Question about beliefs

[Madriglace]

If one belives that the Jews killed the Savior then they need some serious soul searching as regards their testimony of His divinity. The Jews did not killl Christ ... He gave up His life and as He was dying He petitioned the Father to forgive the people who tormented Him ... because they didn't know what they were doing. To me this is an essential part of the atonement ... becuase of His divinity he could have easily come down from the cross and punished his tormentors ... he chose to complete His mission. The things that were done to Him were a means to an end.

The following quote was written and published on LDS Living by Keith Hamilton, a black member of the church. His article speaks of his experiences and his testimony. It really touched me to read his insite into the issue of blacks and the priesthood. To him his race was a gift.

"I do not know when or why the restrictive practices against my people were adopted and carried out by the LDS Church, but I do know that the policy and practices were the Lord’s doing and not the autonomous or unilateral act of any man or men. I know this by faith in God and through personal revelation from the Holy Ghost. According to God’s wise and just purposes, He allowed the restrictions to be placed upon my people for the trial, growth, and benefit of all His children, especially my people and those of His church and kingdom on earth.

Simply put, like unto the blind beggar healed by Jesus central to the story in John 9, I was not born black because I sinned as a premortal spirit or because my parents, real or imagined (i.e., Cain, Ham, or anyone else), sinned in mortality. Rather, I am black, and of the lineage once subjected to priesthood and temple restrictions by the LDS Church, because I chose to accept the mortal mission given me by my Heavenly Father. It is a mission that required me to come into mortality as a black American at a time when the gospel was restored upon the earth, and when the priesthood would be made available to all worthy males, so that in some small way the works of God might be made manifest in and through me."

[james12]

The core of the original question is an interesting one. Tamrajh said...

"If we believe that we will each be punished for our own sins and not those of other people, why are the Jews still being punished for crucifying Christ? Why are black people still black? Why were they denied access to the priesthood for so long if they were worthy members?"

If I am not representing the above question inaccurately maybe I can rephrase it to remove some of the "hot button" terms and topics which have already been discussed...

If we each will be punished for our own sins and not those of other people, why do future generations suffer the consequences of previous generations?

This is a difficult question with almost no easy answers. Let me just share a few thoughts...

There is little doubt in my mind that future generations suffer because of the bad choices of previous generations. Just take the world around us. Children suffer every day because of their parents. Divorce is terribbly painful for children. Physical abuse is common. But some choices extend past the first generation. They may extend to many generations. For example, a father may leave the church and never return. Because of this, his children never know the gospel. It continues on to the children's, children's, children.

How can this be reconciled with the second article of faith which states, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression"?

1. Suffering vs. Punishment

Because I suffer does that mean I have been punished by our Father in Heaven? Can suffering actually be a blessing? I'm not sure I know. But regardless of the answers to these questions I am confident that a loving Heavenly Father will more than compensate me for all my loss, all my pain, and all my heartache.

2. Punishment vs. Consequences of Free Will

It is difficult for us to determine the dividing line between man's agency and God's justice. Our Father in Heaven strictly allows us our agency, even if our choices will effect more than just ourselves (which they almost always do). Does this equate to God's punishment?

3. Prophecy vs Causality

In some cases I know what will happen if wrong choices are made. If my daughter puts a piece of metal in a light socket I know she will get shocked (which has happened incidentally). However, because I can predict the event I certainly didn't cause the event.

There are a few of my thoughts for what they are worth. That may be more question than answer but so be it.

[JudoMinja]

james-

You brought up a great point that I think I had circling around in my head but just couldn't seem to piece together on my own!

Consequences do not always = punishment.

Children are going to end up dealing with the consequences of their parent's decisions, be they good or bad. This is most obvious in the living conditions we grow up with. The first generation is the one most heavily impacted by the choices of the parents- Some of us are blessed to be brought up in happy, stable homes, while others must deal with the dysfunction of various problems. Some grow up in "broken" but still stable homes, as their parents may have mad some bad "unfixable" choices but learned from them and sought to make circumstances better fo their children.

The choices we make will determine the living conditions for our children. Does this mean our children are being punished for our mistakes? NO. It just means they are also having to suffer through the consequences of our decisions. Though they may end up in difficult circumstances, those circumstances are not meant to be a punishment.

In fact, I may even go so far as to argue that there are very few actual divine punishments dealt in THIS LIFE. That will not come until judgement day. When we stand before the bar of God, we will be held accountable for our own actions and decisions. The sins of our parents will not be held on our heads, and our sins will not be held on the heads of our children.

[mrmarklin]

If the Jews are being punished, it is because of their continuing non-belief in the doctrines and gospel of Christ. Not for any past sins of their forefathers. Just like many other nations in the world. Just like the Lamanites and Nephites were, and just like any of us will be should we not obey the commandments and continue in the paths of righteousness.

