Is the Mormon Church racist? Blacks a...

Is the Mormon Church racist? Blacks are not equal to whites in the Mormon Heaven.

There are 615 comments on the Daily Kos story from Mar 13, 2012, titled Is the Mormon Church racist? Blacks are not equal to whites in the Mormon Heaven.. In it, Daily Kos reports that:

While blacks can now hold the Mormon priesthood, equality in the Mormon afterlife is another matter entirely.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Kos.

Osirica

Collierville, TN

#430 Apr 10, 2012
Oh and your "red" reference in Wikipedia?

Gesenius, Wilhelm & Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1893). Genenius's Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. J. Wiley & Sons. p. xiii.

That reference also link it to "fair" and "handsome"

1893

Not credible. IT's a racial link

Ruddy, Fair, and the like do not denote an actual racial skin color, it simply is a race neutral word that was appropriate by whites.

FAIR For example meant "equal" or "agreeable". Then in Hebrew it also means "attractive".

Does not mean "lightskinned"

Ruddy, which means red, not "rosy cheeks" can refer to a brown skinned, or a dark skinned person, certainly as much as or more than a light skinned person.

in 1893, Native Americans were called "red" men. And native Americans were not known to be light skinned people, but dark.

They were also confused with "Indians" from "India" which is why they were called "indians" in the first place.

People whose complexion was dark, not light skinned with the rosy cheeks nonsense.

Your crap has been rejected.
Osirica

Collierville, TN

#431 Apr 10, 2012
I'll put money on anything you have to say about it. Will you?
jUST a country Boy wrote:
YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, WHATSOEVER, DO YOU.
<quoted text>
Osirica

Collierville, TN

#433 Apr 10, 2012
"You on the other hand, you believe that those who theory how black skin came to be through a curse, their statements have to be racially motivated."

Yes because that's where the THEORY STARTED FROM!

The theory started with some idiots trying to explain "why" blacks were "inferior" or "lower class"

Your Mormons even go along WITH that.

Their skin color is simply their skin color,

what the heck does a curse have to DO with it?

NOTHING.

So yes it's racially motivated because the notion of blacks as a separate race came into play long before that, and was used to enslave them and justify it.

So no, me thinking that adam and eve were black has nothing to do with racism because again, that was just the color.

The notion that black skin is the result of a curse, or mark, is racist because it has nothing to show for it other than some racist theory. It's random, it comes from "magic" and "curses", it's not even referenced in the Bible.

Why not say black skin was a blessing for good deeds in the Bible?

Why theorize that a race of people skin color came from a curse.

Where does that notion even come from?

Not the Bible (it's not implied in there).

Oh wait, he may not be saying anything that he actually believes is true.
Osirica

Collierville, TN

#434 Apr 10, 2012
Look at China's origin of the human race. "The three emperors"
Read about how the three emperors came about.
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know there are many ancient legends of the flood? The Biblical account is just the most well known.
Osirica

Collierville, TN

#435 Apr 10, 2012
And then there are the truthful people that no skin color came from a curse.

LOL and now you are defending the racism of black muslims.

Everyone is talking about people skin color coming from a curse.

Amazing bullcrap you're sticking up for isn't it? Caused a lot of damage in society.

But you believe it's worth standing up for.

Hey everyone is entitled to their opinion, And I, being one, am entitled to discuss it.

No, no skin color came from a curse, the whites that started it wanted to justify slavery to masses who were somewhat troubled by the practice. It was pushed as part of an obvious agenda. The earliest reference to it came from Muslims who were, yes, engaging in slavery against blacks.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If you take a moment to understand the usage of specific English words used in a statement, like in the above, you will never prove the author of those statements made them out of racial hatred or intolerance for black people.
There are black Muslims that elaborate about the story of the curse of Cain, but say it was a white skin cursing, not a black skin cursing. And they don't explain it in racial hatred terms or intolerance. They believe it to explain where white skin came from.
You really need to understand the difference between an opinion and actual language said in hate because of intolerance.
Osirica

Collierville, TN

#436 Apr 10, 2012
NO IDIOT

You have to prove it WASNT. Where do you get the notion that I have to prove that 6000 years ago the Earth DIDNT look like Pangea???

Pangea is a theory that came about regarding events that unfolved 6 BILLION years ago.

You gotta address the timeline first before you address the results of that time line doofus.

You have to prove that it WASNT.

backwards buffoon.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>

..........
So it is up to you to prove that opinion is false. You'll need Biblical evidence to prove your theory that the earth was created by God as it looks now when he made Adam and Eve.
Science has shown that the earth has been a single continent at least four times. Science states we are in the next stage of the continents coming back together again to form a single continent.
Google continental drift theory.
Osirica

Collierville, TN

#437 Apr 10, 2012
Yes, and how much of what you said here is actually stuff you actually believe?

