DiscussMormonism.com

Coggins7 wrote:It was understood to be a doctrinal matter that only the Lord could alter, not human beings. Proof of this remains the ordination of many Samoans and Tongans throughout Church history, a number of which have skin as dark as many black people, but whom nonetheless never had any Priesthood restrictions[/b[b]]--as was also the case with Amerindians, Latin Americans, and others.

I'm sorry to piss on your chips, Coggins, but there were restrictions against people with black skin not of African descent. Fijans were defined by the FP as ineligible for the priesthood in 1953. There were special letters of authorization required from the First Presidecy to extend the priesthood to the people in the Philippines and West Irians. The 1949 letter from the FP included a reference to BY's statement: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God".

I think it's pretty clear that BY thought that the skin of blackness was an indication of the lineage of Cain and that he thought everyone with black skin was descended from Cain. So did the prophets, seers and revelators well into the first half of the XXth century. It was not until the 50s, when anthropological findings became known to the leadership, that the paradigm shifted from skin color to African descent as an indication of lineage.

These things are discussed in the book Neither White nor Black.

Zoidberg wrote:Fijans were defined by the FP as ineligible for the priesthood in 1953.

Forgive the diversion, but aren't Fijians of the same African stock as Australian Aborigines and the Ainu? I was under the impression that the Fijians (as well as the Aborigines and New Guineans) arrived thanks to the Malaysian land bridge that existed during the last Ice Age.

Zoidberg wrote:

Coggins7 wrote:It was understood to be a doctrinal matter that only the Lord could alter, not human beings. Proof of this remains the ordination of many Samoans and Tongans throughout Church history, a number of which have skin as dark as many black people, but whom nonetheless never had any Priesthood restrictions[/b[b]]--as was also the case with Amerindians, Latin Americans, and others.

I'm sorry to piss on your chips, Coggins, but there were restrictions against people with black skin not of African descent. Fijans were defined by the FP as ineligible for the priesthood in 1953. There were special letters of authorization required from the First Presidecy to extend the priesthood to the people in the Philippines and West Irians. The 1949 letter from the FP included a reference to BY's statement: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God".

I think it's pretty clear that BY thought that the skin of blackness was an indication of the lineage of Cain and that he thought everyone with black skin was descended from Cain. So did the prophets, seers and revelators well into the first half of the XXth century. It was not until the 50s, when anthropological findings became known to the leadership, that the paradigm shifted from skin color to African descent as an indication of lineage.

These things are discussed in the book Neither White nor Black.

In fairness to Brigham Young and the church leaders of the early 20th century, they were no more racist than the White Southern christian preachers, and the KKK.

SatanWasSetUp wrote:

Zoidberg wrote:

Coggins7 wrote:It was understood to be a doctrinal matter that only the Lord could alter, not human beings. Proof of this remains the ordination of many Samoans and Tongans throughout Church history, a number of which have skin as dark as many black people, but whom nonetheless never had any Priesthood restrictions[/b[b]]--as was also the case with Amerindians, Latin Americans, and others.

I'm sorry to piss on your chips, Coggins, but there were restrictions against people with black skin not of African descent. Fijans were defined by the FP as ineligible for the priesthood in 1953. There were special letters of authorization required from the First Presidecy to extend the priesthood to the people in the Philippines and West Irians. The 1949 letter from the FP included a reference to BY's statement: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God".

I think it's pretty clear that BY thought that the skin of blackness was an indication of the lineage of Cain and that he thought everyone with black skin was descended from Cain. So did the prophets, seers and revelators well into the first half of the XXth century. It was not until the 50s, when anthropological findings became known to the leadership, that the paradigm shifted from skin color to African descent as an indication of lineage.

These things are discussed in the book Neither White nor Black.

In fairness to Brigham Young and the church leaders of the early 20th century, they were no more racist than the White Southern christian preachers, and the KKK.

