In the recently released statement on lds.org on Race and the Priesthood, the modern Mormon Church disavows “that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else…” This unequivocal truth, that no race or ethnicity is superior to another, is something that Spain (1542), Quakers (1600s), Pennsylvania (1790), England (1807), Abraham Lincoln (1865), and Christians of any era who believe the Bible, know. According to the Bible, God shows no favoritism—never by skin color—and commands his people to do the same.
Lincoln, who often quoted the biblical God, was displeased with the Utah Territory for its stance as a slave territory (and for its polygamy). Finally in 1978, 113 years after Lincoln and 24 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, the Mormon Church gave black members of African ancestry (why not restrict Native Americans—they were the unrighteous dark-skinned Lamanites of the Book of Mormon?) equal access to the priesthood, ergo its Celestial kingdom, eternal life, and the potential for godhood.
As a professor at Brigham Young University (1999-2008), I taught, among other things—multiculturalism. In class, some of my generational LDS students proposed that those with black skin were blighted with something they called “the curse of Cain.” Alarmed by this belief, I began to investigate LDS scriptures on the topic and discovered scriptural support in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price corroborating students’ beliefs.
Because these scriptures still exist, are read, and revered, the lingering conundrum for the Mormon Church is this: How to explain the 20-some passages of LDS scripture that can be considered racist. So, this new attempt to state a non-biased position on race, which falls short of an apology, ignores the challenge of present-day scriptures.
As well intended as the latest words on the official church website are, they can affect no real change in policy or teachings because these scriptures remain. Why call these scriptures racist? The definition of racist is the belief that some races of people are better than others because of their race, their skin color. This is precisely what the LDS scriptures STILL teach. Here are few examples just from the Book of Mormon:
Alma 3:6 “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren…”
3 Nephi 2:15 “And their curse was taken from them, and their skin becamewhite like unto the Nephites;”
3 Nephi 19:30 “And when Jesus had spoken these words he came again unto his disciples; and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they werewhite, even as Jesus.”
As these passages explain, the Lamanites (forerunners of the dark-skinned Native Americans descended from the Jews according to the Book of Mormon) were given a mark of dark skin as a curse for their transgression, not toward God, by the way, but toward their brethren, the “righteous” Nephites. Later when some Lamanites became righteous, the curse was removed and their skin became white.
This repulsion for the LDS racist scriptures I had discovered began to soften my heart toward the biblical God who, according to the Bible, is no respecter of persons and who shows no favoritism. When I read the Bible, its teachings were unmistakably clear because they were repeated over and over. One of these undeniable themes is that God is no respecter of persons and shows no favoritism, no bias.
What to do with the racist scriptures? If the LDS Church moves to remove them, then that calls into question all other things Joseph Smith wrote as scripture and said came from God. Can the Mormon Church say they’re an allegory that means something other than what they say literally? As of today, the church is still defending the four standard works on their official website as “utterly reliable” and “pure truth.”
—
Part 2 of Lynn’s article can be found here.
—
Lynn,
Thank you for this thread , you bring up some very important questions that the Mormon
people need to examine . I believe that God has used the teachings of their leaders
concerning Black people , to get their attention . This should cause rank and file members to
look objectively at the claims made by their leadership to be trustworthy and consistently
reliable guides in providing accurate gospel teachings , because this is one example that can
help Mormons to see how they have been the victims of those Jesus warned would come in
the latter days —Matt 24:11 .
The Mormon people can do the right thing and be loyal to God by dismissing their leaders
as authorities in their lives , they simply don’t need them because the authentic gospel that
that saves — Rom 1:16 —- was preached by Jesus’ true apostles long ago and it is still mighty
to save all who embrace it today . Sadly, but latter days false prophets show their true
identity by revising what Jesus’ apostles taught with their additions to it supposedly restored
for these latter days , and the teachings about Black people that Mormon prophets introduced
to their flock is a good example of a counterfeit gospel appearing in our time also . Gal 1:8 ;
2Jn 7-9.
Lynn,
The effort to outlaw polygamy was tied to the attempt to outlaw slavery. And this being the case, early church members in Utah were placed in a difficult position- supporting abolition, to some degree, would require them to support outlawing polygamy. It is well known that Joseph Smith strongly support abolition. Slavery existed in Utah when the saints arrived in 1847. If anything, their arrival interrupted the slave trade in Utah. The vague statements in your article above make it sound like the church was in favor of slavery. And I do not think that is correct. It is easy to conflate the anti-slavery and anti-polygamy efforts. Could you offer more details on Lincoln’s opinion of Utahans as it relates specifically to slavery, independent of polygamy?
Your summation of statements from the Book of Mormon on skin color are unfairly incomplete. Yes- the curse upon the Lamanites for disobedience included dark skin, likely the result from intermarrying with surrounding populations. This curse was meant to remind the Nephites the importance of obedience in following God. Ultimately though, the Lamanites were favored of God while the Nephites were annihilated for disobedience. The text very clearly states that the curse of the Lamanites would be answered upon the heads of the original apostates- Laman and Lemual. And their descendants were not responsible. It was a simple reminder to the Nephites. In the end, the Lord made certain promises to the dark-skinned Lamanites while the Nephites were destroyed. The dark-skinned people were ultimately favored by God over the white-skinned people. The Lord promised that the Lamanites would survive and be brought to the truth in the last days while the Nephites were not afforded this same promise. This fact really should not be overlooked.
