LDS Is Jesus White?

[Rescued One]

As Devin said earlier:

2 Nephi 5:21
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

In 1981, a change was made to the Book of Mormon:
2 Nephi 30:6 "...they shall be a white and a delightsome people" was changed to read "they shall be a pure and a delightsome people."

More information:

Book of Moses (Pearl of Great Price)
". . . there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people . . . (Moses 7:8)."

"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 (Moses 7:22)."

Book of Abraham (Pearl of Great Price)
". . . from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land (Abraham 1:24)."

"Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, . . . Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, . . . but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
"Now, Pharaoh being of the lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, . . . (Abraham 1:26-27)."


Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin....
Mark E. Petersen

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. 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 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, Vol.1, p. 66-67

Skin color was considered an indication of a person's righteousness prior to being sent to earth. Even Mormon Boy Scouts are taught to earn their merit badges.

Doctrine and Covenants 130
20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Did you have to study "Heart of Darkness" in school?

I did, and a major recurring theme of the book is the author inverting "white = pure, black = impure". That's when I first became aware of the usage back in the 1800s.

The 1800s as in 1899, when "Heart of Darkness" was published? A vague, non-specific reference to a book 70 years after JS allegedly translated the BOM makes it a "common usage"? For obvious reasons, JS could not have known about "Heart of Darkness", so you'll have to come up with something a little more time period relevant to even have a chance at supporting your claim of "common usage".

Speaking of translation, what was the process again? Oh yeah, JS looked at a couple of rocks in a hat and supposedly couldn't move on without confirming that what was written down was what your god had intended to be written. Given that, your explanation doesn't hold water.

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm...one wonders why Conrad didn't title his book "Heart of Blackness", then. This would more closely mirror the BOM usage, since after all it says "skin of blackness", not "skin of darkness" (though that is the common apologetic reply: "it just meant darker than the surrounding people!" I assume Mormons have to say this sort of thing, since it's obvious that Native Americans aren't black people).

p.s. The very phrase "heart of darkness", though it is in any case not literal (it's been years since I've read the book, but I seem to remember it being about the madness and despair in the heart of the protagonist), even if it were taken literally could not be seen in the same light as a skin of blackness...especially if we take into account the apologetic answer that this was done so as to keep the two sides apart from each other by sight -- it would therefore have to be visible, which having a 'dark heart' would not be. There's simply no way to get around the BOM text specifying that it was a skin of blackness, even if we take black to mean 'dark' or (as ironhold would now have it) 'impure'.

I'm not sure how you'd have a 'skin of impurity', but whatever...that's thing number 500,963,491,312 that doesn't make sense at all about Mormonism, then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Peter1000]

He's white in paintings and icons made by white people or in cultures that were heavily impacted by the cultures of white people. In other places, He's other hues:

(Indian/Syriac)

(Ethiopian)

(Coptic/Egyptian, from the monastery of Abba Apollo, 6th-7th century)

dzheremi says:

Following this, I would imagine that if Mormonism has any teaching on Jesus being white, it's probably because Mormonism is a religion founded by and for white people.

I was going to read a few of these posts and pass on the discussion until I came to this gem.

The Church of Jesus Christ is a world-wide church, putting its arms around all races and all cultures, and all colors and all peoples. So to make a statement like that is to ignore everything that is in plain sight and spread a blatant falsehood that you personally know is false.[/QUOTE]

 

[dzheremi]

The Church of Jesus Christ is a world-wide church, putting its arms around all races and all cultures, and all colors and all peoples.

...since 1978.

Sort of.

So to make a statement like that is to ignore everything that is in plain sight and spread a blatant falsehood that you personally know is false.

It's not false, though. What your leaders did (and what some of you still try to do here) -- lying about why it was there or trying to explain it away by claiming "Well everyone was racist back then" -- that's what is really false.

 

[dzheremi]

Some things for the thread in general to consider regarding Mormonism and racism:

Yes, the first one is quite long, and the Brother Jake one is very satirical (lest it be lost on anyone here, Brother Jake is an ex-Mormon), but they are all worth watching and considering, assuming you're not the type to simply see anything critical as inherently anti-Mormon.

(p.s. If it's anti-Mormon to stand up to racist garbage, shouldn't all good Mormons be anti-Mormon?)

 

[timothyu]

I liked Andy Williams

 

[Peter1000]

...since 1978.

