• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Does the bible ever declare that being black is a curse from God??

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by peebly63, Apr 18, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. drstevej

    drstevej Light Attracts Bugs Staff Member Chaplain Supporter

    +23,545
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Are the quotes accurate?
     
  2. Ran77

    Ran77 Senior Contributor

    +216
    Mormon
    Married
    McConkie also stated this:

    "There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things… All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles."


    Here is my source for the information. It has several interesting views on the topic.

    Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Double standard - FAIRMormon


    :)
     
  3. drstevej

    drstevej Light Attracts Bugs Staff Member Chaplain Supporter

    +23,545
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Is Mormonism Still Racist?
    Comments from a BYU professor stir up a troubling past.
    By Max Perry Mueller|Posted Friday, March 2, 2012, at 8:30 AM

    Interesting article in light of the thread topic.
     
  4. 2ducklow

    2ducklow angel duck

    +96
    Married
    I use to hear that years ago that blacks were cursed by God because one of the sons of Noah who was supposedly black had homosexual relationships with his Father. But that was back in the days when I went to an all white church.. I haven't heard that claim in a long time. I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. It seemed to me at the time to be way to far fetched.
     
  5. Bob Carabbio

    Bob Carabbio Old guy -

    +200
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    US-Others
    "and this is why Ham was cursed."

    Except, of course that Ham WASN'T "Cursed" - his SON was.
     
  6. drstevej

    drstevej Light Attracts Bugs Staff Member Chaplain Supporter

    +23,545
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican

    Ham isn't Kosher so it is kinda cursed.....
     
  7. williamgramsmith

    williamgramsmith Active Member

    837
    +7
    Mormon
    Private
    Black is being used here to symbolize ones spirit going from LIGHT to DARKNESS.
    Are you really that clueless?


    Utterly false....

    "Blacks" were not cursed, and "blacks" were not denied the Priesthood.
    Those of African Lineage were. Blacks of several different races were given the Priesthood, and the curse was not black skin, it was being denied the Priesthood.

    Ya, let's do a little bearing false witness of those mormons.

    It is true that it is a doctrine that were we end up, depends on our Pre-Mortal life, but note even what he states, he doesn''t state this is "doctrine", he states it's his OPINION by stating "evidently". This was an OPINION by some in the Church for WHY God had denied the African Lineage the Priesthood, but it was never DOCTRINE of the Church.

    Do you even know that the creator of the book and movie ROOTS, both honored and was honored by the Church before the Church I believe at BYU? Was he an Uncle Tom in your mind to those racist Mormons? This was PRE-1978 ban lifting.

    Again, his opinion. Further, your quote mine is lovely, but it omits some important information in that section you quote from, such as these statements.

    "President Brigham Young and others have taught that in the future eternity worthy and qualified negroes will receive the priesthood and every gospel blessing available to any man."

    "The principle is the same as will apply when all men are judged according to their mortal works and are awarded varying statuses in the life herafter."

    "Certainly the negroes as children of God are entitled to equality before the law and to be treated with all the dignity and respect of any member of the human race. Many of them certainly live according to higher standards of decency and right in this life than do some of their brothers of other races, a situation that will cause judgment to be laid "to the line, and righteousness to the plummet" (Isa. 28:17) in the day of judgment.

    Anyway, blah blah blah, you go on to quote mine various statements most out of their context making them to say things they were not saying, etc. And yes, some are also accurate, but simply wrong.

    It's really sad to see people simply believe "propaganda" against another religion, without actually trying to understand and read the context of those statements. Of course, LDS has never claimed that we were free from wrong statements, the rare racist or ethno-centrist, but the misrepresentation here is not of truth. Further, many of the statements are not even doctrine, nor ever were. The only doctrine was simply that the Priesthood has been restricted at times, and the policy of the time according to a common interpretation of scripture that those of African Lineage were not to yet have the Priesthood.

    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.
     
  8. Ran77

    Ran77 Senior Contributor

    +216
    Mormon
    Married

    That has been my view too. Our critics seem to want to ignore that at least one black member was given the priesthood by Joseph Smith. Maybe Joseph had too cheery of a disposition and didn't think of the ramifications such an action could have in a racist America.


    :)
     
  9. williamgramsmith

    williamgramsmith Active Member

    837
    +7
    Mormon
    Private
    Christ most certainly DID preach prejudice based on LINEAGE, which is what the ban applied to, not "skin" color as your propaganda quote mined article claims. How was Christ commanding that the Gospel was ONLY to be preached to the Jew not "prejudice" by your standard being applied to us?

    You need to read MORE of our leaders words, not just the most negative things you can quote mine.

    Further, if anything "echo's" the KKK, and otherwise it's those who write these falsely representing articles against Mormonism. THAT is what is not "Christianity" as Christ said in Mark 9, Luke 9, and Matthew 18.