The Book of Mormon states very clearly that all people are equally valued by God. “For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” 2 Nephi 26: 33
You misunderstand the LDS doctrine of the Celestial Kingdom. Neither the Melchizedek Priesthood nor the ordinances of the temple are required to enter the Celestial Kingdom. They are required for exaltation, but not all in the Celestial Kingdom will be exalted. And it was long believed that the black brothers and sisters in the church would someday receive the blessings of the Priesthood and the temple.
You mention the Bible and race and slavery. As I am sure you know, the Bible instructs slaves to obey their masters. Why the double standard here? It seems you are unfairly characterizing the Book of Mormon as racist while overlooking the Biblical treatment of slavery. Why?
FoF said, “You misunderstand the LDS doctrine of the Celestial Kingdom. Neither the Melchizedek Priesthood nor the ordinances of the temple are required to enter the Celestial Kingdom. They are required for exaltation, but not all in the Celestial Kingdom will be exalted. ”
That’s right! Isn’t Jane Elizabeth Manning James going to the Celestial kingdom but not going to be exalted? She’s there to be an eternal servant to Smith! Mormon Heaven is so awesome.
So, if Smith gets exaltation and godhood and Elizabeth is his eternal servant, does that make Joseph Smith her new God?
In the article, it quotes the BoM saying this
Are people aware that Jesus was not/is not a “white” Man? Jesus was/is a Jewish man, I have been to Irseal twice now, They (The Jewish) People are of a darker skin, they are not black, but they are not white either. They are more of a darker or “olive” deeply dark tan, skin color.
FOF
You’ve got it! The Bible endorses slavery. All slaves have dark skin. LDS leaders were basically racist. Therefore the LDS church is true!
Next issue please.
Falcon, its just like I have been saying over the years, the lds who come here believe what they want and ignore the rest.
Look at all the topics and questions lds dodge or ignore, then out of the blue, fof comes along and try’s to say, the bom must be real because of slavery. Yet I posted about evidence and thing’s I saw while in Israel. I asked the lds for that kind of evidence, and the only lds poster at the time said, its Jewish fables and then left and has not been back yet.
Sadly the lake of fire awaits these false teachers and those who reject the truth.
rick,
What is one of the two claims that form the foundation/premise of Mormonism? The Bible can’t be trusted. Its been copied so much so we don’t know what the original was and dastardly scribes put things in, took things out (specifically the Mormonism), that the Bible can’t be trusted. Now FOF tells us that the Bible endorses slavery. So how do we know that some scribe put that in to justify slavery.
I’ve found that with Mormons like FOF, you have to use Mormon logic. The whole point of the Mormon approach is to get the posters’ off topic.
Falcon, I guess we then cannot trust the bom either, it has been copied and things added or removed. I have shown mormons in my older 70’s copy of the bom, it says blacks will become white. Now it says pure. I have handed my copy to lds and said, show me the foot notes saying this change was made, sadly and no surprise they cannot. So if they claim the bible cannot be trusted, then neither can the bom.
A question for FoF:
If what you say is true, why, then, did the LDS church for over 100 years ban those with darker skin from the priesthood? Were they wrong?
RickB,
You might want to read that verse in context. In verse 25 of that chapter, we read, “And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.”
So this is not a reference to race. It is an explanation of the brilliance and light of a resurrected Jesus and the shedding of that brilliance and glory onto the twelve.
Another point- I have read papers wherein scholars discuss skin color and Israelites. They said that there was significant variation of skin color among the Israelites at the time of Christ. And they used Caucasian Americans as an example of that variation. They concluded that Jesus could have had skin color that truly resembled an American Caucasian or a darker skinned color. It is a bit simplistic to think of Israelites having only dark skinned. Why do modern Jews have light skin? How many American Jews have dark skin?
FOF,
You’ve read papers? Well that’s good. Could you cite those papers? See I’ve been to school and the rule was that you had to back up your arguments with some sort of reference. Then the reference can be checked out for legitimacy.
Besides what difference does it make? Just tell us that you have had this “revealed” to you. That’s as good as scripture that has been corrupted anyway, right?
falcon,
So you offer references for all your claims, right?
Just offering that for interest sake. It has been a while and I don’t remember where that was. And I don’t currently have the time to go looking. Dismiss it as quickly as you like. But for folks who might have an interest in the topic, it is logical to consider. It really doesn’t affect the article above either way.
So, FoF, why did your church deny priesthood for these folks for over 100 years if the curse was upon the original trespassors, not modern day people, and why did God order their withholding from the priesthood if God views all peoples 100% equally?
MJP,
I don’t know. And that is OK, in my opinion. Why was there any preference in the Bible?
You think it is OK that your perfect church was wrong on a major issue for so long? We’re not talking a minor shift in belief here: your church banned a specific group of people on the basis of the color of their skin from a very important post within your faith. Now, you say that the curse (the curse upon which your church justified its ban) was only for the ancient contemporaries of the crimes. Do you not see how these two positions cannot be reconciled? If you are OK with it, there’s not much more than can be said.
