mormonism racist?

[DavyCrocket2003]

The point is not whether Mormonism made some concessions on the race issue before 1978, there's nothing remarkable about that. The point is Mormonism as a faith contains explicit racism in it's scriptures and the teachings of it's prophets. The evidence regarding that is too great to be obfuscated away.

You know, I don't really agree. But I can see why you would say that. There have been some leaders that have said some things that sound pretty racist. But I am not sure there is explicit racism in our scriptures anywhere. I also don't think it is in our teachings anywhere. But hey, I'm Mormon, so what do you expect?

 

[Watchmen]

As I pointed out yesterday, your second assertion is so incomplete as to be misleading. Some Mormons were abolitionists some of the time, including Smith who was, except when he wasn't. Slavery was enacted in Utah in 1850.

It's not misleading at all. Mormons were abolotionists and were voting as a block - that freaked out the Missourians.

 

[Autodidact]

Even the Christians in the north that did not own or believe in owning slaves? A lot participated in the Underground Railroad and otherwise helped to end slavery in whatever way they could. You cannot blame Christianity as a whole when you have some Christians using slavery, and some adamantly against it. You can only look to blame the slave owners and define them that way. Not define them as Christian.

That may be, but their Bible nevertheless authorized it. I'm not blaming Christians, but Christianity.

 

[Autodidact]

The point is not whether Mormonism made some concessions on the race issue before 1978, there's nothing remarkable about that. The point is Mormonism as a faith contains explicit racism in it's scriptures and the teachings of it's prophets. The evidence regarding that is too great to be obfuscated away.

Well, most religions with books have horrible stuff in those books. I mean, the OT commands genocide and authorizes slavery, so neither of them exactly have boasting rights. And don't get me started on the Qu'ran.

 

[rojse]

Shahzad, perhaps you would like to talk about the fact of blacks holding the priesthood during Joseph Smith's time and the fact that Mormons were abolitionists.

Better than that, why doesn't tomasortega start a thread asking if Christianity is sexist towards women? Or is his ire only directed towards groups he doesn't initially like?

 

[Katzpur]

In case anybody is interested, I just started a new thread: Katzpur's Take on Racism in the LDS Church.

 

[tomasortega]

Better than that, why doesn't tomasortega start a thread asking if Christianity is sexist towards women? Or is his ire only directed towards groups he doesn't initially like?

im pressed for time right now, but ill throw a quick reply yourway.

the bible is extremely sexist. especially the pauline letters written by the a-sexual sexist saul. blatant racism however or even mention of the importance of skin color such as god cursing people with black skin BAHAHAHA..is not found in the bible. now im an equal opportunity ripper of idiocracy, so why dont you open a thread on sexism in the bible, and ill be sure to contribute with plenty verses exposing it.

 

[rojse]

im pressed for time right now, but ill throw a quick reply yourway.

the bible is extremely sexist. especially the pauline letters written by the a-sexual sexist saul. blatant racism however or even mention of the importance of skin color such as god cursing people with black skin BAHAHAHA..is not found in the bible. now im an equal opportunity ripper of idiocracy, so why dont you open a thread on sexism in the bible, and ill be sure to contribute with plenty verses exposing it.

I don't see the point. The Bible's attitude towards women today has very little in common with a book written two thousand years ago.

 

[Enoch07]

That may be, but their Bible nevertheless authorized it. I'm not blaming Christians, but Christianity.

But if all Christians did not practice it, how can you blame Christianity in general. I am sure I can find a gay person or atheist that was a serial killer. Does that give me the right to label all gays/atheist that? No. Because they are not defined in that way, they are defined as serial killers, because that was their crime. Just like slave owners should be defined as slave owners, instead of anything else associated with them. In fact if I was to call you a slave owner, serial killer, or other derogatory name based on your sexual preference/religion that is called prejudice and would get me banned or at the least an infraction/warning.

 

[tomasortega]

I don't see the point. The Bible's attitude towards women today has very little in common with a book written two thousand years ago.

unbelievable!!! are you kidding the bible's attitude is different today than it was about 2000 years ago?? the bible is the same. its a freaking book, or better yet, collection of books on the same general topic. only thing that changed over time is the people's interpretation of the bible, not the bible itself. so the bible is just as sexist today as it was 1900 years ago.


34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.