Sort of.

It's not false, though. What your leaders did (and what some of you still try to do here) -- lying about why it was there or trying to explain it away by claiming "Well everyone was racist back then" -- that's what is really false.

I am not trying to explain anything. I am saying that for 40 years the Lord, through our prophets have maintained that all men who are worthy to hold the priesthood of God may do so. This means what I said, we put our arms around all people and welcome all people, and have pretty much done that throughout our history. (I am sure you will disagree with that, but it does not matter)

We are not talking about back then, you blatantly want to smear and find fault, and that is what you focus on. Why don't you say, you know, the Mormons made some mistakes in this area (which all religions, and religious people share the shame) but then in 1978 they made a direct turn for the good, and now there are 10 full functioning temples in Africa, and it is one of the fastest growing population centers for the church today. They are really making up for their past mistake.

IOW tell the whole story, and the whole truth, or is that puffing up the Mormon church, and that is just too much for you.

 

[dzheremi]

I am not trying to explain anything. I am saying that for 40 years the Lord, through our prophets have maintained that all men who are worthy to hold the priesthood of God may do so.

Yes...as opposed to the 2,000 years that this has been the case in Christianity, with 1,600+ years of Christianity in Ethiopia; 1,900+ years of Christianity in Egypt; 1,800+ years of Christianity in Sudan, etc. all bearing witness.

This means what I said, we put our arms around all people and welcome all people, and have pretty much done that throughout our history. (I am sure you will disagree with that, but it does not matter)

How can you realistically claim that when you just wrote that it's only been 40 years since your prophets have declared that all are worthy of the priesthood? Is the Mormon religion now only 41 years old? Did it start in 1978?

We are not talking about back then

Well I am.

you blatantly want to smear and find fault, and that is what you focus on.

No, I want you and everyone in the thread to focus on the reality of what this is and what it meant for over 100 years in the Mormon religion, which is itself not even 200 years old yet, so we can say without 'smearing' anyone that it remained this way for over half its history.

Look at it honestly and don't turn away from it because it makes you (rightly) uncomfortable or upset.

Why don't you say, you know, the Mormons made some mistakes in this area (which all religions, and religious people share the shame) but then in 1978 they made a direct turn for the good, and now there are 10 full functioning temples in Africa, and it is one of the fastest growing population centers for the church today. They are really making up for their past mistake.

Excuse me, I refuse to share in the shame of an organization that I don't belong to. I'm not a Mormon, and my Church's leaders have never banned black people from positions of authority. If we didn't want that, then HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic wouldn't have sent the first bishops to Nubia in the 340s, some 1,600+ years before 1978, or to Axum around the same time after the death of St. Frumentius who had converted the Axumite king 'Ezana c. 330. These are all so long before your own religion's 'turn for the good', or even its founding, that it is simply beyond me why or how my Church could possibly bear anything for what your religion has done. No.

IOW tell the whole story, and the whole truth, or is that puffing up the Mormon church, and that is just too much for you.

The whole story is that Mormonism was officially viciously racist until the Mormon god for some reason changed his mind about black people in 1978, thereby making a liar out of Brigham Young and other early Mormon leaders who proclaimed black people inherently inferior.

This is not to say that it's bad in any sense that Mormonism has made an about-face on this issue lately (of course that's a good thing), but it is curious that for decades before then there were individual Mormons like Stewart Udall who apparently knew better than your 'prophets' the true mind of God on this issue, and paid for it by being slandered as somehow less than a good Mormon for presuming to tell the LDS leadership what they ought to do over a decade before they'd eventually announce the change:

Who's telling the "whole story" here, Peter? You seem to only want to look at the good, which makes complete sense since you are a Mormon after all, but since I am not a Mormon, I think the whole story includes some bad stuff, too. How could it not when racist policies are bad, as the Mormons now mostly recognize?

 

[Peter1000]

Yes...as opposed to the 2,000 years that this has been the case in Christianity, with 1,600+ years of Christianity in Ethiopia; 1,900+ years of Christianity in Egypt; 1,800+ years of Christianity in Sudan, etc. all bearing witness.




How can you realistically claim that when you just wrote that it's only been 40 years since your prophets have declared that all are worthy of the priesthood? Is the Mormon religion now only 41 years old? Did it start in 1978?



Well I am.