I don’t believe there was any preference in the Bible, and that it clearly states salvation is for everyone regardless of color, gender, or ethnicity. God loved the world enough to send His only Son so that anyone who believes in Him will be saved. See John 3:16 for that, and you’ll notice there is no qualifier on any of it: God loved the world and anyone is saved who believes.
MJP,
Try to back up and see this objectively.
I am saying I do not know why the Lord did not want the blessings of the Priesthood extended to black individuals before 1978. I do not agree with you that it was wrong. I don’t know why the Lord wanted it that way. And that is OK. You are assuming that the Priesthood was not given to black members because of a curse. Some have assumed that as well. But we do not know for sure. Do you understand that?
In the Bible, there is a group of people known as Israelites. The God of the Bible favored that group of people and actually withheld his gospel and blessings from people who were not a part of that Israelite group. It was not until after Christ’s death that the blessings of the gospel were extended fully to people outside of the Israelites. If you need references from the Bible, I can provide those if you wish.
Do you have any response to my response to the article from Lynn Wilder?
FoF,
If you don’t know why your religion banned priesthood for blacks for over 100 years, and that is OK with you, where would you draw the line and say that your religion is wrong and it is not OK with you. God judged the people based on the things that they did, and not the color he created them. To me the variety of skin, hair, eyes, etc tells of the creativity of God, not His judgment.
FOF,
That’s your answer, that I don’t provide references when I’m making specific claims? I’d say I support my claims with references and when I don’t just consider that I’ve gotten a burning in the bosom regarding what I’m saying. That’s greater than any reference, isn’t it?
Let me just add this. The Mormon priesthood is totally bogus anyway but to the Mormon church members it’s where they believe they are getting their authority. That’s a big deal in Mormonism.
The reason I know you are out of bullets on this issue is because you’re doing that typical Mormon tactic of trying some how to attach the Bible to your arguments; a scripture that you claim is corrupted.
The bottom line is that your church denied the priesthood to blacks and is now looking around all confused saying, “Well we have no idea where that ban on blacks and the priesthood came from?” And you want to claim that the LDS church is God’s one true church and has a prophet that is hearing directly from God and instructing the people?
That alone ought to send you out the door of the LDS church. Besides, you know that the Roman Catholic Church is God’s one true church on earth, right? They have a lineage going back to Peter and they never denied blacks being priests. So if you want to belong to the one true church, you better become Catholic.
See I know all of this because I went to Catholic school and was taught that the Catholic Church was the one true church. At the time it made me feel good so it had to be true. And I read it on the internet too! Here, read for yourself:
152. Which is the one true Church established by Christ?
The one true Church established by Christ is the Catholic Church.
(a) Many churches which claim to be Christian have broken away from the one true Church established by Jesus Christ. These churches were founded by men who had no authority from God to found a church.
(b) Christ intended that there should be only one true Christian Church, for He always spoke of His Church as one.
153. How do we know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ?
We know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ because it alone has the marks of the true Church.
154. What do we mean by the marks of the Church?
By the marks of the Church we mean certain clear signs by which all men can recognize it as the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.
(a) Jesus Christ willed that the true Church should have these marks, which would distinguish it from all false religions.
155. What are the chief marks of the Church?
The chief marks of the Church are four: It is one, holy, catholic or universal, and apostolic.
(a) Sacred Scripture teaches that the one true Church of Christ must have these marks.
(b) The marks of the Church are themselves an indication that God guides the Church.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura2a.htm
The deflections only reduce the value of this forum. I have responded to the article by Lynn Wilder. Nobody has engaged my points directly at all.
If you guys really want to discuss the church with members, I suggest being more open about your approach and honest in your desire to review your talking points over and over.
Why even post articles? This could be just a place where people can rant and say anything they want. Why pretend to be interested in dialogue, engagement, and learning?
FOF
Haven’t you left this forum several times before? The response you’re getting, especially from me, is because the points you make can’t be taken seriously. So why would I, or anyone else for that matter, respond in any other way? Your foolish statements regarding the Bible and slavery speaks of a real desperation on your part to try and justify the bigoted nature of the LDS church excluding blacks from the priesthood.
The facts are there. Your church and its leaders were racists and bigoted against blacks. That’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from the practice of your church barring blacks from the priesthood. Your church also claimed that blacks had the mark of Cain.
I’ve listened to several video presentations by Lynn Wilder and she nails it. Kate, a former Mormon who posts here, has several times talked about the arrogance of the LDS members she grew-up with. Go back to the time of the Civil Rights Movement and examine what was said by those in leadership in your church.
….I can provide you with information like this all day long.
Writing in 1935 Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, who later became the 10th president of the LDS Church, explained the curse on Cain:
Not only was Cain called upon to suffer [for killing Abel], but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this [p. 51] world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fulness of the blessing of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning. Enoch saw the people of Canaan, descendants of Cain, and he says, “and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.” . . . In the spirit of sympathy, mercy and faith, we will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our negro brethren, for they are our brethren—children of God—notwithstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness (The Way to Perfection, by Joseph Fielding Smith, Genealogical Society of Utah, 1935, pp. 101-102).
LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, son-in-law of President Joseph Fielding Smith, wrote:
Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the Negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, Bookcraft, 1958 edition, pp. 476-477; in second edition, 1966, p. 527; removed from 1979 edition).
In 1949 the LDS Church First Presidency issued an official statement on priesthood denial to blacks:
The attitude of the church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time (as quoted in Black Saints in a White Church, p. 24).
Come on FOF. Do you really want to deny all of this and come up with ridiculous arguments. No one takes you seriously.
FoF, truly nothing with you has changed has it?
You claim you dont know why the blacks were banned and over all it does not bother you.
I, as well as many others can post many qoutes from BY and your leaders talking about blacks and why they were banned. Read what BY said about blacks,
Now add to that, you leaders believe and teach and have said this,
So either BY said it and meant it and your leaders agree, since your prophet cannot lie and lead the church astray, and thats a problem, or BY is/was a false prophet.
FoF said
First off, what you quoted from the BoM sounds vaguly famailler, can you say, Jesus and the mount of transfiguration where Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah. It seems to me a case of plagerisum. I know you wont agree, but thats how it seems to me.
Then the verse I quoted said
I showed the verse quoted in the article to some people who know nothing about Mormonism and asked them, how does it sound to you? They said also, it sounds like it is saying Jesus is white. So it seems I’m not the only one who thought that.
FofF
“Why pretend to be interested in dialogue, engagement, and learning?”
I say this with the greatest respect & with no intent to ‘put you down’ but are you interested in learning? It may have escaped you notice but this is a Christian forum & your response to Lynns article is based, first on what you have read in books & articles that are NOT accepted by Christians as being genuine & second, on what you have been taught by the Mormon Corporation, which is NOT a Christian organization.
If there is to be any meaningful exchange between Christians & Mormons then issues should be debated using something acceptable to both belief systems & as far as I’m aware there is only one book acceptable to both Christian & Mormon & that is the Bible. Any extra-biblical books, documents or manuscripts written by a convicted con man must therefore be considered superfluous.
I can speak only for myself but I find it next to impossible to intelligently debate issues with a member of a church who uses, as a basis for debate, books that time & much research have proven to be false. If we are to debate something let it be done on the basis of something we all know to be true, something that has stood the test of time, Gods Word as revealed in the Old & New covenants.
Out of everything Old man said to FoF, the only thing I dis-agree with is this.
Mormons dont trust the Bible to be accurate. They teach and believe it is flawed, missing parts and I have meet many Mormons who rarely if ever read the Bible. It seems to me FoF might have read the Bible, but clearly dont understand it. Example FoF said this,
Thats not true, Before the Nation of Isreal was created, it was simply the Human race, then one day God spoke to Abram and told him he would make a great nation from him. He then created the nation of Israel and gave them rules and laws to follow and told the Jews, if you obey you will be blessed, if you dis-obey you will be cursed. But God also made a way for the non-Jews (Gentiles) To convert and be saved. We saw when Moses mentioned the Death of the first born happening, Death came to Jews who were not in the house under the blood, and the gentiles who were in the house were saved.
All were equel when it came to the passover. We also see many gentiles leaving with Moses in the exdous after the death of the first born plauge was over, God did not limit it to Jews only. We also see Gentiles saved in the OT and find them in the Geneolgy of Jesus. So God did not with hold His blessings and Gospel from Non-Jews (Gentiles). You better re-read your Bible. Their was/is a reason the Nation of Israel was created, but I will let you read that for yourself.
I just want to make a comment on something that FoF said mainly for any LDS lurkers.
He said, “In the Bible, there is a group of people known as Israelites. The God of the Bible favored that group of people and actually withheld his gospel and blessings from people who were not a part of that Israelite group. It was not until after Christ’s death that the blessings of the gospel were extended fully to people outside of the Israelites. If you need references from the Bible, I can provide those if you wish.”
I want to comment specifically on this because as a former Mormon I am familiar with this belief and how it is greatly different from mainstream Christianity. The idea that Mormons have in their head is that since Adam, God’s people have been doing temple ceremonies akin to the one done in the LDS temple today. (Obviously not the same one exactly because the ceremony has been changed so many times but Mormons will tell you that the concepts were the same.) So to FoF, and other Mormons, God’s gospel was really being withheld from the world. Only a tiny percentage of the population had an idea on what’s what. So FoF thinks that comparing this to Blacks and the priesthood makes sense. And it does, to him and other Mormons. The problem is that Christians do not see the Old Testament this way. They see it as a record of a people that God made a promise salvation would come through. So when there are messed up things in the Bible, (and there are, I’m not going to deny that), that doesn’t mean that God is saying this is the ideal. The ideal was coming, was waiting to be fulfilled. The ideal is Christ, God incarnate, coming to reunite man with God, to make things right again. So all those people outside of Isreal, Christ could save too, just as he saved all the Israelites that needed saving because the law cannot save.
So in Mormonism what is taught is that there was truth, then its lost, then they get it back, then it’s lost, then it’s back, then their perfect spirit brother sneaks in during all this to suffer, then it’s lost, then it’s back. And now Mormons teach it’s really back this time and immune to apostasy.