We will never know.

Watch:

The flood would not cause the continents to erode to their positions today, They fit too neatly into a single landmass from earlier. Water cannot cause that to occur.

The origin of Adam and Eve, no matter which way you choose points clearly towards Africa.

Finally, black descendents cannot generate from white ancestors. It's never happened and can never happen. Over a few millions of years, you can speculate that hairy apes from eons ago lost their hair and GRADUALLY darkened as time passed. But the human state (adam/eve) was black by the time Adam/Eve existed (pick whatever time you want).

The dna, settlements, and historical record prove THAT.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I have read similar statements. Of all that I have read concerning this topic, I personally believe God began all things through a process of evolution as science describes it. I believe at some point in time, God set Adam and Eve into that evolutionary process.
I have no idea of the finer points of that belief to explain all the different humanoids that have existed and that don't exist any more.
I do believe that when the earth was flooded shortly after Adam and Eve got the boot from Eden, God flooded the single existing continental land mass he brought to be and that is why we have no evidence of a "world wide flood" so as the world looks now with several continents.
But that is my own opinion without evidence :)
Osirica

Collierville, TN

#438 Apr 10, 2012
"Christianity is a Caucasian religion with it's roots in Rome, not Israel. "(This is a False statement)

Christianity is a religion with it's roots in Israel, Rome and elsewhere.(True Statement)

You just got busted for being wrong again.
And because you cannot admit you are ever wrong, it's time to lie:

"This is not a statement you actually believe is true"

Came from
Roots (not) in a place where the roots "are" in

Go ahead and lie up a difference.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I said it's roots, not it's beginning oh ignorant one. Christianity was born in Jerusalem. Remember? But Christianities roots with it's Bible happened in Rome, not Israel, not Ethiopia, not Asia or any where else.
I said...
"Christianity is a Caucasian religion with it's roots in Rome, not Israel." ...I said nothing of where Christianity came from. Learn the difference :)
Osirica

Collierville, TN

#439 Apr 10, 2012
KKK has a black member too

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If they didn't know that his former boss wanted to free the slaves and had allowed them membership into his white Christian church, if they didn't know Young allowed them membership and Native American Indians membership, I'd agree.
Osirica

Collierville, TN

#440 Apr 10, 2012
And Ethiopia had their own development without the council, so did India... And they all share essentially the same Bible.

The council in rome was not the only council. It's the council that is adopted by the Roman Catholic Church from which most protestants derive from. But they are not the universal authority on Christianity.

It's just that from that council, many reasoned men conferred and by their numbers and experience were able to address concerns raised by heresies from the ancestor doctrines of the Oneness Pentecostals (Modalists) and Jehovah Witnesses (Arians).

Mormons weren't even IN the picture yet. That didn't come about until Muhammad some 3 centuries later.

So what's your point?

Now you talk about the canon put together by the council. EVERY Bible out there, whether accepted by the council or not comes to the same teachings.

The council rejected crazy notions of Jesus being the same person as the Father or that Jesus was a separate God than the Father because there is only one God. The Council rejected polytheism.

Ok. Great. The council did the right thing.

So what's your problem?

Oh they didn't do what Joseph SMith wanted. Make Joseph Smith into some predicted prophet

Well gee there were so many to choose from, how would they know which one was right?

You had
Muhammad, Joseph SMith, Charles Taze Russel, Miller, Henry Seymour, Rev. McAllister, and so on and SO ON.