No, I want you and everyone in the thread to focus on the reality of what this is and what it meant for over 100 years in the Mormon religion, which is itself not even 200 years old yet, so we can say without 'smearing' anyone that it remained this way for over half its history.

Look at it honestly and don't turn away from it because it makes you (rightly) uncomfortable or upset.



Excuse me, I refuse to share in the shame of an organization that I don't belong to. I'm not a Mormon, and my Church's leaders have never banned black people from positions of authority. If we didn't want that, then HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic wouldn't have sent the first bishops to Nubia in the 340s, some 1,600+ years before 1978, or to Axum around the same time after the death of St. Frumentius who had converted the Axumite king 'Ezana c. 330. These are all so long before your own religion's 'turn for the good', or even its founding, that it is simply beyond me why or how my Church could possibly bear anything for what your religion has done. No.



The whole story is that Mormonism was officially viciously racist until the Mormon god for some reason changed his mind about black people in 1978, thereby making a liar out of Brigham Young and other early Mormon leaders who proclaimed black people inherently inferior.

This is not to say that it's bad in any sense that Mormonism has made an about-face on this issue lately (of course that's a good thing), but it is curious that for decades before then there were individual Mormons like Stewart Udall who apparently knew better than your 'prophets' the true mind of God on this issue, and paid for it by being slandered as somehow less than a good Mormon for presuming to tell the LDS leadership what they ought to do over a decade before they'd eventually announce the change:

Who's telling the "whole story" here, Peter? You seem to only want to look at the good, which makes complete sense since you are a Mormon after all, but since I am not a Mormon, I think the whole story includes some bad stuff, too. How could it not when racist policies are bad, as the Mormons now mostly recognize?

I am willing to look at the bad, and I have. But I am not going to focus on what our church, and many other American churches did in the 1800's and up to 1978. I will declare some uncomfortable feeling about those things, but I will not judge too harshly, for that day was far different than our day, here in America. And I am sure the Lord knew what he was doing in the matter.

BTW was the Lord unrighteous to withhold the priesthood from any particular people?
According to you it amounted to wholesale vulgar racism on the part of our prophets. But the history of who held the priesthood would indicate a wholesale vulgar racism on the part of the Lord? Do you want to pin that quality on the the God of the OT?

For first 2 thousand years, only a few men in the entire world was permitted to hold the priesthood.
And as far as we know they were all "white" men. Here are a few of them, Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.

Then when Moses came along, God had a people. The children of Israel. He moves them out of
Egypt and sets up the temple and the religious rites of the people. To administer these rites, the Lord allows the priesthood to be expanded. Now, the tribe of Levi was to hold the priesthood. As far as we know they were all "white" men. Has the Lord committed racism yet?

So from Adam to Christ, over 3000 years of the only people that could hold the priesthood were "white" men. Does that make the Lord God a racist?

Then all of a sudden the Lord changed his mind and the persons that could hold the priesthood was expanded again to include all worthy men. Now I guess you can say he was not racist, but why look racist for over 3000 years?

So you seem to not be willing to focus on the first 3000 years of uncomfortable possible racism, but you look from 34 ad onward when it looked like racism was not a question.

Then we look at America in the middle of the 19th century. Many churches would not ordain some men to the priesthood. The Mormon church was one of them. We were friendly, and put our arms around all men and women to join, but some could not hold the priesthood until the revelation of 1978. The black men who joined the church, knew this and said they would wait until the day when the Lord would allow them to hold the priesthood.

Now it is a new day. The Lord allows all worthy men to hold the priesthood and in fact one of the largest growing populations of the church is Africa, with 10 fully functional temples and others in the blueprints. It is a great day for the expansion of the priesthood to flow all over the world. We are grateful for this new policy and welcome all.

The revelation of 1978 does not make any previous prophet a liar. Remember, the current prophet is the most important one, and what the Lord does through him is what we follow. We are not stuck on what JS or BY taught, if the Lord says we do it differently now. Also remember, who holds the priesthood is not a doctrine (that never changes, like baptism), it is a policy (which can change from time to time as the Lord sees fit).

 

[dzheremi]

I am willing to look at the bad, and I have. But I am not going to focus on what our church, and many other American churches did in the 1800's and up to 1978. I will declare some uncomfortable feeling about those things, but I will not judge too harshly, for that day was far different than our day, here in America.