But this is not what we are talking about with Christianity. We are saying that people were/are fallen, were given a way to live until righteousness could be fulfilled and the shadows of the Old Testament made clear, and now people live their faith differently in the latterdays. (Hint: Latterdays is a term used for now that Christ has come and fufilled His promised Word, not for the post Joseph Smith era.)
I hope I made sense of that. We are really talking apples and oranges. FoF is talking about Isrealites having temple blessings and not the rest of the world and this being similar to the blacks not getting priesthood situation. A Christian would go, “what?!” because in the Christian view it’s a totally different scenario. It was God working through a particular lineage of people to bring God incarnate to the world to show the whole world truth. It would make sense that this true knowledge of God would start as being limited to a small group of people and then exploding once the work had been fulfilled. I doesn’t make the same sort of sense in the Mormon narrative and that’s why Mormons have to say, “I don’t know why.” Because logic doesn’t need to make sense once your testimony is reliant on a burning bosom.
Oldman,
Welcome back after the Holidays. I have been crazy busy being over in Israel, then coming home to work, holidays, My best friend is in the Army, he came home for the holidays, so we tried hanging out as much as possible before he goes back in two days. Then we have severe cold. I sarcasticly say, thank you Al-Gore, if it were not for Global warming, we would be a lot colder. Hope all is well with you my friend.
Jaxi you said
Can you share a few things that you see? I’m curious to see what you mean. Thanks.
Jaxi,
Excellent post! I think you have all of the “Mormon” out of you.
Why do I say that? There’s a significant difference between your presentation and what we see from FOF. FOF thinks “Mormon”. You think “Christian”. FOF has bought into the Mormon nonsense which is basically endless speculation and invented nonsense. There is no Biblical basis for it. That’s why Mormons discount the Bible.
Here’s something else. When FOF goes down to the wards and talks Mormonism with his cronies, it’s an entirely different atmosphere. I’ve seen countless Mormons like FOF show-up here and it’s pretty much the same story. The naivety is stunning. Does Mormonism stunt a person’s growth? FOF believes the BoM is a real historic book. Right there we have a major problem. He’s in the Mormon box.
Those of you who have been in that world know what it takes to flip a Mormon’s thinking.
FoF,
I have to tell you, emphatically, to tell you to step back. Your current position and that of the previous LDS position cannot be reconciled. They simply cannot. There is no consistency there– none. It really puts a wrench in your claim that the LDS church is the only true church, since both cannot be right. (By the way, you have here admitted the church did discriminate against blacks.)
My questions are precisely a response to your comments to Lynn’s article. You essentially state that the church never discriminated against blacks and have always viewed all mankind as equals. However, that runs very contrary to history you seem to admit. Further, the title of the article addresses how LDS scripture is still seen as fully reliable and accurate. This directly hits on the point I was trying to make: how can these opposing views be held together in a consistent manner?
Your answer is that you don’t know but are OK with it. If that’s your answer, fine. I won’t dispute your right to take whatever position you want, but I can just the same point out the discrepancies. You need to understand they exist and why if you are to make any informed decision on what to believe and why. That is your decision on what to believe…
I disagree that salvation was limited only to Israelites, as there are countless examples of non-Israelites coming to know the one, true God.
Thanks for that Rick. Like you I’ve been very busy for the last few weeks, I’ve driven around 1200 miles visiting family & friends. That probably won’t seem much to those of you in the States but over here it’s a lot, especially taking into account the cost of fuel when you’re on a pension. On top of that I had a very unpleasant cough & cold to contend with but I’m ok now, thank you. 🙂
Now an update for everyone interested in my ex wife’s progress out of the LDS.
I spent Christmas with my disabled son & had the opportunity to spend quite a lot of time with my ex. We had many long chats concerning her beliefs & if, as a Mormon she can describe certain LDS Temple ceremonies & doctrine as ‘blasphemous’ then I’m convinced that very soon she’ll be hanging up her ‘garmies’ for good.
She was called to the Bishops office to explain why she hasn’t been attending church & I would say from what she told me that she handled herself pretty well. She basically told him that she couldn’t find LDS doctrine in the New Testament so she could no longer accept those beliefs. He tried the well-worn path of ‘total apostasy’ & corrupt translation but she wasn’t buying into that. Following the meeting the local missionaries & a member of the church called her & requested a home visit, to her credit she politely but firmly said no.
A few days ago on the phone she told me that once she has taken the final step of breaking with the LDS she intends to come in here to tell her story.
Jaxi,
You said : ” We are really talking apples and oranges .” You’re right , but this is a excuse
many Mormons resort to in their effort to rationalize away Brigham Young ‘s teachings
about Black skin or Negroes , it’s only a anemic excuse —-apples to oranges : they have
to try and use the Old Testament to divert from where the spotlight should point in
evaluating Mormon apostles teachings , namely , New Testament . Being a former Mormon
you are well aware that the leaders of Mormonism have made the claim to be the very same
church that Jesus established through His apostles 2000 years ago , it is THAT very church
that Mormon leaders claimed to be officers in — allegedly restored in 1830 .
So we can compare churches , the New Testament church and what it’s apostles preached , with
the alleged restored one and what it has preached about black skin color , race , and who can
receive the fullest of gospel blessings / eternal life in heaven with God . What do we find?
