- Topic
We have been debating a lot here and now I am curious to know how black men and women feel about Ron’s comment. He didn’t make that up and if old members of his time want to be honest about it they’ll stand up. I didn’t know “God” would discriminate. Why would God not want black children preached to?
I personally never expected the rich people to accept so I preached about equally to rich because I had to to everyone.
though one could if you believed she was God believe she was seeing us put less effort for the rich having lacking faith so asking to put effort on them might’ve been legitimized that way I dunno.
I am also wondering about this too. But Zhang sent people out to Africa and told them to start churches there. What would be the point of preaching in Africa if they thought black people couldn't be saved?
When they say that Black's can't be saved- are they only talking about African-Americans, or are they refering to anyone of African orgin? And in that case, wouldn't all of mankind be screwed?
Btw, this is my first post here. After lurking for a month in a half I finally found the courage to make an account here. I look forward to sharing my story and some of my experiences in future posts.
I knew both Missionary Ron and Deaconness Diane. They probably don't remember me; yet they were the very ones who helped give me courage to leave. I looked up to Missionary Ron more than anyone else at LA Zion (Reseda). He was always very kind, truthful and compassionate. He also seemed to be the most genuine and realistic person there. Deaconness Diane and I were preaching partners several times. She was always a lot of fun, and I felt that she was also very sincere.
Once they left, I knew that something was amiss. There is more to it than that, but they definitely helped to give me a boost.
The reason I brought this all up is because- I wanted to say: Well, despite knowing them- there were several things that Missionary Ron said that really surprised me. The thing about only wanting to preach to white people was something I had never heard before. I never knew that members were encouraged to get abortions. In fact, I would've thought the opposite. I also was surprised to hear how strict they were with the children.
From my experience, they weren't strict enough with the children, and I saw countless occassions of bratty behavior from many of the children, even from those whose parents had high leadership positions in the church. I often said to myself, "wouldn't the children of the "true" church be a bit more well-behaved. But it is possible that they had toned a lot of things down by the time I came into the church.
But I was pretty low on the totem poll- so it's not surprising that there were many behind the scenes on-goings that I was unaware of. It is appearant to me now that all of the former and even current members had different experiences, because the wmscog has not been consistent in its methods.
if you guys haven't searched me already, i am a black woman. the adult groups in both zions i went too were clearly seperated by obvious reasons. all the mothers were grouped together. the spanish speakers seperated by gender. those with special needs like old people or those hard of hearing.
my group in SW zion was all black except for my missionary who was korean and one hispanic sister. i was told we were grouped together because we all had like personalities. we were all stubborn.
in NW zion my group was mixed with whites, a mexican, and me. but there was one group of sisters that was entirely black. i cant really compare the two because SW zion is much, much bigger than NW zion but i did find it odd that the black people were grouped together.
to hear that i am a cursed race makes me less than happy. i was taught that the jews were a cursed race because they denied jesus. but i don't recall the black people collectively doing something to harshly offend god to have the entire race cursed. i told my friend, who is black and no longer a part of the wmscog, and she shocked and upset as well.
Ya Renita, I can't blame you folks for feeling this way. This is just one of the so called "truth's" that have been changed at the WMS because they found that they could use more people if they changed their "truth". I'm glad that you have found truth with exiting this group. Keep being you! I think you're great.
Liberty wrote:
I am also wondering about this too. But Zhang sent people out to Africa and told them to start churches there. What would be the point of preaching in Africa if they thought black people couldn't be saved?
When they say that Black's can't be saved- are they only talking about African-Americans, or are they refering to anyone of African orgin? And in that case, wouldn't all of mankind be screwed?
Btw, this is my first post here. After lurking for a month in a half I finally found the courage to make an account here. I look forward to sharing my story and some of my experiences in future posts.