Was it, though? 1978 was not a billion years ago or anything. It was 14 years after the Civil Rights Act that prohibited discrimination based on race, sex, color, or national origin. It seems that the Mormon religion was well behind society in general by the time of the 'revelation' in 1978.

And I am sure the Lord knew what he was doing in the matter.

Of course He did. He always does. This is why such supposedly God-sanctioned racist policies had long fallen out of favor in most every church by 1978 (some Baptists apparently excepted -- notoriously 'fundamentalist' Bob Jones University only dropped its interracial dating ban in 2000; Lord have mercy!). God does not perpetuate or sanction racism. People who claim to follow Him do. That was the point of my including the "Message to Black Mormons" video in a different post: the problem there is that the ban was said to have come from God -- it is Mormonism that makes God into a racist. You have a racist god, or at least a god who was racist until 1978.

BTW was the Lord unrighteous to withhold the priesthood from any particular people?

Are we talking about "any particular people", or are we talking about black people? Because I'm talking about black people, since those were the specific people excluded by the Mormon policy of what amounted to theological racism.

According to you it amounted to wholesale vulgar racism on the part of our prophets. But the history of who held the priesthood would indicate a wholesale vulgar racism on the part of the Lord? Do you want to pin that quality on the the God of the OT?

No, but it seems that you do want to, in order to justify or make an equivalence with the Mormon racist policy. Good luck with that, because it's going to fail, and fail hard.

For first 2 thousand years, only a few men in the entire world was permitted to hold the priesthood.
And as far as we know they were all "white" men. Here are a few of them, Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.

And you know these peoples' skin color how?

Then when Moses came along, God had a people. The children of Israel. He moves them out of
Egypt and sets up the temple and the religious rites of the people. To administer these rites, the Lord allows the priesthood to be expanded. Now, the tribe of Levi was to hold the priesthood. As far as we know they were all "white" men. Has the Lord committed racism yet?

Again, how do you know these peoples' skin color? In fact, a more basic and appropriate question would be: how do you know that either the restriction or the loosening was a matter of skin color at all? I deal with this kind of thing a lot, since "Afro-\centric" historians or should I say pseudo-historians seem to love to glom on to Egypt, and say that it was a "black country" and all of this. They don't seem to understand the difference between specific black (Nubian) dynasties and the country overall. A somewhat similar case could be made of the Ptolemies: Did they make Egypt into a 'Greek' or 'White' country? No. The Egyptians always remained who they were, and to this day being Egyptian is not a matter of skin color.

Here is a Coptic priest from (North) Sudan:

Probably in an American context he would be called a black person, and I have met many Copts who look like him, or are even darker. It has to do with the south of Egypt, which includes historical Nubian territory, being a stronghold of Coptic Christianity, hence a lot of people are 'mixed' between the lighter norther population and the darker southern population. This is why most Copts are somewhere in between, like a lot of Mediterranean people could be said to be. 'Swarthy' or whatever it's called. Like this:

So from Adam to Christ, over 3000 years of the only people that could hold the priesthood were "white" men. Does that make the Lord God a racist?

No, frankly that makes you sound like a racist for arguing that anyone who had any position of authority given to them by God in Biblical times must've been a white guy.

Then all of a sudden the Lord changed his mind and the persons that could hold the priesthood was expanded again to include all worthy men. Now I guess you can say he was not racist, but why look racist for over 3000 years?

It's not racist in the first place, though. You're making it racist for some reason, by saying "XYZ were priests, and they were all white people" based on nothing.

So you seem to not be willing to focus on the first 3000 years of uncomfortable possible racism, but you look from 34 ad onward when it looked like racism was not a question.

I'm fine focusing on it. I've already written about what my Church was doing to establish Christianity in the rest of the Africa 1,800 years ago. And it stayed in the places we had planted it (not just us, but also the Greeks and Latins, as in what is today Tunisia, Algeria, etc.; we were in Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Axum, etc.) until the 16th century, when the Christian kingdoms of Nubia (modern Sudan) finally fell to Islam. In Egypt, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and Libya (to a lesser extent than the others; some 60,000) it remains today. We are the first Church of Africa, planted in the apostolic message and preaching of our apostle, the apostle of the Lord St. Mark. What should I be hiding from, then, if my Church is the one that established Christianity on the African continent, some ~ 1,900 years ago?