The verdict :
People who are concerned about being safe from latter day imitation apostles ( Rev2:2 )
should stick with the New Testament apostles and the gospel message that Paul preached ,
and reject Mormon leadership .
Many people ( some Mormons included ) have asked the Mormon hierarchy to issue an
apology for their teachings about Black people , but so far little has been said from them ,
the latest was but a weak attempt to accept cupability . Brigham Young refused correction
of his teaching , and today’s leadership resorts to playing word games instead of stating in clear
terms that their recent past colleages like Young taught false doctrine .
The Mormon people deserve better .
Oldman, I cant wait to here you wifes story. Will she go by, Old Lady? Or, the Old mans Lady? lol.
Hey all,
FOF said,
As I am sure you know, the Bible instructs slaves to obey their masters. Why the double standard here?
I say,
What? Are you sugesting that because the Bible asks that slaves obey their masters that is some how an endorsement of slavery? The Bible tells us not to resist an evil person does that mean it endorses evil.
Use your head man. logic is your friend.
I mean that sincerely. Try to think about what you are saying before you post .
peace
Hey all,
Please keep me in your prayers I am in Utah right now and will be for most of the winter. Please pray that God will give me the opportunity to tell some folks about his amazing gospel and that I will be bold but not arrogant or belligerent in my demeanor as I sometimes can be.
peace
Jesus heals the Centurion’s slave/servant. So I guess that means that Jesus was endorsing slavery according to FOF’s Mormon logic. Paul wrote an entire epistle returning a slave to his master. The letter is to a believer by the name of Philemon and it concerns a slave by the name of Onesimus. That certainly must mean that Paul endorsed slavery. Philemon verses 10-18 tells the whole story.
So these are perfect examples, in Mormon logic, as to why the Mormon ban on blacks in the priesthood and the outright bigotry of the Mormon leaders is endorsed by the Bible, right? The connection is inescapable for a true believer. To the rest of the world it’s twisted thinking but within the context of Mormonism, anything can work.
For a true believing Mormon the church can never be wrong. The leaders can never be wrong. The whole deal is perfect. Now granted, the people aren’t perfect but the system that claims to turn men into gods must be perfect. It can’t be anything but.
I would think there would come a time when someone like FOF would see clearly what the Mormon church and it’s false prophets are all about. But if someone invests everything they have in something, they won’t let go easily; even when it’s apparent that it’s all a boon doggle.
The following is a brief look at Fof”s talking points . It’s not surprising that he comes up short
in his attempt to rescue his prophets from being exposed as being among those who Jesus
warned us all to be on the lookout for in the latter days ( Mark 13:22-23 ) .
he said : ” The effort to outlaw polygamy was tied to the attempt to outlaw slavery . And this
being the case , early church members in Utah were placed in a difficult position — supporting
abolition would require them to support outlawing polygamy .”
True , there were Congressman Washington D.C. who in order to gain the political strength to
stop polygamy joined that crusade to include slavery as well . The Mormon people were
consistently placed in unfortunate situations because they followed their leaders who altered
Jesus’ gospel to include polygamy as an essential church ordinance thus eventually trouble was
coming from State or Federal officials . The Mormon people could have supported abolition
and rejected polygamy , but they were afraid to doubt their leaders course .
he said , ” It was well known that Joseph Smith strongly supported abolition .”
But given the fact that he originally strongly supported the belief that there was One God
who had always been God , he proceeded to alter that doctrine and so it’s not a stretch to
say that had he lived a little longer he would have also taught just what Brigham Young
introduced as gospel truth about the Negro to LDS .
he said , ” Slavery existed in Utah when the Saints arrived in 1847 . If anything their arrival
interrupted the slave trade in Utah . ”
” slave trade ” ? They did hinder the behavior that some Indian tribes were practicing with
captured white children . It would have been nice if Black slavery had not been condoned by church leadership among their flock in Utah . While Brigham Young did not desire that slavery
flourish in “Zion” ( Utah territory ) , still he condoned church members , especially those from
the South , to have their slaves there . The terrible error that Brigham Young succumbed to
was in accepting the Biblical explanations utilized by pro slavery religionists of his time to
justify enslavement of Blacks, but also he used some of their false doctrine to deny Blacks what
he taught white men could receive —the fullness of gospel blessings /Temple ordinances .
Brigham Young introduced false doctrine to his flock , he preached ” another gospel ” –Gal 1:8
he said , ” Could you offer more details on Lincoln’s opinion of Utahans as it relates specifically
to slavery independent of polygamy ?”
Why ? This sounds like a rabbit trail that will be of little value to this issue of Mormonism’s
doctrine concerning Blacks . What needs to offered is details about why we should trust
Mormon leaders today given how they refuse to state Brigham Young taught false doctrine .
Perhaps this whole issue would go away if current Mormon leaders would do so . There are
Mormons who are tired of the anemic answers coming from their leadership on this issue .
he said , ” The Book of Mormon states very clearly that all people are equally valued by God ….
2 Nephi 26:33 .”
That’s true , and it agrees with the message Paul took to the people in his missionary journey’s.
2 Nephi 26:33 says that God invites the children of men to ” come unto Him and partake of His
goodness , and He denieth none that come unto Him, black and white …..”