[volgadon]

It is very easy to turn Kayne's thinking on not-so-valiant spirits around. If we are assigned earthly circumstances according to our pre-mortal valour then it is just as likely that God assigned those who weren't as valiant to be born in multi-generational LDS families along the Wasatch front of the 20-21st c. where there is a very strong institutional church presence as they would never have found the gospel otherwise. As a generalised statement I consider this false and worthless, but it does a great job of showing the fallacies in such beliefs.

[kayne]

I read your entire quote, and cited most (if not all) of it.

You didn't specify the Jewish leadership.

You didn't specify the Sanhedrin.

You didn't even specify "the Jews who wanted Christ dead."

You simply pontificated about "the Jews", which implies the Jewish people as a whole. Further, your argument implicitly and explicitly condemned not only those with blood on their hands directly, but their descendants over the last two thousand years, as well.

As I'm not the only one who took exception to your scurrilous screed, perhaps the problem lies in your words and your stance, rather than your audience.

the jews wanted Christ dead. how is this even debatable? so what its now The King of the Jes is killed by his own people but wait only a handful wanted him dead? really? sorry please back up your claim that only a small portion of people alive at the time wanted him dead.

i said more than once i have no idea how long that punishment lasted but to suggest there wouldnt be some punishment for killing Christ is absolutely crazy.

here D & C 45:48-53 Christ will appear to the jews on the second coming complete with death marks.

48 And then shall the Lord set his foot upon this amount, and it shall cleave in twain, and the earth shall btremble, and reel to and fro, and the cheavens also dshall shake.

49 And the Lord shall utter his voice, and all the ends of the earth shall hear it; and the nations of the earth shall amourn, and they that have blaughed shall see their cfolly.

50 And calamity shall cover the amocker, and the scorner shall be consumed; and they that have watched for iniquity shall be hewn down and bcast into the cfire.

51 And then shall the aJews blook upon me and say: What are these cwounds in thine hands and in thy feet?

52 Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was awounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was bcrucified. I am the cSon of God.

53 And then shall they aweep because of their iniquities; then shall they blament because they cpersecuted their dking.

If logic brings you to that conclusion, then you shouldn't have any problem substantiating the claim, now should you?

And yet, I somehow expect either a ringing silence or a rant that will make the ADF take note.

see above

not even sure what to say that really. you keep saying only a small portion wanted Christ dead. yet He was killed by overwhelming pressure from the jews. and the scriptures are filled with opposition to him. heck the world today at large opposes him. were you get this crazy idea I am not sure but i do want to know.

Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said.

there clearly indicates from your earlier post....forget what I said....aka I was wrong I am changing my mind. but maybe i dont know the meaning of "Forget everything I have said"

On the contrary, despite what fools, apostates and Sons of Perdition would have you think, the Church DIDN'T change its views.

The idiocy and bigotry you tried to pawn off on the Church have NEVER been part of official Mormon doctrine or theology.

And yet, despite the quixotic and stiff-necked obstibacy you demonstrate, you've yet to provide ANY evidence to support a link between "a skin of blackness" as described in Scripture and melanin-rich skin tones such as we seen in those of African descent.

And just to further demonstrate your profound Scriptural ignorance on the matter, the mark Cain received was a protection, not a curse

theres a lot of irony here followed by your next post especially here

41 And Cain was ashut out from the bpresence of the Lord, and with his wife and many of his brethren dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

so he was marked and shut out from the Lord? Really that sounds like a clear reward /sarcasm. tell me how this was a reward exactly? then lets not forget the lamanites got marked too in 1st or 2nd nephi...reward or punishment? and what is that bit about warning not to mix with them? reward or punishment here? sounds like punishment but maybe im wrong.

Further, contrary to your "pre-ordained to be damned" nonsense, Cain was told explicitly that if he offered an offering in righteousness, he would be accepted.

yes as is the case for us all...yet he didnt

Yes, as demonstrated. But the Scriptures do not specify what that mark was.

It is a tradition and conceit of man that the mark was dark skin- not the Scriptures or the doctrines of the Church.

There is simply no Scriptural or doctrinal evidence that the Mark of Cain was "black skin" as those of a century past would like to pretend.

so the mark wasnt the dark skin? if so where did it come from and why? if dark skin wasnt meant to mark the person why did it occur? i cant think of a bigger mark aside from deforming part of his body

Really? Where does that appear in Scripture? It's not in the Books of Moses or Genesis.

Another verse which undermines your "lineage determines punishment" nonsense can be found in Verse 42 of the same chapter.

so today when a black person has a child....that child doesnt carry that DNA and therefore is somehow magically white? yes it happens but its extremely rare as they are usually black. white parents make white kids. black parents make black kids but i guess your right maybe cain for some reason didnt follow basic biology.