Then we look at America in the middle of the 19th century. Many churches would not ordain some men to the priesthood. The Mormon church was one of them. We were friendly, and put our arms around all men and women to join, but some could not hold the priesthood until the revelation of 1978. The black men who joined the church, knew this and said they would wait until the day when the Lord would allow them to hold the priesthood.

If you put this restriction on people and they accept it, does that suddenly make it not racist? The point is that you weren't equal, and your prophets and other leaders of the time -- for over 100 years -- said that this lack of equality was God's doing. That's so incredibly horrific and evil, I don't really care if the people involved accepted it. I do believe that certain things can be intrinsically evil, and this is one of those things.

Now it is a new day. The Lord allows all worthy men to hold the priesthood and in fact one of the largest growing populations of the church is Africa, with 10 fully functional temples and others in the blueprints. It is a great day for the expansion of the priesthood to flow all over the world. We are grateful for this new policy and welcome all.

Okay.

The revelation of 1978 does not make any previous prophet a liar. Remember, the current prophet is the most important one, and what the Lord does through him is what we follow.

In other words your religion has no strong foundation and can change at any time and you just have to go with it. You really don't see a problem with this, or at least a potential problem?

We are not stuck on what JS or BY taught

Then why are you Mormon? Aren't you Mormon because you believe in what JS has given you? (And BY, I guess, but he's probably not as important in practice; "Praise to the Man" is about Joseph Smith, not Brigham Young.)

if the Lord says we do it differently now.

But the inability to distinguish between what comes from a man and what comes from God is precisely what led the Mormon religion to codify racism for over 100 years! So I don't trust any Mormon to be able to know what the Lord says, since the Mormon religion conflates its 'prophets' with the Lord, and hence makes following them the same thing as following Him.

Also remember, who holds the priesthood is not a doctrine (that never changes, like baptism), it is a policy (which can change from time to time as the Lord sees fit).

Yeah, I've heard that defense before, and it leaves me very cold. Who cares what you call it when the rationale for it is that it is from God?

 

[mmksparbud]

BTW was the Lord unrighteous to withhold the priesthood from any particular people?
According to you it amounted to wholesale vulgar racism on the part of our prophets. But the history of who held the priesthood would indicate a wholesale vulgar racism on the part of the Lord? Do you want to pin that quality on the the God of the OT?

Rather difficult to call God racist when Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman. With the Israelites came a "great mixed multitude"---hardly racist.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I was wondering what LDS followers believe about this. Is Jesus middle eastern and therefore dark skinned or white in LDS belief?

I know that the pictures of Jesus in LDS church houses are white. So I wondered about this belief.

Thoughts and debate regarding the OP only please. I would like to keep this a scriptural debate:

Jesus was Jewish, thus Olive skin color.

Why does this matter?

 

[devin553344]

Jesus was Jewish, thus Olive skin color.

Why does this matter?

That gets into detail in the LDS scripture, the reason is detailed in the thread.

 

[devin553344]

Some things for the thread in general to consider regarding Mormonism and racism:

Yes, the first one is quite long, and the Brother Jake one is very satirical (lest it be lost on anyone here, Brother Jake is an ex-Mormon), but they are all worth watching and considering, assuming you're not the type to simply see anything critical as inherently anti-Mormon.

(p.s. If it's anti-Mormon to stand up to racist garbage, shouldn't all good Mormons be anti-Mormon?)

That is an eye opener.

 

[Peter1000]

That is an eye opener.

Why not get information from these folks about what has happened since 1978? It is because it is so good that they can't stand it, and would never publish anything good about us. Does that tell you something about them?

 

[devin553344]

Why not get information from these folks about what has happened since 1978? It is because it is so good that they can't stand it, and would never publish anything good about us. Does that tell you something about them?

Just accepting Jesus" gospel as declared.

 

[Peter1000]

Just accepting Jesus" gospel as declared.

But Jesus does not ever use the word "grace", so did Jesus declare the entire gospel?

 

[Rescued One]

But Jesus does not ever use the word "grace", so did Jesus declare the entire gospel?

What Bible are you reading? The one that isn't true? My Bible is the word of God and the words grace and gracious are abundantly used.

 

[Rescued One]

President Wilford Woodruff stated: “I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.”
(The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, selected by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946], pp. 212-213.)

...President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:
I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. . . .Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.” Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, “But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” [In Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78]...

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4; italics added).
Fourteen Fundamentals to Follow the Prophet - BYU Speeches

It's safer to follow the true Savior.