Yet 1700 years after Jesus established His church and sent out His apostles to teach about
this God who denieth none that come unto Him , there arise men claiming to also be Jesus’
apostles who teach that Black skinned men cannot come into God’s House ( Temple) these
are deemed cursed and therefore can’t partake of all the goodness , blessings , that God will
give , those are reserved for white men and women .
The Book of Mormon like the Bible , are the writing of dead prophets/apostles , thus Brigham
Young could persuade his flock to embrace the new light he as the ” living prophet ” would
receive from God . Thus the doctrine he introduced about Blacks he called ” God’s law” .
That’s all for now . Suffice it to say there is no good reason for why we should accept what
Mormon leaders have taught about Blacks to be a part of the same message about peoples
and God that Paul was directed by Jesus to preach . Mormon apostles and their gospel is
a latter day imitation of the true gospel message of salvation preached by Jesus’ true apostles.
Many Mormons have discovered that fact in recent years because they did the right thing and
took the time to test what their latter days prophets have taught with the Bible . They
discovered that their leaders , though well meaning individuals, were not what they have
claimed to be all along . Mormons have come to see the necessity of exchanging their apostles
for the original ones in the New Testament , because truth matters . Acts 20: 27-32
It’s painful, but informative, to watch FOF spin himself into the ground trying to come up with some acceptable reason why the Mormon church banned blacks from the priesthood. It’s obvious why the Mormon church did it. Just read the quotes by Mormon leaders. I’d say to FOF, “Give it up buddy!”
In the Book of Acts 8: 26-39 we read the account of Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. I don’t think it’s a stretch that the Eunuch, being from Ethiopia, had dark skin. The account says that this Eunuch had “…….come to Jerusalem to worship”.
The point of the account is that the Holy Spirit drew Phillip to this dark skinned, sexual altered man, in order that the man could be saved and receive the fullness of God’s promises. Would the Mormon church, with its ban on blacks, have accepted this man? No way!
Yet God draws this man to Himself and through Phillip, the Eunuch learns of the Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation that comes only through Him.
We see the Spirit providing Phillip with a “word of knowledge” concerning the man and then we see Phillip supernaturally transported away from the scene following the conversion. We can only speculate but the chances are that the Ethiopian Eunuch used his political position/status to bring many to Christ. My guess is that many of these converts in Africa had black skin.
Mormons like to make the false claim that Mormonism is a restoration of first century Christianity. Not that we need any more proof of this nonsense of a claim, but we can see that God is interested in people of all races receiving the fullness of the Gospel through faith in Jesus Christ.
CORRECTION
My above statement should have read “the Mormon church with its ban on blacks in the priesthood”. I didn’t mean to infer that the Mormon church didn’t accept blacks. It did, of course, but dark skin people just couldn’t become gods, right? This is an important point. A person with dark skin could not receive the fullness of the Mormon gospel. They could receive part of it and, I’m sure, have the privileged of paying 10% of their income to the Mormon corporation.
So what did dark skin people get for their faithfulness to the Mormon system, paying their 10%, keeping the Word of Wisdom and fulfilling whatever assignments they were eligible to receive? I suppose they could get into some level of the Mormon Celestial Kingdom. Could they get married in the temple for time and eternity?
Not receiving the priesthood had serious implications if a person believed in the Mormon system of god making.
MikeR,
You at least mentioned my points in your post. So, thanks for that.
The article from Lynn Wilder is about the scriptures. Specifically, she claims that racism among some members of the church had a foundation in the scriptures. I understand that you want to talk about Brigham Young and what Joseph Smith may have taught, in your opinion, had he lived until he was 70. If you read over the article again, you will notice that that is not the topic. The topic is the perceived support of racism in the canon of the church. And there is no support in the canon, if one reads that canon in context.
You do not address or rebut my explanation of the context of the passages from the Book of Mormon that Lynn quoted. They were clearly taken out of context and did not support her argument at all. The Book of Mormon does not support any degree of racism. It does not say that the apostles of Christ in the Americas were Caucasian as she suggests. Instead, the passage is speaking of the glory of the resurrected Christ and how that glory was shed upon those apostles. She either does not understand that, or is being dishonest.
She does not seem to consider the other passages in the Book of Mormon, which I quoted above, that clearly state that God esteems all people equally, with no consideration of skin color.
Neither Lynn, nor you (or anybody else), has responded to my explanation of how the dark-skinned people in the Book of Mormon, ultimately, were more favored, blessed, and preserved than their white-skinned contemporaries.
Lynn does not offer any explanation or support for her claim that Abraham Lincoln felt negatively about Utah as a result of their slavery policy. I assume that claim is intended to generate a degree of sympathetic response from readers given the appropriately favorable light that almost all of us view President Lincoln.
The article is very limited in its scope and consideration of our canon. And it is simply incorrect in our doctrine about the Celestial Kingdom.
I understand that you would like to take up space criticizing Brigham Young and other leaders here. But that is neither the topic of the article nor of my response to the article.
FoF, you say this: “The topic is the perceived support of racism in the canon of the church. And there is no support in the canon, if one reads that canon in context.”