Is there any faithful Latter-day Saint out there who doesn't know the story of the City of Enoch?

clearly enoch didnt follow in his fathers footsteps. kudos to him and if he was one of the slackers in the pre life he clearly turned it around this time.

You still haven't demonstrated any evidence- scriptural, doctrinal, or factual- to back up your claims.

cain killed his brother. got cursed. the lamanites rebelled endlessly and got cursed. do we need more proof? really how is this not proof that dark skin has always been a curse anytime The Lord handed it out.

While it is indisputable that our behavior has some bearing on our estate in mortality, the quotes I provided earlier utterly destroy your "logic".

Every soul born upon this Earth was valiant in the pre-Existence. That statement is authoritative, and is not open to your rather shallow inferences about skin color.

Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial refer specifically to the Kingdoms we will inherit AFTER the final Judgement, not to our pre-mortal state.

glad you agree with me to a point. however it would be foolish to think that we couldnt of dvided ourselves up then as we do now. there were valiant folks then. less valiant as well and everywhere in the middle and that covers all the kingdoms and outer darkness. our destination of where we go indicates our character our worthiness. as such i dont see how we cant conclude there are celestial people, telestial people and so on and so forth considering those are the 4 places we end up there are ultimately 4 groups of people(perhaps sub divided based on the 4 main categories)

every soul born your right was valiant however some were less valiant than others.

Setting aside the incoherent nature of the preceding paragraph, no one in this thread has claimed that we are not foreordained to fulfill the calling the Lord has commissioned.

That's a red-herring, at best.

YOU were claiming that birth into a "cursed" lineage was a punishment from God, one which has been effectively decimated.

That you wish to change the goalposts now merely demonstrates how foolish your initial position was.

heres your own quote. the church agreed with what i was saying and changed their mind. not might fault i wasn't aware of this considering the church rarely changes its mind on things. considering the mormon doctrine books are still well regarded by most members and since i have read some of them silly mean to think He would later say "Forget everything I said"

The most well known of these was the statement made by Bruce R. McConkie in his book Mormon Doctrine. McConkie offered the following opinion:

Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon 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 Abel being a black skin...but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate.[5] These statements by 20th century leaders did not represent thinking that was unique to the Church, but instead reflected ideas which were much more prevalent in society during the 1950's and 1960's.

When the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, McConkie retracted what he had said previously:

Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...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.[6] Modern Church leaders teach that everyone who came to earth in this day was "valiant" in the premortal existence. Elder M. Russell Ballard, talking of today's youth, said in 2005:

Remind them that they are here at this particular time in the history of the world, with the fulness of the gospel at their fingertips, because they made valiant choices in the premortal existence.[7]

Repudiated

Some members and leaders explained the ban as congruent with the justice of God by suggesting that those who were denied the priesthood had done something in the pre-mortal life to deny themselves the priesthood. President Kimball was reported as repudiating this idea following the 1978 revelation:

President Kimball "flatly [stated] that Mormonism no longer holds to...a theory" that Blacks had been denied the priesthood "because they somehow failed God during their pre-existence."[8]

Conclusion

The idea that anyone who came to earth was "neutral" in the premortal existence is not a doctrine of the Church. Early Church leaders had a variety of opinions regarding the status of blacks in the pre-existence, and some of these were expressed in an attempt to explain the priesthood ban. The scriptures, however, do not explicitly state that the status or family into which we were born on earth had anything to do with our "degree of valiance" in our pre-mortal life.

And again, you're attempting to change the goalposts from your indefensible initial position to something more tenable.

Unfortunately, this, too was addressed by the Church and the Seminary lesson plan cited above.

Despite your initial claims (and subsequent verbal gymnastics) your position has been soundly defeated.

"The Jews" were not punished for Christ's crucifixion, and the "Christ Killer" libel has been definitively shown to have nothing to do with LDS belief, theology, or doctrine.

But thank you for playing.

so tell me who was punished for his killing then? the romans that said he was innocent and didnt want to do it? or the jews who killed the king of the jews? i get it Christ needed to be crucified it makes sense however just because of that doesnt mean the murder of God wont go unpunished it would seem to defy the logic of justice and the whole thou shalt not murder thing.

And yet every bit of your position must be inferred, guessed at, and read into the Scriputre.

The Scriptures you cited don't SAY any of what you're arguing.

so our pre life had no bearing on our earthly life? didnt you just said it did?

While it is indisputable that our behavior has some bearing on our estate in mortality,

so here you are saying the scriptures dont say our pre life effects but then in this quote you say it does? well which is it? call me out on being contradicting yet here you are contradicting yourself.

Except for that bit from the Prophets specifying that everyone born in this mortality was valiant in the Pre-existence.