So that's all right then. We can hardly expect God's True Church to be morally in advance of the rest of contemporary society. Heavens no! Much too risky.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Zoidberg wrote:Fijans were defined by the FP as ineligible for the priesthood in 1953.

Forgive the diversion, but aren't Fijians of the same African stock as Australian Aborigines and the Ainu? I was under the impression that the Fijians (as well as the Aborigines and New Guineans) arrived thanks to the Malaysian land bridge that existed during the last Ice Age.

Of course, all of us are of African stock. The book mentions the Church's "inconsistency" on the part of the Fijians, but it doesn't go into much detail about that.

SWSU, I quite agree that the earlier Church leaders were not any more racist than those other groups you've mentioned. The point here is that they weren't any less racist, which Coggins seems to disagree with. So them being in tune with their contemporaries is evident of complete lack of inspiration on this rather important matter. I suppose you could also say that God does not consider racism an important enough issue to bother correcting his mouthpieces about it for such a long time or come up with another such similar explanation, which I'm sure some apologists have already done to their satisfaction.

Yes, and the current church isn't any more tolerant of gays than most of society. Because we all know that God hates gays, just as he hated blacks in the 1800's. That's why he made them stupid.

**Note, I'm re-iterating the steriotypes that people living in the 1800's thought of blacks, not what I personally think.

SatanWasSetUp wrote:

Zoidberg wrote:

Coggins7 wrote:It was understood to be a doctrinal matter that only the Lord could alter, not human beings. Proof of this remains the ordination of many Samoans and Tongans throughout Church history, a number of which have skin as dark as many black people, but whom nonetheless never had any Priesthood restrictions[/b[b]]--as was also the case with Amerindians, Latin Americans, and others.

I'm sorry to piss on your chips, Coggins, but there were restrictions against people with black skin not of African descent. Fijans were defined by the FP as ineligible for the priesthood in 1953. There were special letters of authorization required from the First Presidecy to extend the priesthood to the people in the Philippines and West Irians. The 1949 letter from the FP included a reference to BY's statement: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God".

I think it's pretty clear that BY thought that the skin of blackness was an indication of the lineage of Cain and that he thought everyone with black skin was descended from Cain. So did the prophets, seers and revelators well into the first half of the XXth century. It was not until the 50s, when anthropological findings became known to the leadership, that the paradigm shifted from skin color to African descent as an indication of lineage.

These things are discussed in the book Neither White nor Black.

In fairness to Brigham Young and the church leaders of the early 20th century, they were no more racist than the White Southern christian preachers, and the KKK.

But those people did not have the ability to look into the future like a Seer does; the Seer can see the social stucture of the year 2000. Brigham Young had that ability as a Seer. As a Seer he could see MLK, the civil rights movement and even the Twin Towers attack. He had the stone. Seers are super cool. They live somewhere between earth and heaven and get to deal with angles all the time. Joseph was a Seer, Alma Jr, Nephi, Mormon and Moroni along with others. Moses was a Seer. Deal with the fact that you are dealing with a Seer.

You dummies! Haven't you read the FARMS apologetics re: the words "skin of blackness"? It was actually a black leather belt they their forefathers had chosen to wear to set themselves apart from God's people, not their actual own highly-pigmented epidermis!

Sethbag wrote:You dummies! Haven't you read the FARMS apologetics re: the words "skin of blackness"? It was actually a black leather belt they their forefathers had chosen to wear to set themselves apart from God's people, not their actual own highly-pigmented epidermis!

I've actually been considering going to their website to check out the leather belt explanation. It wouldn't surprise me if FARMS actually came up with that.

I won't do that, however, because if you are not joking my already dim hope for humanity will die on the spot.

Sethbag wrote:You dummies! Haven't you read the FARMS apologetics re: the words "skin of blackness"? It was actually a black leather belt they their forefathers had chosen to wear to set themselves apart from God's people, not their actual own highly-pigmented epidermis!

Sethbag is right about the black leather belt but it's more modern these days: it's those that use the black leather mouse.