Apologetic Reality Disconnect

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Apologetic Reality Disconnect

Post by _moksha »

From the MAD board:

I think it very probably would be brought up. Romney is a devout member of a religion that apparently still believes that black skin is a curse from God. I don't think that people will care about the history of the Democratic party so much as Romney's current beliefs.

Back that up or get off this board. = mods

What was the moderator thinking? Can this be so easily denied when this item is in LDS scriptures, has been expounded upon by past leaders and has been a topic for many threads on their own board. Or is this part of an election year spin?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Apologetic Reality Disconnect

Post by _harmony »

moksha wrote:From the MAD board:

I think it very probably would be brought up. Romney is a devout member of a religion that apparently still believes that black skin is a curse from God. I don't think that people will care about the history of the Democratic party so much as Romney's current beliefs.

Back that up or get off this board. = mods

What was the moderator thinking? Can this be so easily denied when this item is in LDS scriptures, has been expounded upon by past leaders and has been a topic for many threads on their own board. Or is this part of an election year spin?


The problem is the word "still". I'm sure that's the point the mods are making. The poster needs to verify that the LDS church "still" believes that a black skin is a curse from God.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Apologetic Reality Disconnect

Post by _moksha »

harmony wrote:The problem is the word "still". I'm sure that's the point the mods are making. The poster needs to verify that the LDS church "still" believes that a black skin is a curse from God.

Didn't a former BYU Professor make a plea in a news conference nearly a year ago for the Church to clarify this point? I think both those of African descent and the mysterious Lamanite descendants have a vested interest in knowing if the Church has dropped this thinking. It sure would help Mitt's chances to be able to point to an answer.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Re: Apologetic Reality Disconnect

Post by _The Dude »

harmony wrote:The problem is the word "still". I'm sure that's the point the mods are making. The poster needs to verify that the LDS church "still" believes that a black skin is a curse from God.


I think the problem is the word "believes". It's nearly impossible to prove what the LDS church believes, because different members believe different things... it's a lot easier to show what the LDS church teaches. Plenty of scriptures, lesson manuals, and websites can be used to show that this connection is taught or implied.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Moksha,

I believe the current apologia regarding this point is that the scriptures never really were describing black or dark skin as the result of the curse of cain, and it was only figurative language. (or perhaps described a "mark" that the descendants marked on THEMSELVES - I've seen them make this argument in regards to the dark and evil Lamanites)

I think that it is a theory that flies in the face of logic and and history, but that won't change the fact that the apologists are so enamored of this new theory that they have convinced themselves it is so clearly the correct theory that they can issue a challenge like this without blinking an eye.

by the way, who was the author of the quote? Whoever it is ought to be on the poll for the MAD CHOPPING block thread. (by the way, I just found the thread and bach was the author, thereby bumping him up on the poll, in my opinion)
Last edited by Tator on Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Apologetic Reality Disconnect

Post by _Mister Scratch »

The Dude wrote:I think the problem is the word "believes". It's nearly impossible to prove what the LDS church believes, because different members believe different things... it's a lot easier to show what the LDS church teaches. Plenty of scriptures, lesson manuals, and websites can be used to show that this connection is taught or implied.


An excellent point. A further problem for apologists on this issue is the fact that the ban on interracial marriage (which has its justification both in doctrine and in scripture) has never been officially or publicly revoked.
_Doctor Steuss
_Emeritus
Posts: 4597
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:57 pm

Re: Apologetic Reality Disconnect

Post by _Doctor Steuss »

Mister Scratch wrote:An excellent point. A further problem for apologists on this issue is the fact that the ban on interracial marriage (which has its justification both in doctrine and in scripture) has never been officially or publicly revoked.


"Ban on interracial marriage"? I think a more accurate verbiage would be "counsel against interracial marriage." My cousin (white) and his wife (black) have received no disciplinary action from the church for their Temple marriage. Neither has the most recent marriage in my ward (once again, a white man and a black woman).

Edit:
Actually the guy in my ward has received some disciplinary action. On the occasions when I attend church, I make sure to give him the stink-eye. I thought the girl he married was hot, and I’m pissed that she’s taken now. Grrrrr...
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

Apostle Mark E. Peterson in an Address to BYU, 1954 - 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 the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

Servants in Heaven! My how that will play in the media, and all because of their bad lives in the pre-existence.

Apostle Mark E. Peterson in an Address to BYU, 1954 - I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a café where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it.

Can you imagine Mitt telling the voter that this is what Obama wants?

"Racial degeneration, resulting in differences in appearance and spiritual aptitude, has arisen since the fall. We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were born with the characteristics of the black race. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8,12,22; Abra. 1:20-27.) The Book of Mormon explains why the Lamanites received dark skins and a degenerate status. (2 Ne. 5:21-23.) If we had a full and true history of all races and nations, we would know the origins of all their distinctive characteristics. In the absence of such detailed information, however, we know only the general principle that all these changes from the physical and spiritual perfections of our common parents have been brought about by departure from the gospel truths. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 148-151; vol. 3, pp. 313-326.)" (Mormon Doctrine 1999 printing, p. 616)

1999!

The Church would be best served, while it is under such scrutiny from Mitt's Presidential run, to issue this much needed clarification.

by the way, it is a needed duty to keep this ark afloat.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

Mok, few see it. Remember that book I quoted from, with a 2003 copyright?

There are those in the LDS church who feel that just not talking about it, or hearing one leader say there isn't a problem is enough. That's called denial. And it's that denial that opened the door for me to walk out.

Belief, teaching? The LDS church wants to be seen as a mainstream Christian church, yet it is holding onto practices and beliefs from over a century ago, because to say "we were wrong on this one" would call into question every other "thus sayeth the Lord" or anything close to it that has ever been uttered by church leaders.

Skins of darkness sounds pretty clear to me. So does being pure, white, and delightsome. I doubt those in America who have a modicum of common sense and who are not LDS will understand why the church holds onto these issues the way it does.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Apologetic Reality Disconnect

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Doctor Steuss wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:An excellent point. A further problem for apologists on this issue is the fact that the ban on interracial marriage (which has its justification both in doctrine and in scripture) has never been officially or publicly revoked.


"Ban on interracial marriage"? I think a more accurate verbiage would be "counsel against interracial marriage." My cousin (white) and his wife (black) have received no disciplinary action from the church for their Temple marriage. Neither has the most recent marriage in my ward (once again, a white man and a black woman).


No, no, Steuss, my friend. I am referring to the long-standing ban---i.e., the "death on the spot" referred to by BY in his infamous speech on the topic, or the "spiritual death" mentioned by John Lund in his The Church and the Negro, or Elder Mark E. Peterson's counsel against it in the issue of Church News which announced the lifting of the priesthood ban. Of course there is still the racist "counsel against interracial marriage" in the contemporary Church, but for a long time there was also quite an explicit ban against it. This was a ban that was justified using various scriptures and doctrinal teachings (including BY's speech). Oddly, this ban has never been publicly or (as far as I know) "officially" rebuked. Many TBMs are completely unaware of this fact.

Obviously, interracial couples have been married in the temple since.... Well, since when? No doubt you see my point. A long-standing, doctrinally-based ban somehow..."evaporated." The Brethren have never provided any explanation for this. It could be that from a theological standpoint, these interracial sealings are not legitimate. After all, how are we to know? The Brethren have never publicly lifted the ban, and in fact seem to have tried very hard to totally avoid dealing with the topic of interracial marriage altogether.
Post Reply