Whether or not Cain and Satan were "buddy-buddy" as you put it, the fact that Cain was born here proves that he was valiant.

Your (unprovable) attempt at guilt by association is irrelevant.

If you look at the Scriptures, Lucifer was the "Son of the Morning Star", one of God's best and brightest before he rebelled and fell. As such it is inescapable that he "rubbed elbows" with others of "the great and noble spirits" in the pre-Existence.

Would it surprise you if that Jesus and Satan were buddy-buddy" as well?

sp cain couldnt of been friends with lucifer? how do you know? he could of. in fact lucifer probably had quite a number of friends that didnt join him. perhaps cain was really buddy buddy and more likely to side with lucifer. this said i did clearly state i was guessing here and making possible conclusions since it would make sense most sons of perdition probably werent the most valiant of souls to begin with. sure lucifer might of been high up there but at his heart he clearly wasnt as valiant of a soul as he claimed to be. as i said there is no proof for the matter here just speculation which you apparently dont seem to like any form of speculation about anything at all.

Whether there were twelve tribes or 200, you still haven't provided any EVIDENCE to support your claims.

In point of fact, the simple fact that the faithful are being adopted/grafted into the Twelve Tribes demonstrates rather clearly that the initial designation of "Jew" and "Gentile" were both comparatively arbitrary and ultimately meaningless.

If we ALL ultimately wind up in one of the Twelve Tribes, then we're ALL entitled to those blessings and ALL (according to your "logic") equally cursed.

whoa what? the 12 tribes were meaningless? so the whole promise to isaac and abaraham about the 12 tribes was meaningless? perhaps go read the book of genesis again. if they were so meaningless they wouldnt be such a critical point of church doctrine and every patriarchal blessing

but yes being grafted into the 12 tribes would grant us those blessings and curses if we are rebellious.

Call For References. Please substantiate your claim with something authoritative and factual, rather than your unvarnished opinion.

so the entire bible which is largely about the jews clearly they are unimportant people and on more than one occassion God calls them his people and he will be their God. your right the jews utterly pointless and not blessed ever. oh yes and Jesus what is one of his nicknames King of the Jews? and my quote scripture above Jesus saying He was killed by his friends? seriously here the jews have played a key role in a large chunk of the scriptures to deny their importance just boggles my mind

also on a side note insulting me by calling me bigotry or rascists or any other name calling that has been handed out by people in this thread shows a real lack of maturity when i havent once insulted anyone. just because some scriptures appear rascists doesnt make them untrue. get over yourselves people insults make your lose all credibility

if the next reply does include insults my way i will simply not reply if you cant disprove me or have an arguement without throwing insults around then we just wont have this conversation. calling a point crazy or perhaps stupid is one thing. but here a few insults

scurrilous screed

which means a : using or given to coarse language

b : vulgar and evil <scurrilous imposters who used a religious exterior to rob poor people — Edwin Benson>

so i am vulgar and evil? wow i should thank you i had to google this.

perhaps i am dumb but what does ADF take note mean? i suspect another cheap insult

less foolish in future

calling me foolish? i might forgive this as i said calling an arguement stupid or foolish is ok but it appears to be directed at me and considering i was called vulgar and evil...

On the contrary, despite what fools, apostates and Sons of Perdition would have you think, the Church DIDN'T change its views.

The idiocy and bigotry you tried to pawn off on the Church have NEVER been part of official Mormon doctrine or theology.

really this entire post...you are lumping me with sons of perdition....just wow. and here you finnally only insult my arguement as idoitic which is more forgiveable but considering your post history so far...i am very inclined to think this is yet ANOTHER insult at me

there is probably more that you did but i am only half way through your first post. i dont think i need to bother going on to find more insults. my point is made if i was a judge and you insulted the opposition i would toss you out and demand you make an arguement without resorting to name calling. this isnt 1st grade

then there is skippy

This is one of the most racist posts I've ever read. Someone needs to upgrade their testimony to post-1978.

as i said i didnt know the church changed its mind yet i am still called rascists and apparently my thoughts are well in line with pre 1978 LDS thinking. silly me never mind the fact that pre thinking isnt rascists but just an acknowledgement of facts and why people are the way they are no where in that statement says i hate black people. so again another childish insult. also if someone can quote me where i said I HATE BLACK PEOPLE which would be rascists please do so....until then please leave your unsupported claims about me at the door.

as i said if you cant argue back next time without insults. dont bother replying.

i enjoy online forums and i enjoy online forum debates but when they turn into flame war insults....theres no point in continueing.