And all of them expected to be right because if you pray about it, and if you really read the bible, you'd know that these hundreds of years later johnny come latlies were right.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
How stupid and ignorant of a brain fart are you having? Biblical Christianity that put everything into a single volume and then gave it to the world began in Rome. It began no where else. The Romans that put together a council to decide of all the writings that existed were of God and what weren't of God, it happened in Rome, not Israel, not Ethiopia, not Sudan or any where else.
quit taking those stupid pills okay?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#441 Apr 10, 2012
Osirica wrote:
Yes because that's where the THEORY STARTED FROM!
The theory started with some idiots trying to explain "why" blacks were "inferior" or "lower class"
You need a little history if you really want to support your theory in a correct fashion.
No one of a certain ethnic group ever woke one sunny morning, then decided they would find other humans to classify as "inferior or lower class" to make themselves feel more superior. Never happened as you insinuate with your ignorant thinking that "..some idiots trying to explain "why" blacks were "inferior" or "lower class."
When Columbus and the others following him sailed to Cuba and the Americas, they didn't see "people". They saw what they referred to as "savages". They didn't call them savages because they were racists. They called them that because of their lack of ingenuity concerning "how" they lived. They lived in huts and hunted to eat and usually didn't farm. They didn't use the wheel, they had no grand ships, no wooden houses or grand palaces. They were usually half dressed if that. This is why Spanish explorers called them savages.
Africans for the most part were called the same thing by Arabs and who knows by who else. It wasn't a racial theme. It described how they lived with so few modern convinces. Europeans discovering parts of Africa called African's savages because of how they lived and dressed. Spanish and then Europeans called American natives savages because of how they lived and dressed.
Inferior and lower class were words they used to define the differences in intellect based on who lived a modern life and who didn't. But it wasn't a racial train of thinking as you so wish to believe.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#442 Apr 10, 2012
Osirica wrote:
And then there are the truthful people that no skin color came from a curse.
LOL and now you are defending the racism of black muslims.
As usual you missed the boat. I wasn't defending black Muslims. I was explaining how those that think white skin is a curse, why they think that and how their thinking isn't based in racism.
You think their thinking is racist, not I. I think their explanation is what it is, an explanation for where white skin came from.
See, according to your logic, if explaining how a skin color came to be through a curse is racism, then explaining how white skin came from black skin is also racism. After all, you believe black skin came first and then a genetic mistake happened and black skin erringly produced white skin, making it a second class color. That makes you a racist through and through according to your logic you use for others :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#443 Apr 10, 2012
Osirica wrote:
NO IDIOT
You have to prove it WASNT. Where do you get the notion that I have to prove that 6000 years ago the Earth DIDNT look like Pangea???
Pangea is a theory that came about regarding events that unfolved 6 BILLION years ago.
You gotta address the timeline first before you address the results of that time line doofus.
You have to prove that it WASNT.
backwards buffoon.
<quoted text>
Stupid and ignorant today. Forget to take your vitamins or what? I did prove my point that you with stupid ignorance refuse to admit exists. Genesis states the earth was a single land mass in an ocean of seas. It states that. I gave you the verses a few times. You continue with your stupid ignorance refuse to believe what the Bible states. ONE BIG OCEAN, ONE BIG LAND MASS.
..........
9 And God said,“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
..........
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
..........
9 Then God said,“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
..........
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
..........
9 And God said,“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,[d] and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#444 Apr 10, 2012
Osirica wrote:
Finally, black descendents cannot generate from white ancestors. It's never happened and can never happen.
Scientific theory states the first hominids were pale skinned with dark/black/brown hair. Scientific theory states they remained that way while first living in trees.
Scientific theory states of those pale skinned dark furred hominids that left for the jungle floor, they evolved darker skin colors of brown and black.
Scientific theory states all colors evolved from them that exist today.
Osirica theory wants to interject two modern humans somewhere into that state of evolution of those hominids, making them black Africans.
Osirica theory wants to mix science that doesn't believe in Adam and Eve with Biblical theory to prove his theory.
Osirica theory has obvious problems :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#445 Apr 10, 2012
Osirica wrote:
"Christianity is a Caucasian religion with it's roots in Rome, not Israel. "(This is a False statement)
Christianity is a religion with it's roots in Israel, Rome and elsewhere.(True Statement)
No. Wrong again. The seed of Christianity according to ancient writings we have began in Israel. The roots of Christianity, the actual beginning of Christianity spread by white Caucasian Romans in Italy was spread by white Caucasian Romans in Italy. From Italy it spread to Spain. Spain took it to the South and Central Americas in the 1500s. Italy also took it to Europe and Europe took it to North America and else where. France took it to what we call the Canadian provinces. Russians took it to the natives and Eskimos of what we call Alaska.
Your argument is stupid and ignorant, grow up.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#446 Apr 10, 2012
Osirica wrote:
The council in rome was not the only council. It's the council that is adopted by the Roman Catholic Church from which most protestants derive from. But they are not the universal authority on Christianity.
Everything Christianity comes from Rome. Rome took the left over pieces of what still existed in Jerusalem of Christianity and did what Jesus wasn't allowed to do. They made their nation a Christian nation. They took all of the information from Israel to be had and put together a book of scripture for their new religion. Where Jesus and the apostles failed because they were all killed, the Romans succeeded in accomplishing and gave their new religion to the world.
damyou

Monticello, IN

#447 Apr 11, 2012
black people are not the only dark skin race..

i'm sure you still love people from india..

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#448 Apr 11, 2012
damyou wrote:
black people are not the only dark skin race..
i'm sure you still love people from india..
Yeah, but according to Osirica logic, the only true dark skinned people that exist are from Africa, not India or else where :)
Osirica

Collierville, TN

#449 Apr 11, 2012
No one said "an ethnic group woke up one sunny morning"

But SOMEONE made up the story from their A$$ that black people were inferior and that their skin color was a curse.

