- NEW!
by pacella23 on March 12th, 2005
by JaKs Angel- NEW MOM 7/10 on March 24th, 2009
by Charles Sampson on July 9th, 2004
by Mephistopheles on March 25th, 2009
by 08Busa on March 25th, 2009
by phibins on March 24th, 2009
by Anonymous on April 7th, 2007
by Kim Siever on July 9th, 2004
by Engeltje on April 6th, 2007
by Merfish on March 25th, 2009
by debodun on March 25th, 2009
by skel1977 on March 25th, 2009
by PatrickNeal on March 25th, 2009
by PatrickNeal on March 25th, 2009
by micahhenry on March 25th, 2009
by Anonymous on September 9th, 2008
by Anonymous on April 7th, 2007
by edndori on January 27th, 2009
by Braedon on September 8th, 2009
by Doc on April 19th, 2012
Other than Native Americans and Africans, are there any other ethnic groups that Mormons believe have specific physical features because they were cursed by God?
by crimson208 on May 17th, 2004
| 3 people like this
Do you think the Jaredites were black?
by the Otter on January 11th, 2008
| 5 people like this
Is it true that you can't "pass" someone that is stuck on the apex of a human situation that you are also looking at?
by pearloaf is not yelling and dreams of bal on March 4th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Why did the Mormon church not give blacks the priesthood before 1978?
by Laurie Stevens on May 22nd, 2004
| 1 person likes this
I heard that the Mormon religion looks down on the black race; is this true?
by Janel Russell on February 16th, 2004
| 13 people like this
You're reading Other than Native Americans and Africans, are there any other ethnic groups that Mormons believe have specific physical features because they were cursed by God?
- which can also be phrased in the following ways:
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
That isn't what we believe.
by Anonymous on March 23rd, 2005
That's what they USED to (officially)believe. Now it is not taught.
by Todd Shaffer on March 29th, 2005
This answer is correct and does a lot to expose the false church.
by Alatea on November 11th, 2005
That is Not rascist.
by Anonymous on November 19th, 2005
pacella I rated you up- I think we're all being rated down here! I think it IS racist and now they've changed their teachings it only shows that sects more or less make up their own rules and beliefs.
by Engeltje on April 7th, 2007
Actually, no, that’s not what the Church of Jesus Christ has ever taught. Yes, *many* African-Americans were of the seed of Canaan (and by extension, Cain), but certainly not *all.*
by the Otter on February 5th, 2008
Because someone went and tried to pull the race card here, and tried to claim Mormons are ashamed, when they have no reason to be, as we are and have always been the most racially tolerant church on the planet. Those who claim Africans were not allowed to join the church are just flat-out wrong.
-
Africans and Native Americans have never been denied the privilege of joining the church. It is true that many of African decent were not allowed to receive the priesthood, do to the curse of Cain, but they were never not allowed to join the church, and were even allowed to attend the same church as white Mormons. The LDS church was well ahead of the times as far as segregation goes. I know a number of black Mormons that would be so offended by people pulling the race card like that, it's completely ridiculous.
by WishUponAStar on September 9th, 2008
Ok this does not work:
.
"we are and have always been the most racially tolerant church on the planet"
.
"It is true that many of African decent were not allowed to receive the priesthood, do to the curse of Cain, "
.
... do you see the problem here?
by Arisztid on January 27th, 2009
It all comes down to your definition of “race,” Arisztid. If one defines “race” in the sense that the descendants of a single, common ancestor constitute a “race,” then there would seem to be a contradiction here. However, I expect that WishUponAStar is using the more common definition of “race,” which pertains to the color of one’s skin. In this case, there is no contradiction, as the Church has never restricted anyone based on the color of their skin.
Continuing on, Wish’s statement that “[t]he LDS church was well ahead of the times as far as segregation goes” is spot on. In the early 1800s, the rest of America—essentially, the Protestants—were relegating blacks to their own congregations while the (all-white) clergy debated whether or not those “Niggers” even had a soul.
Contrast this to the Latter-day Saints, who were teaching that blacks were equal to whites in every way but their opportunity for education, and were taking steps to remedy that discrepancy. In LdS congregations, people of every race and color worshipped side by side, with several blacks ordained as priests and elders. Joseph Smith Jr., the first President of our Church, even ran for President of the United States, in an effort to end slavery: his platform included selling all government lands and using the profits to buy every slave in America and set them free!
So yeah, I’d say we were pretty racially tolerant. HTH!
by the Otter on January 28th, 2009
The problem is treating a group of people different than others.
.
"It is true that many of African decent were not allowed to receive the priesthood, do to the curse of Cain, "
.
I do not say that Mormons are terrible people because I do not think so. I have known very nice Mormons and have been treated just fine by them (I am not white). In fact, considering the extreme stereotyping my people undergo by most even in America (I am Romani, usually called "Gypsy") that says a lot. The Mormon church has also done some fantastic things.
.
My specific problem is that one thing about Cain. Are blacks now able to be clergy, by the way?
by Arisztid on January 28th, 2009
Oh never mind, my apologies... you clarified about the clerics. I am not caffeinated. :P
by Arisztid on January 28th, 2009
LOL… no problem. The Church teaches that God decides who is to represent Him on the Earth, and throughout history, different families have been invited to hold the Priesthood, or restricted from the same.
• Before the nation of Israel, it would seem that all but the descendants of Cain could hold the
Priesthood.
• After the Great Flood, the descendants of Canaan (who seem to have descended from Cain,
through their mother) were cursed in the same manner and could not hold the Priesthood.
• Under the Law of Moses, all but the descendants of Levi were restricted from the Priesthood,
and only descendants of Aaron (who was himself a Levite) could be high priests.
• When Jesus came, the Law of Moses began to be fulfilled as He ordained priests from other
tribes of Israel, as well. However, non-Israelites were still restricted from this calling.
• Sometime after Christ’s resurrection, the early Apostles were instructed to ordain Gentiles as
well, though later practice implies that the Canaanites were still restricted.
• From 1830-1978, the Apostles taught that the Canaanite restriction would soon be lifted,
that the time just hadn’t come yet.
• In 1978, the Apostles announced that the time had finally arrived, and the Priesthood would
once again be available to all.
There’s probably more, but this outlines seven basic periods in the history of the main body of Israel. Note that in no place is skin color mentioned; it was simply a matter of familial relationship. As WishUponAStar implied, many—even most—of the descendants of Canaan were (and are) dark-skinned, but there were plenty of non-Canaanite black priests before the 1978 revelation, just as there were plenty of non-black Canaanites that were also restricted from the Priesthood.
HTH!
by the Otter on January 28th, 2009
Oh ok, now that makes sense. It is the family of Cain not the skin color.
.
Thankyou for clarifying. :)
by Arisztid on January 28th, 2009
Glad you understand now, and I'm sorry I couldn't explain it better, but Otter did an excellent job. Thanks Otter.
by WishUponAStar on January 29th, 2009
I am glad that I asked and no problem. :)
by Arisztid on January 30th, 2009