Edited September 3, 2011 by kayne

[kayne]

It is very easy to turn Kayne's thinking on not-so-valiant spirits around. If we are assigned earthly circumstances according to our pre-mortal valour then it is just as likely that God assigned those who weren't as valiant to be born in multi-generational LDS families along the Wasatch front of the 20-21st c. where there is a very strong institutional church presence as they would never have found the gospel otherwise. As a generalised statement I consider this false and worthless, but it does a great job of showing the fallacies in such beliefs.

thank you for not insulting my opinion and seeing my point that it can go both ways. if anyone has read the book mothers of prophets you will get a clear indication that modern prophets were born to very special mothers as The Lord needed them and wasnt going to just send to some hopeless starving third world country.

yes i know you said you didnt really agree but thank you for being respectful and seeing my point none the less.

[skippy740]

then there is skippy

as i said i didnt know the church changed its mind yet i am still called rascists and apparently my thoughts are well in line with pre 1978 LDS thinking. silly me never mind the fact that pre thinking isnt rascists but just an acknowledgement of facts and why people are the way they are no where in that statement says i hate black people. so again another childish insult. also if someone can quote me where i said I HATE BLACK PEOPLE which would be rascists please do so....until then please leave your unsupported claims about me at the door.

as i said if you cant argue back next time without insults. dont bother replying.

i enjoy online forums and i enjoy online forum debates but when they turn into flame war insults....theres no point in continueing.

I didn't call YOU "racist". I called your POST racist. There is a difference. Then I proceeded to give you additional information to help you understand what has been given as additional light and knowledge.

This is a problem in the church. This is also a reason why newly baptized black converts end up leaving... due to old traditions of our fathers.

[Jason_J]

There are many peoples with dark skin in the world besides those of us of African descent, many just as dark and darker! Are they also descendents of Cain, kayne? Why didn't they fall under the priesthood restriction if dark skin is the mark of the curse?

[Jason_J]

and considering abaraham saw many of the great and noble spirits im fairly certainly The Lord wouldnt send a future prophet to a place on the earth with no chance of getting to his intended destination which means He wont send you to the poorest place in the world with no way out and left to be an illiterate goon until you reach age 40 and magically your a prophet now.

Well I guess the Book of Mormon and the Bible are out according to this logic!

[skippy740]

Quote:

Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said.

there clearly indicates from your earlier post....forget what I said....aka I was wrong I am changing my mind. but maybe i dont know the meaning of "Forget everything I have said"

“All Are Alike unto God” - Bruce R. McConkie

This speech is the full context of exactly what Bruce R. McConkie meant when he said:

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.

[Jason_J]

why blacks are still black is yes for a few reasons. one is skin pigment. secondly them being black means they were closer to Satan and cain in the pre life they earned this trait in their pre life largely what you do in this life and how your life is here is indicated largely by how you were in the pre life. however do note their perfect frame is to be white and they will become white at some point. this a curse for being rotten scumbags at some point in their history of existence. you can see the effects of this clearly not to offend anyone but black crime is the highest of all the races. africa is an unhealthy rotting place of disease and early death and illiteracy and its primarly blacks. now of course some break this cycle and i am happy for them just as i would be for anyone else.

This is of course nonsense, and as already demonstrated by Selek, is your own opinion, not based on LDS doctrine nor scripture.

But I guess you'd have me believe that I was a rotten scumbag at some point in my history of existence... I'm glad the Church of Jesus Christ does not, and has never supported your view.

also the people that got cursed with dark skin obviously did have kids....this carried on to them.

Now is it all people with dark skin (i.e. Native Americans, South Asians, Middle Easterners, etc), or just Africans? If just Africans, then why are the others "cursed with dark skin", if dark skin is a curse? This is where your logical fails (more).

again not to offend anyone but that largely answers the questions that cant be answered without possibly offending people as the entire subject of blacks and the LDS church strikes many the wrong way. though do remeber this curse will be lifted eventually.

Um, reread your post and tell me that it wouldn't be offensive to people. I mean, surprise, there are actually black Latter-day Saints that post here , let alone all the others that are disturbed by your non-doctrinal/un-scriptural opinions.

[skippy740]

so he was marked and shut out from the Lord? Really that sounds like a clear reward /sarcasm. tell me how this was a reward exactly? then lets not forget the lamanites got marked too in 1st or 2nd nephi...reward or punishment? and what is that bit about warning not to mix with them? reward or punishment here? sounds like punishment but maybe im wrong.

2 Nephi 5:20-25

2 Nephi 5 

20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will anot hearken unto thy words they shall be bcut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were ccut off from his presence.

21 And he had caused the acursing 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 bdelightsome, that they might not be centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a dskin of eblackness to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be aloathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

24 And because of their acursing which was upon them they did become an bidle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to astir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

Do yourself a favor. Click on the LDS.org link to the scriptures and click on the hyperlinks.

Tell me what Cursing means.

Tell me what blackness means.

Here's the definition: A curse is when you are cut off from the Lord.

Blackness means spiritually dark.