New International Version(NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

1 Corinthians 14:35

Listen to this passage
35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.



now, one can be a smart-*** and claim that urin is not actually urin, but perfume and spray it around your neck, and heck, you might even have some idiots believe you, but it wont change the fact that its urin.

if a religion puts you in a place where you have to be like good ole bill clinton and pull yourself out of the crapper by asking what is is, you/the religion you are defending is morally bankrupt in the first place. now, thats, it, no more off topic talk. open a thread on discussing why the bible is or isnt sexist and we can discuss it there

 

[Katzpur]

now, one can be a smart-*** and claim that urin is not actually urin, but perfume and spray it around your neck, and heck, you might even have some idiots believe you, but it wont change the fact that its urin.

What the hel is urin?

 

[tomasortega]

kidney secretion. maybe i spelled it wrong though.

 

[rojse]

unbelievable!!! are you kidding the bible's attitude is different today than it was about 2000 years ago?? the bible is the same. its a freaking book, or better yet, collection of books on the same general topic. only thing that changed over time is the people's interpretation of the bible, not the bible itself. so the bible is just as sexist today as it was 1900 years ago.

I phrased that wrong. My apologies; thank you for correcting me.

The attitude of Christians today does not necessarily reflect that of the Bible, written two thousand years ago.

 

[Autodidact]

It's not misleading at all. Mormons were abolotionists and were voting as a block - that freaked out the Missourians.

SLAVERY WAS ENACTED IN UTAH IN 1850. When asked whether he was an abolitionist, Smith said no, he was not.

 

[Autodidact]

But if all Christians did not practice it, how can you blame Christianity in general. I am sure I can find a gay person or atheist that was a serial killer. Does that give me the right to label all gays/atheist that? No. Because they are not defined in that way, they are defined as serial killers, because that was their crime. Just like slave owners should be defined as slave owners, instead of anything else associated with them. In fact if I was to call you a slave owner, serial killer, or other derogatory name based on your sexual preference/religion that is called prejudice and would get me banned or at the least an infraction/warning.

Christianity--the religion. Not Christians--the people who practice the religion. See the difference? There were Christians on both sides of the slavery debate. But the Bible of Christians and Jews explicitly authorizes slavery. If we're going to call out Mormons for their racist scriptural treatment of "Lammanites," let's be accurate about Christian scripture promoting slavery.

 

[Watchmen]

SLAVERY WAS ENACTED IN UTAH IN 1850. When asked whether he was an abolitionist, Smith said no, he was not.

JOSEPH SMITH WAS NEVER IN UTAH.

The abolitionist roots of Mormonism is well documented. Hell, it's even found in anti-Mormon books.

 

[Autodidact]

JOSEPH SMITH WAS NEVER IN UTAH.

What on earth does this have to do with this thread? You're saying that the early Mormons were abolutionists. Obviously, if they were abolitionists, why did they enact a law permitting slavery? As for Smith, I gave you a quote of him denying being an abolutionist. Later, in other contexts, he said he was. He seems to have been pretty upset about the civil war, and angry at both sides for bringing it on. It's much more complicated than saying they were abolitionists, so much more that saying they were is not true. For example, here is Smith writing in 1836:

"After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind-wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then, to name certain passages from the bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this nature, as the fact is incontrovertible, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction's being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!

 

[Watchmen]

What on earth does this have to do with this thread? You're saying that the early Mormons were abolutionists. Obviously, if they were abolitionists, why did they enact a law permitting slavery? As for Smith, I gave you a quote of him denying being an abolutionist. Later, in other contexts, he said he was. He seems to have been pretty upset about the civil war, and angry at both sides for bringing it on. It's much more complicated than saying they were abolitionists, so much more that saying they were is not true. For example, here is Smith writing in 1836:

"After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind-wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then, to name certain passages from the bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this nature, as the fact is incontrovertible, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction's being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!

Oh, shall we do battle of the quotes now?

Tell me, auto, what was the Missourians beef with the Mormons?

 

[Autodidact]

Oh, shall we do battle of the quotes now?

Tell me, auto, what was the Missourians beef with the Mormons?

If you like. My point is not that Smith was racist, of course he was; he was a white, 19th century American. He did express anti-slavery sentiments, as well as pro-slavery sentiments. Some Mormons were abolitionists sometimes, others were not. You don't think quoting the actual person is a good way to determine their views? How would you do it?

Why did Missouri run the Mormons out of there? Well, I don't have huge level of expertise in the subject, but I think it was a battle for political control, fear of living under a theocratic, foreign religion, and plain old prejudice and xenophobia. I'd say the leading reason was that the people then living there did not want to live in a new Mormon Deseret. This was confirmed in their minds when the Mormons started defending themselves with arms.

 

[Apex]

SLAVERY WAS ENACTED IN UTAH IN 1850. When asked whether he was an abolitionist, Smith said no, he was not.

Call for references.