I knew both Missionary Ron and Deaconness Diane. They probably don't remember me; yet they were the very ones who helped give me courage to leave. I looked up to Missionary Ron more than anyone else at LA Zion (Reseda). He was always very kind, truthful and compassionate. He also seemed to be the most genuine and realistic person there. Deaconness Diane and I were preaching partners several times. She was always a lot of fun, and I felt that she was also very sincere.
Once they left, I knew that something was amiss. There is more to it than that, but they definitely helped to give me a boost.
The reason I brought this all up is because- I wanted to say: Well, despite knowing them- there were several things that Missionary Ron said that really surprised me. The thing about only wanting to preach to white people was something I had never heard before. I never knew that members were encouraged to get abortions. In fact, I would've thought the opposite. I also was surprised to hear how strict they were with the children.
From my experience, they weren't strict enough with the children, and I saw countless occassions of bratty behavior from many of the children, even from those whose parents had high leadership positions in the church. I often said to myself, "wouldn't the children of the "true" church be a bit more well-behaved. But it is possible that they had toned a lot of things down by the time I came into the church.
But I was pretty low on the totem poll- so it's not surprising that there were many behind the scenes on-goings that I was unaware of. It is appearant to me now that all of the former and even current members had different experiences, because the wmscog has not been consistent in its methods.
Hi, Liberty
As from what I have read here, back in the late 90's when the church came to the USA the study of Noah's children SHEM, HAM, and JAPHETH was given and Ham was the tribe that represented Africans who were destine not to be saved. BUT………………
I think that some where along the line, someone must have ask, "how can blacks not be saved, if you are saying
Many nations will come and say,“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
If Africa is not included, then not many nations are in Zion, therefore this does not match the teachings. This is the part when after Micah is read with a happy face and the deacon exclaims "Look around you, what do you see in zion," ALL NATIONS!!!, and brothers & sisters say " wow, amazing!"
Sorry Liberty no ofense towards you, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it goes……Also the same with NEW SONG, they get a verse from the bible that says and they sang a new song, and again the deacon will say, and what do we use to sing? "A NEW SONG BOOK" duh!!!
as if no one read the bible just before the song book was named that way, but still the brothers and sisters are amazed. Wow, Amazing!!!!
amazing lol..That word stuck around my voc. for alsmot a 2 years lol
Many nations doesn't NEED to include africa (although it does seeing as the first gentile saved was frin africa)
Simon wrote:
Many nations doesn't NEED to include africa (although it does seeing as the first gentile saved was frin africa)
Everyone will hear the gospel of Christ Jesus, and then the end shall come. Everyone is every nationality on earth.
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
If all nations are not in Zion, then that is not the true church. ( because they use Micah 4:2 in their studies) That's why it's important for them to have at least a handful of every nation, so that it can seem as prophecy fulfilled.
I believe you are correct KF. Sounds like one of the teachings that they again, had to modify. I know the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) also preach about that Ham teaching. I think they also "modified" that belief when they realized it wasn't popular amongst the new generation. I wonder where and how that Ham story even originated as it does not seem to fit history and science.
I also want to state that everyone is brown. There is no such thing as black or white. It's simply a social construct. Everybody's skin is brown, just different shades. Even the palest, lightest-hair person you can think of is brown. How the skin appears to actually look to human eyes when mixed in with the pigments in the atmosphere is based on the amount of melanin contained in their skin.
When you consider that fact, a lot of notions that people have about race and whatnot simply don't make sense. Humans can be funny in their beliefes and ideologies, that's for sure.
Relatively speaking, white people are closer to white than they are to beige which is a shade of brown. There are black people who are closer to black than they are to a wet beaver. However wrong it may be, it's an efficient way of categorizing. There's no such thing as a sun set or sun rise but people still use these terms. Though it's nonsense, it's what our eyes see.
Just had to throw this in… When my son was really little and started hearing about skin color, he didn't understand quite what people were talking about with 'black' and 'white'. He looked at his own skin and declared himself "peach." But then we live in a very diverse area so a toddler would need lots of color words to accurately describe everyone.