The mixing of seed means to have families who are "fragmented" - between light and dark spiritual leanings.

Guess what? It wasn't a literal skin change!

Alma 55:4-8

4 And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words, he caused that a search should be made among his men, that perhaps he might find a man who was a descendant of Laman among them.

5 And it came to pass that they found one, whose name was Laman; and he was aone of the servants of the king who was murdered by Amalickiah.

6 Now Moroni caused that Laman and a small number of his men should go forth unto the guards who were over the Nephites.

7 Now the Nephites were guarded in the city of aGid; therefore Moroni appointed Laman and caused that a small number of men should go with him.

8 And when it was evening Laman went to the guards who were over the Nephites, and behold, they saw him coming and they hailed him; but he saith unto them: Fear not; behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites, and they sleep; and behold we have taken of their wine and brought with us.

Now, if there was a skin change, wouldn't it be easy to find a "black" Lamanite amongst the "white" Nephites? It's not hard to do in Sacrament meeting!

If there was a skin change, how could a Nephite pass off as a Lamanite?

[volgadon]

thank you for not insulting my opinion and seeing my point that it can go both ways.

Actually, my point is that your point is ridiculuous.

if anyone has read the book mothers of prophets

Written by a close family friend.

you will get a clear indication that modern prophets were born to very special mothers as The Lord needed them

This had to do with the characters of their mothers.

and wasnt going to just send to some hopeless starving third world country.

Tell that to President Uchtdorf.

yes i know you said you didnt really agree but thank you for being respectful and seeing my point none the less.

I don't see your point, honestly. That is, I don't see it as being true at all. I find it obnoxious, patronising and myopic, like a Mormon "White Man's Burden."

[volgadon]

the jews wanted Christ dead. how is this even debatable? so what its now The King of the Jes is killed by his own people but wait only a handful wanted him dead? really? sorry please back up your claim that only a small portion of people alive at the time wanted him dead.

Perhaps you have missed the repeated references to Jesus' popularity among the Jews. Even if we assume that the entire Jewish population of Jerusalem wanted Jesus dead that is no indication that the rest of Judaea and the Galilee were even asked, let alne consented.

[kayne]

“All Are Alike unto God” - Bruce R. McConkie

This speech is the full context of exactly what Bruce R. McConkie meant when he said:

ah someone who can give an intelligent answer even if it sounded it like you called me rascists earlier i suppose just a misunderstanding. but here we go an intelligent answer that answers the question at hand in full detail. i thank you perhaps this makes sense cause you havent made a whole point of insulting me at every possible chance.

granted this doesnt negate EVERYTHING as false and it certainly doesnt mean the church never agreed with me as it did. i was just unaware of the full context of its change of views like i am sure many are not fully aware of and why even the most basic of stories like cain and abel tends to strike our black members the wrong way unfortunently.

though i suppose this highlights why there is such ignorance on the matter as if someone like me dares to ask a question or because of the inabillity to ask a straight question i must get my answers elsewhere and they might not always be 100% correct. shame on the rest of you. you did nothing but aid in my ignorance on the matter. shame on you all. imagine if this question occured in your wards and you people responded like this. seriously skippy here is the only one that tried to set the record straight. i tried but i didnt know everything apparently.

i applaud skippy for trying to set the record straight and doing so with a full backlog of accurate knowledge including the whole speech that everyone seemed to be referencing but never giving a full detail of.

see now i know skin color which once was thought as a mark of being bad in the pre life or related to cain isnt anymore and it doesnt matter about that anymore. i was never rasciists i just thought that meant these people did something wrong previously as was the pre 1978 thought. it might of been bad before but The Lord doesnt see it that way anymore. see it makes much more sense now.

so sorry skippy i thought you were calling me a rascists. i see you were the only level headed on here

[skippy740]

This topic is full of landmines. And it's hard to change perceptions. I applaud you for reading my posts and understanding them. It's just one reason why I have the signature link that I have. Many members have questions on this topic and I'm proud to share this information with as many as I can.

But there are some that don't want to or choose not to see things in this way. That's okay. This isn't information required for salvation. But for those who understand, can help others.

[kayne]

This topic is full of landmines. And it's hard to change perceptions. I applaud you for reading my posts and understanding them. It's just one reason why I have the signature link that I have. Many members have questions on this topic and I'm proud to share this information with as many as I can.