Because the notion that just having black skin is somehow a bad thing was what they rode that lie upon.

THis whole "the curse is this, and the skin color was just a mark"... that's some 1990s or 2000s interpretation of an interpretation of a heresy.

No one cares at that point. Does a sewer rat taste like pumpkin pie? How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop? Was black skin a curse or just a mark?

It's nonsense to even try to make it into something because the whole thing is an absurd lie to start off with.

You sit there and then in this stupid reply below go on and on further into stupidity.

Well no one woke up one sunny morning and just said that rats taste like chicken...

And so in regards to what people said about savages and before apparently your notion of "inferiority" existed.

Let us get back on the track. I am speaking of the MYTH of LIE that "BLACK SKIN COLOR CAME FROM A MARK ON CAIN" and "BLACKS WERE ONCE CURSED IN THE BIBLE"

These myths have nothing to do with what Spanish conquistadors observed. These myths had to do with people wanting to make $$$$ while still pretending to love god. You cannot love god and money, you have to abandon one and choose the other.

Now, what you and your kind tried to do was to marry the two under "divine" notions of racial hierarchy. So there was this myth, carried over probably FROM muslims (which should make it LESS Christian)

Now, you sit here and try to sidestep explain it by discussing Colombus.

Yes, when I talk about A, you will talk about how "B" wasn't like I thought "C" was, when I never discussed B nor C.

Black people did not come from a mark on cain, nor were they ever identified in the Bible as being cursed.

Those Christian religions that taught otherwise engaged in biblical heresy and blasphemy against God. Any religion claiming to "restore" the true gospel while simultaneously carrying this lie into it's doctrine is by far, automatically OUT.

Mormonism taught that doctrine as divine inspiration into one of their SCRIPTURES that they say was a correction to the Bible

Thus they are DOUBLY out.

I don't care about Columbus, or the word "savages" or whatever.

They were racist, in fact, if thats not, what IS
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You need a little history if you really want to support your theory in a correct fashion.
No one of a certain ethnic group ever woke one sunny morning, then decided they would find other humans to classify as "inferior or lower class" to make themselves feel more superior. Never happened as you insinuate with your ignorant thinking that "..some idiots trying to explain "why" blacks were "inferior" or "lower class."
When Columbus and the others following him sailed to Cuba and the Americas, they didn't see "people". They saw what they referred to as "savages". They didn't call them savages because they were racists. They called them that because of their lack of ingenuity concerning "how" they lived. They lived in huts and hunted to eat and usually didn't farm. They didn't use the wheel, they had no grand ships, no wooden houses or grand palaces. They were usually half dressed if that. This is why Spanish explorers called them savages.
Africans for the most part were called the same thing by Arabs and who knows by who else. It wasn't a racial theme. It described how they lived with so few modern convinces. Europeans discovering parts of Africa called African's savages because of how they lived and dressed. Spanish and then Europeans called American natives savages because of how they lived and dressed.
Inferior and lower class were words they used to define the differences in intellect based on who lived a modern life and who didn't. But it wasn't a racial train of thinking as you so wish to believe.
Osirica

Collierville, TN

#450 Apr 11, 2012
And scientific theory states that the first humans were black skinned. You are HUMAN aren't you"? or are you just a hominid?

See... i ended your nonsense that quickly.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientific theory states the first hominids were pale skinned with dark/black/brown hair. Scientific theory states they remained that way while first living in trees.
Scientific theory states of those pale skinned dark furred hominids that left for the jungle floor, they evolved darker skin colors of brown and black.
Scientific theory states all colors evolved from them that exist today.
Osirica theory wants to interject two modern humans somewhere into that state of evolution of those hominids, making them black Africans.
Osirica theory wants to mix science that doesn't believe in Adam and Eve with Biblical theory to prove his theory.
Osirica theory has obvious problems :)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Letter: A Man Without a Dog 1 hr Pope Closet Emeritus 17
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) Tue Carpenter 4,151
News In 2006 Video, Romney Calls Health Care Mandate... (Jun '12) Oct 13 Geezer approval r... 73
News Race and Beyond: Let's Talk About Race and Poverty (Oct '12) Oct 2 Human 201
News Top Clinton and Romney campaign heads to jointl... Sep 29 Noe 7
News Kid Rock to open Detroit arena amid protest Sep 27 Team Kelly 18
News Romney: 'Obama has failed America' (Jun '11) Sep 25 Stephen D Clark 2
More from around the web