KF wrote:
Simon wrote:
Many nations doesn't NEED to include africa (although it does seeing as the first gentile saved was frin africa)
Everyone will hear the gospel of Christ Jesus, and then the end shall come. Everyone is every nationality on earth.
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
If all nations are not in Zion, then that is not the true church. ( because they use Micah 4:2 in their studies) That's why it's important for them to have at least a handful of every nation, so that it can seem as prophecy fulfilled.
Many ≠ Every
Using Matthew 24 is another argument altogether.
Yet again there were black members in LA at the time he said they didn't preach to them which makes me think its an oversimplification
As for LDS the first black priest was actually made priest by Joseph Smith himself so I am not sure about the black treatment in LDS being as accurate as people claim but maybe it has fluctuated.
genny wrote:
Just had to throw this in… When my son was really little and started hearing about skin color, he didn't understand quite what people were talking about with 'black' and 'white'. He looked at his own skin and declared himself "peach." But then we live in a very diverse area so a toddler would need lots of color words to accurately describe everyone.
Which I agree with. Whenever I say a white person, I usually add another color. Same for black people, Indian from India, etc. They're brown is very different from 'my' brown.
I say person and leave it at that myself
renita.payno wrote:
Relatively speaking, white people are closer to white than they are to beige which is a shade of brown. There are black people who are closer to black than they are to a wet beaver. However wrong it may be, it's an efficient way of categorizing. There's no such thing as a sun set or sun rise but people still use these terms. Though it's nonsense, it's what our eyes see.
I have seen some rather "beige" looking white people, believe it or not. Caucasian is not the same shade. Some are rather pale, some can be reddish (maybe blush easily or have freckles), and some can be quite tan. I've often heard my father, being Italian, described as "dark."
And yes, Latinos and Indians can be just as brown, or even darker than African-American's. I don't think its efficient as some may think, but I do understand your point.
And very true about the sunset/sunrise thing. Thats another reason why we have to be open-minded, because what we perceive to see/hear in this world may not be as accurate as we think. Prime example.
And yes Simon, I agree, it's best to say Person. Hopefully our world will get to that point someday.
Simon wrote:
but why haven't we stopped then why are all the blacks being put in positions of authority? doesn't sound compatible with what he said
Simon wrote:
As for LDS the first black priest was actually made priest by Joseph Smith himself so I am not sure about the black treatment in LDS being as accurate as people claim but maybe it has fluctuated.
To one small degree of credit, Joseph Smith was anti-slavery and did allow a small number access, so you are correct in that regard. However, when Bringham Young took over he declared "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] … in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it." From that point on Mormons didn't allow blacks to have access to the priesthood and, subsequently, salvation until 1978. They aren't exactly high-lighting that factual history of their religion….
The latest census of black membership (that I found) in the LDS was from wikipedia, in 1997, at 500,000.
so BY changed doctrine then. okay. not aware anyone had Cain blood though
In my professional opinion, Young simply wanted a way to exclude blacks, looked for something to substantiate it in the Bible, found it and went with it. People are followers not critical thinkers.
Despite Jesus' teaching in the New Testament regarding the people he could choose to be associated with (tax collectors, prostitutes), standing up to authority, and critical thinking, I'm sure if we wanted to develop a doctrine in which followers submit and obey we probably could find an example close enough and stress it as great truth or simply start making some words synonymous with others and create it; to our followers it would be real, especially if we stressed it enough, reinforced it through classes, (essentially creating a new environment) and convinced our followers (that they convinced themselves) that the outside is bad – they'd never leave! It's almost too easy.
Long story short, the Mormon organism did what it needed to in order to adapt to its environment; the members didn't care much, did they? (proof ad populum). This gives us the lesson: when looking good trumps the Truth (or doctrinal truth in the mormon example) we should probably double check our homework.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.