But there are some that don't want to or choose not to see things in this way. That's okay. This isn't information required for salvation. But for those who understand, can help others.

ya the landmine is pretty obvious lol. honestly i think that whole speech should be gone over at least once a year in the church that and the bit about polygamny as well. there is entirely too much misconception on both. but the black speech especially im fairly certain few know it. older people might but have forgotten or are set in their ways of the past. and younger folks like me(that speech is 6 years older than my birth) dont know about it and know little more than the church allows blacks to use the priesthood now but dont understand this now negates all the negative stuff attached to be black in the past. instead of just a simple they can hold the priesthood now but are still seen with the mark of cain which is the attitude i held and was brought up believing.

polygamny is another landmine that i think needs to be covered yearly too. hardly anyone knows it and the only reason im wise on the matter is i pieced together stuff from various anti mormon sites. looked up the whole thing on official church sites and speeches. and pieced it all together and i say its important as still too often people think i have 10 wives(heck i just want to catch one lol)

considering these are the two biggest misconceptions in the church today i think it would be great if it was covered more and in full detail.

honestly i think this goes back to the LDS past isnt really covered too well and trips up a lot of people i have seen on countless exmormon sites its very typical they stumble onto something from the past and arent sure what to do with it and is often the cause of quitting the church. or even less than active members in person ive seen this oh i heard this and this and missionaries just dont have the accurate history to dispute it and put the lies in their place which a proper study of church history will do.

and digging into the church history is in general taboo to the general ward and population.

[skippy740]

You're right! Here's the problem: Some Bishops and Stake Presidents don't understand this information either. I've witnessed this first hand in the middle of a fireside.

Black LDS converts need this information before well-meaning friends and family beg them to not join "that racist church". I've seen on youtube a VERY well-meaning minister asking his black brothers and sisters why they support a church that had such a racist past. It was heart-felt and I can tell that he is reaching out... but if new black LDS converts aren't told, they feel like they've been "had" or "duped" into the church.

We, as "white" LDS lifetime members have a "circle the wagon" mentality that our leaders are "always right" and if the leaders said this, that it MUST be the mind and will of the Lord. Well, the Lord allows all of His servants to make mistakes. He's an Equal Opportunity Savior. lol We all need His saving grace.

[kayne]

You're right! Here's the problem: Some Bishops and Stake Presidents don't understand this information either. I've witnessed this first hand in the middle of a fireside.

Black LDS converts need this information before well-meaning friends and family beg them to not join "that racist church". I've seen on youtube a VERY well-meaning minister asking his black brothers and sisters why they support a church that had such a racist past. It was heart-felt and I can tell that he is reaching out... but if new black LDS converts aren't told, they feel like they've been "had" or "duped" into the church.

We, as "white" LDS lifetime members have a "circle the wagon" mentality that our leaders are "always right" and if the leaders said this, that it MUST be the mind and will of the Lord. Well, the Lord allows all of His servants to make mistakes. He's an Equal Opportunity Savior. lol We all need His saving grace.

you are right ive seen black LDS families stop going to church though i have seen some tough it out and i applaud those that do especially since the odds are they have false information.

to add to that say white or other races join they are fed this same information and the cycle only gets worse from there.

and i agree with that last point our leaders are not always right they arent the end all answer to everything they do and can screw up. and scriptures arent always take it at face value you can connect the dots a bit as our leaders often do.

i am sure that video is well done. this goes along the lines of one of the biggest things i read on exmormon sites are the church lied to me. i suppose they are half right since history isnt covered very well and most of the members dont research this stuff and when they do they leave. i do admit it takes a strong testimony to stumble onto some of the stuff and not go astray. ive certainly stumbled on a lot that would shake many peoples beliefs to the core including that link you gave me considering it can sound very contradicting and in some ways it kind of half way is.

honestly im a bit glad for this topic this subject is much clearer now.

[bytebear]

The LDS Church is at a major disadvantage on issues of past policies and practices. They have a central hierarchy. Mormon leaders were no more racist than any other cultural group in America. In fact, they were less racist, with integrated congregations and even just allowing minorities to join the church. In the 1800s, other churches were teaching that blacks didn't have souls and were beyond redemption, while Joseph Smith was not only baptizing them, but ordaining them to priesthood offices. I suspect that if the church had not isolated itself in the West, the practice would have continued, but being isolated with a very VERY white population, it was easy to fall into common prejudices.

I often ask myself: Did God institute the practice because man is weak? Did God allow weak men to institute the practice? Or did God foresee a time when His saints would need to cry for joy at the blessings given to a despised minority. Certainly we are far more sensitive to racism than we would have been otherwise. When a black family stops attending church, do we say, "good riddance, we didn't want their kind anyway?" Or do we weep in sadness that they have left?

That said, we now have to answer for our past, and will likely do so for a long time. Christian churches don't have to do that, because there is no church leader that you can pin on them. If you quote racist pastors and ministers, they will simply be denounced as not part of their church or were an anomaly in the history of their beliefs.

So that begs the question. Is it fair to hold Mormon history to scrutiny, while ignoring, not only Christian history in the US, but American history in general. Should we denounce the Founding Fathers, many of whom owned slaves? Should we condemn political parties whose past leaders were for segregation and voiced the opinions that blacks were inferior? How is it that one can condemn Mormonism but ignore their own racist past?

