “unclean” animal.
https://gotquestions.org/Canaanite-woman-dog.html

You need to read the article about why He even used the words “small dog” or “pet dog.”

 

[durangodawood]

I think someday not too far off we will view religious and political prejudice as just as backwards and benighted as racial prejudice is.

Its terrible to judge a person based on their religion, or even their politics, for the most part.

But its fine to judge religious and political institutions, movements, sects, etc.

Wouldnt you agree?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Its terrible to judge a person based on their religion, or even their politics, for the most part.

But its fine to judge religious and political institutions, movements, sects, etc.

Wouldnt you agree?

That is a VERY dangerous game. Political parties / institutions / churches etc are made up of individuals. You can't slap a stereotyping label on one without doing it to the other.