Mitt Romney and the Curse of Blackness (Huff Post)

[_Buffalo]

For one black skin wasn't the "curse".....

Apparently you haven't read the Book of Mormon. Not only is it a curse, it's a "sore" curse.

[_Sethbag]

As I pointed out in another thread recently, a Khoisan man is certainly a black African, but is genetically unrelated to most other blacks on the continent going back tens of thousands of years, and is in fact more distantly related to northern African blacks than white Europeans are.

If there is one thing the recent DNA and the Book of Mormon debate has taught us, it's that God loves to play games with DNA.

And if there's another thing the last few decades have taught us, it's that if anything the LDS Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have ever can in theory be tested by science, it's almost certainly, sooner or later, proven to be wrong.

The whole black African = lineage of Cain thing is just another shining example of the church leaders revealing things out of their asses, rather than from a real God who actually exists, and tells things as they really are.

[_Sethbag]

For one black skin wasn't the "curse".....

Apparently you haven't read the Book of Mormon. Not only is it a curse, it's a "sore" curse.

Buffalo, apparently you missed the crucial distinction here. The black skin wasn't the curse itself, it was merely the mark of the curse. Which is a crucial distinction, because, you know, it makes it alright.

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo, apparently you missed the crucial distinction here. The black skin wasn't the curse itself, it was merely the mark of the curse. Which is a crucial distinction, because, you know, it makes it all right.

Well, in the case of the Lamanites, I think it was the curse itself. It's not like Lamanites couldn't hold the priesthood, right?

[_cinepro]

I wrote a quick response here that has my problems with Dr. Hendricks' article.

While I'm as critical as anyone about the Church's history with the priesthood ban and the racist teachings of some LDS leaders, Dr. Hendricks' article is seriously flawed in its application of the Book of Mormon statements on dark skin and curses to blacks of African descent.

If a Native American had written the same article but about Native Americans instead of blacks, then it would be valid.

(In the comments section of the article, "LDSRevelations" explains it quite clearly at 12:16)

[_Quasimodo]

For one black skin wasn't the "curse"..... Being denied the Priesthood was the curse.
Black skin was a "mark", not a sure sign..... Other things like lineage determined if you were under the curse or not.

Even white men were denied the Priesthood..... Those DAMN RACIST Mormons!!!

Yah, those DAMN white men, who ate in White Only Restaurants, used white toilets, etc. etc.
Ya, those DAMN Mormons were "racist" against those DAMN white men.....

More silliness. ldsfaqs, you've posted multiple times on this board with similar foolishness and have been thoroughly trounced by responders on both sides. I have respect for your ability to take a beating, but don't you think it's time to reconsider some of your opinions?

You have managed to insult just about everyone here (IDIOT, LIAR, ANTI-MORMON, etc.). Please think about learning more in the area of the subjects you rant about and restarting with a more agreeable attitude.

[_mms]

I wrote a quick response here that has my problems with Dr. Hendricks' article.

While I'm as critical as anyone about the Church's history with the priesthood ban and the racist teachings of some LDS leaders, Dr. Hendricks' article is seriously flawed in its application of the Book of Mormon statements on dark skin and curses to blacks of African descent.

If a Native American had written the same article but about Native Americans instead of blacks, then it would be valid.

(In the comments section of the article, "LDSRevelations" explains it quite clearly at 12:16)

The author writes:

The sad truth is that the Book of Morman [sic] says it explicitly and in numerous passages: black people are cursed by God and our dark skin is the evidence of our accursedness. Here are a few examples:

I actually think the author would stand by this in the general sense that the Book of Mormon can quite accurately be portrayed as demonstrating that God uses black skin as a curse/mark. He has decided to take this to mean that this is why God gave him black skin, according to the Book of Mormon. Is this provably false? Or does it simply deviate from how Mormon's interpret their book and God's particular curses for dark-skinned people of different kinds? Could one, outside of any other Mormon teaching, read the Book of Mormon and interpret it as explaining why black skinned folks are black skinned?

[_LDSToronto]

Hey, defenders of racism,

You did read the article, didn't you? Hendricks doesn't state that the passages in The Book of Mormon refer to African Americans; he says they refer to black people. Hendricks then goes on to show that there might very well be link between Book of Mormon scriptures and the documented racist actions and polices of the LDS church and it's leaders.

I am not educated in sociology or theology, but if a book of god-given scripture made claims that those with a black skin were inferior to those with a white skin, is it really a misdirected conclusion for that book's adherents to believe that the passage refers to *everyone* with a black skin?

If you don't believe me, listen to General Conference in three months time and count the number of scriptures quoted were original context is stripped and new meaning is extrapolated.

H.

[_sr1030]

Exactly. Mormons weren't racist against black people because of the Book of Mormon; they were (and are) racist against Native Americans. Mormons were racist against people with black skin of African descent because of the Book of Abraham and latter-day revelation to their prophets, such as Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Mark E. Petersen. I can understand why Mormons would be upset with him getting those facts wrong.

I don't know what facts you are referring to that were wrong, but obviously LDS were racist against any non-white race at one time, it doesn't really matter which of the standard works declare this, all are canonized in the LDS church.

I vote Republican, but do not want Romney to get the nomination due to his being LDS and the baggage that comes with this fact. I don't want the Republican party to lose, but if he is nominated, I think we will have another Democratic president.

sr

[_Buffalo]

Exactly. Mormons weren't racist against black people because of the Book of Mormon; they were (and are) racist against Native Americans. Mormons were racist against people with black skin of African descent because of the Book of Abraham and latter-day revelation to their prophets, such as Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Mark E. Petersen. I can understand why Mormons would be upset with him getting those facts wrong.

I don't know what facts you are referring to that were wrong, but obviously LDS were racist against any non-white race at one time, it doesn't really matter which of the standard works declare this, all are canonized in the LDS church.

I vote Republican, but do not want Romney to get the nomination due to his being LDS and the baggage that comes with this fact. I don't want the Republican party to lose, but if he is nominated, I think we will have another Democratic president.

sr

I think it's mostly blacks and Native Americans. I believe Mark E. Peterson once said something disparaging about the Chinese as well.