    And when did Peter actually say this? Wasn't it AFTER Peter got the revelation to take the Gospel finally to the "outsiders" the Gentiles?

    All of your scripture quotes do nothing but identify the "countenance" and "spirit" as being dark, black, etc., nothing different than the Bible does.

    Watch these videos and learn what the Bible actually states on the matter.

    Black & White Skins in Light of Ancient Garment Color Symbolism in Book of Mormon #1 - YouTube

    Miss-representing Mormonism does not represent Jesus Christ or His Church.
    Miss-representing LDS scripture and that we do not contradict scripture is also not consistent with scripture.

    Actually the Church at the time was under ZERO political pressure.
    There was some yes about 10 years before, but not since almost at all.
    This is a falsehood, and not a single person who makes this claim has provided "facts" to sustain it. It's a false assertion based on "belief", rather than reality.

    Now, anyone that is sound and moral mind who reads this, should call into question ENTIRELY the intellectual and moral integrity of the person writing this. Anyone that has even a basic understanding of LDS history knows this would be completely false. Note how most of our enemy's say this?

    Fellow Christians, follow not false prophets....

    And anyone that knows scripture knows that not every word in it is "doctrine" of God, nor is every word by a Prophet/Apostle is "doctrine" of God.

    Hypocritical standard, to use this against the Church.

    Brigham said other things which clearly debunk the "implication" this enemy of the Church is trying to make.

    Yet, strange that God "changed" when he brought the Gospel of Christ, changing multiple practices. Sure, doctrines don't change, and they haven't in Mormonism, only certain practices have.

    Note also, the only "changes" that have occurred in Mormonism are the same exact kinds of changes that have occurred in the Bible. Levites only having the Priesthood, new offices of Apostles, Plural Marriage, given, and taken away. These are the ONLY changes that have occurred in Mormonism. Weird.... The SAME EXACT changes occurred in the Bible at various points.

    Yet, Christ took his time until AFTER his death to command Peter (odd by Revelation even) to THEN take the Gospel to the Gentiles, and not Jew only. Clearly God had his purposes to withhold the Priesthood for a time from those of African Lineage. Anyone knowing race relations in recent history since the Church was established shouldn't be "surprised" of why this occurred.
     
  10. williamgramsmith

    williamgramsmith Active Member

    837
    +7
    Mormon
    Private
    "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
     
  11. peebly63

    peebly63 Well-Known Member

    +9
    Christian
    Married
    how does a revelation from God change full circle??
     
  12. williamgramsmith

    williamgramsmith Active Member

    837
    +7
    Mormon
    Private
    And what revelation is that? There are none for which that occurs.
    And anything you can point too is no different than anything done as recorded in the Bible.

    I suspect the problem you are running into is your understanding of an issue, not the issue itself.

    Jews would say Jesus wasn't "really" the "Christ" prophesied. Are they correct?
    Jews would say that Christianity has completely "changed" the Word of God and Law. Are they correct?
    Your uninformed interpretations of us are no different.

    But, I'll be happy to answer your question/straw-man. Give me an example and I will correct your judgment.
     
  13. drstevej

    drstevej Light Attracts Bugs Staff Member Chaplain Supporter

    +23,545
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    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?

    :confused::confused::confused:
     
  14. Phantasman

    Phantasman Newbie

    +200
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    I see this. Skin can be taken different ways. A covering, the organ itself, a container, etc. If skin can only be used where it benefits an argument, then we can say the same with "wine" and "spirit", for example. Did Jesus turn water to alcoholic wine? It is why I have trouble taking words literally in the Bible (or any scripture), because the translation cannot be taken clearly one way.

    If one doesn't like alcohol, then Jesus turned the water into grape juice. I believe that because it was a festive occasion, it did contain alcohol. If the event (wedding) wasn't mentioned, then it might have been grape juice. But the added information helps me to see how to define "wine" in that scripture. I can also see how "black skin" can be taken as just a negative. A verse almost has to say something like "he turned their skin black and they had to live among those who continued to be of white skin" before I take something literally.
     
  15. peebly63

    peebly63 Well-Known Member

    +9
    Christian
    Married
    if it was a referral to spirit, why were blacks not allowed in the mormon church till 1978, are you saying it took all those years to work out skin meant spirit...^_^
     
  16. drstevej

    drstevej Light Attracts Bugs Staff Member Chaplain Supporter

    +23,545
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    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.

    :wave::wave::wave: These waves are neither hair nor surf.
     
  17. peebly63

    peebly63 Well-Known Member

    +9
    Christian
    Married

    :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::amen::clap::clap::clap::clap:
     
  18. Phantasman

    Phantasman Newbie

    +200
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    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"?
     
  19. peebly63

    peebly63 Well-Known Member

    +9
    Christian
    Married
    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???
     
  20. drstevej

    drstevej Light Attracts Bugs Staff Member Chaplain Supporter

    +23,545
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican

    Actually the issue was allowing black males to be LDS priests.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...