And this is largely an American issue. Most black Africans have no concept of the blight of American racism. They simply don't care about the church's past because it does not open personal wounds. Hopefully we can all be that way and know that today is what matters, and as a 42 year old man who was 8 years old when the ban was lifted, I had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the decisions of the church at the time. All I can do is show my love for all of God's children today.

Edited September 3, 2011 by bytebear

[Tamrajh]

I really didn't expect to see so many responses to my questions. Thank you everyone.

Someone said that the darkness and lightness of the Nephites was due to their spiritual learning, or something like that. Anyway, it had nothing to do with the color of their skins. But doesn't it say in the BOM somewhere that they were fair skinned after following the gospel principles? That they had become a fair skinned people? I am horrible at remembering exactly what is said, especially in scriptures so I may have this wrong. Please forgive if I do.

I've been really impressed. I knew this topic could cause some hard feelings between posters and readers but, for the most part, everyone was respectful of others and only tried to educate. Thank you for that. I hate arguments.

Thanks again!

[skippy740]

But doesn't it say in the BOM somewhere that they were fair skinned after following the gospel principles? That they had become a fair skinned people? I am horrible at remembering exactly what is said, especially in scriptures so I may have this wrong. Please forgive if I do.

2 Nephi 30:6

6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

Before the revision of the scriptures, the word "pure" was probably "white".

Now, read the verse in the context I talked about in that last post. A cursing is a separation from God. A blessing is being closer to God. Scales of darkness is having the veil of forgetfulness lifted or being blinded by false traditions. But a happy people are a pure and delightsome people.

3 Nephi 2:15

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

Again, their countenance was lightened like unto the Nephites.

Jacob 3:5 & 8

5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

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.

If you don't repent, you will be separated from God... and the Lamanites will have a closer relationship than you do. (How about THAT for a "motivational" General Conference talk!)

Alma 3:6

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

The curse was because of their transgression and rebellion against their brethren. They were separated from the Lord and His commandments.

Hope this helps some!

[Snow]

So that begs the question. Is it fair to hold Mormon history to scrutiny, while ignoring, not only Christian history in the US, but American history in general. Should we denounce the Founding Fathers, many of whom owned slaves? Should we condemn political parties whose past leaders were for segregation and voiced the opinions that blacks were inferior? How is it that one can condemn Mormonism but ignore their own racist past?

Mormons claim to be led by prophets. Should not a higher standard apply. We should be the first to be enlightened. Not the last.

Edited September 3, 2011 by Snow
phrasing

[ldseastcoast]

I don't believe it to be a matter of enlightenment, or lack thereof, but merely adhering to scriptural teachings.

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 2 Nephi 5:21, we read some pretty heavy stuff. My personal interpretation of it-- and this is just that, a personal interpretation-- is that this is where the General Authorities who once taught against interracial marriage got their information, for lack of a better term.

I remember being raised with the knowledge that interracial marriage is not so much wrong as it is against the counsel of the Church, and that has more to do with cultural compatibility than any perceived racism. Because of those teachings, I didn't fall into the fad that was prevalent when I was in school, that being interracial relationships, i.e. black male/white female, or vice versa, to a lesser degree. I am grateful for that upbringing and I will not lie about or hide that gratitude.

With that said, just because one may not marry into another race does not mean he is racist. I of course sustain the 1978 revelation and I also sustain Gordon B. Hinckley when he said that racism has no place in the Church.

However, history is history and facts are facts.

Alma 3:6-7 is quite clear that the dark skin came about because of rebellion. One could argue, perhaps successfully, that this is why (and I say this with scriptural intent) statistically speaking, blacks are responsible for more crimes than any other race. Could that rebellion be genetic? Maybe, on some small scriptural degree, it really isn't their fault, as many of them cry when they're arrested or in jail. However, they must of course be held accountable for their actions. Still, it's my personal belief that Alma 3:6-7 explains this dynamic.

Conversely, Alma 23:18 showed that people could repent and have the curse lifted. Now, as we read in Moses 7:22, Cain's descendants were black, as were the Lamanites.

Of course, today's descendants had absolutely nothing to do with all this, and of course there are upstanding and good black people. They can now hold the priesthood and go forward in all manners in the Church. However, history cannot be forgotten, nor should it.

I haven't yet been in a position of getting an ordination or blessing from a black priesthood holder, but because of scriptural teaching-- not racism-- I'd have to say I may not be okay with that.

Now, to my knowledge-- and I'm not too proud to admit that maybe I missed something-- there has been no revelation or scriptural revision that lifts the curse put upon those with dark skin, i.e. black people.

Edited September 3, 2011 by ldseastcoast