Assuming what you say is true, where the heck did the leaders get the idea of the ban from? Are you suggesting as a possibility that they may receive instruction from the Lord inconsistent with scripture?
And, FoF, thinking further about your statement, “The topic is the perceived support of racism in the canon of the church. And there is no support in the canon, if one reads that canon in context.”
Another possibility is that the ban on blacks regarding the priesthood was not racist. Do you possibly contend that banning those with dark skin solely because of their dark skin was not racist?
A final thought: we have in the past accused you of skipping the points you do not like. I see that virtually everyone here has indeed addressed your post. That they may not have done so in the manner you wish does not mean they have not addressed the points you bring up. Skipping points you don’t like or don’t think address your points sufficiently does not help your cause. Be honest and be fair. None of us are perfect, but we try to be honest and fair in our assessments, as well.
FoF,
You really just make things up and believe what you want dont you? You said
so if you say or believe that God is not racist according to the BoM then we have a problem. It was your god who spoke to your prophets who said things like this
Your god, according to your scripture punished them with black skin. Thats racism is it not?
What about this
Brigham Young said
FoF, many here can add more quotes, so here is the problem, even if you want to claim this is not a form of racism, we still have a problem, it all contridcts what the BoM said. Supposdly Your god views all people equeally according to the BoM. Yet if that is true, and your same god said this about blacks, then how is he viewing them as equels?
If you claim your god did not say and teach this, then we can and have proven your leaders did say this, and they claim your god told them this, so then that makes them liars and false prophets.
Either way we have a problem. Now are you going to address these problems, or will you in typical mormon fashion, either avoid the problems as you tend to do, or will you blow them off saying they dont have anything to do with the topic at hand? Either way we have a serious issue here.
I expected nothing less than many posts quoting past leaders of the church saying things that are racist according to our modern standards. While that is all fun, that is not the point of this article from Lynn Wilder. The topic is our canon.
MJP- that is the very point, as I interpret it, of the recent statement from the church on blacks and the Priesthood. It is not entirely clear where the ban on ordaining blacks came from. There are contradictory elements through the history. The church’s critics, as demonstrated here, will make the most negative assumptions possible and fill in where the details are missing. In your estimation, the church is pure evil and is filled with evil leaders conspiring to destroy the souls of mankind, and instituted a policy of discrimination because they did not like black people and had the power to do so. I get that. But, in my opinion, this is a superficial, and unfair conclusion. But, that is really beside the point of my initial post on this thread.
All of this is so amazingly hypocritical and self-righteous. The foundational book of your faith is the Bible. And the Bible provides lots of examples of racism as you want to define it in relation to my church. How is it not racist for the “Jews” to be the “chosen” people of God, while others are not the “chosen,” based entirely upon ancestry? Do you think it was racist for God command the Israelites to kill their own who had married Moabites? Some were hanged, others were killed with a javelin. Nehemiah cursed Israelites who married people of other ethnicity. Israelites were commanded to kill those in the promised land because there were not of Israel. How do you explain the story of Jesus telling a women that He was only sent to the house of Israel and that helping her would be casting “the children’s bread to the dogs?” It is only after she begs and pleads that Jesus grants her desire.
Do you believe God blesses those who follow Him? Did He destroy the people of the earth during the flood for not obeying Him? Which is worse, being killed or having children with darker skin after you marry a person of color?
RickB- I already explained the cursing and skin color in the Book of Mormon. It was a temporal thing at the time that the Lamanites mixed in with others and abandoned God. And the sins and apostasy of the descendants of Laman and Lemuel are to be answered upon the heads of Laman and Lemuel. Those descendants were blessed and preserved by God while the white-skinned people were destroyed. You are picking a verse out of context to make your point, but ignoring the larger context in the Book of Mormon.
You guys keep saying that I am not answering all your questions. And this is just more hypocrisy. How many against one LDS here? Still you won’t really engage what I am saying here. Run Run.
Rick B,
Thanks for asking me what I meant. I can see how my statement “messed up stuff” in the Bible could be taken differently than I meant. The OT, has stories of violence, rape, incest, lying, polygamy, and other things. Just because its in the Bible doesn’t mean God is saying it is ideal or even right. We find these things particularly in the OT because the OT is mainly a narrative of God working with imperfect people to bring salvation through their lineage and to the whole world. A Christian reads the story of David and says, “Even an adulterous, murderer can be saved. How great and compassionate is our God!” A Mormon talks about what kingdom David is in and uses these stories of human imperfection to come up with human doctrine said to be from God. Hence polygamy, and Mormon seed of Cain doctrine limiting blessings to a specific group of people.
FOF said,
And the Bible provides lots of examples of racism as you want to define it in relation to my church. How is it not racist for the “Jews” to be the “chosen” people of God, while others are not the “chosen,” based entirely upon ancestry?
I say,
What are you talking about? First of all Judaism in the Bible is not a race it is a religion anyone could participate in the Old Covenant simply by abiding by its terms race had nothing to do with it. If a Man was circumcised and obeyed the Law of Moses he was a Jew full stop.
Even before Jesus the Prophets made it very clear that it was not about ancestry (Matthew 3:9).
Sometimes I think you have not even bothered to actually read the Bible.
Quote:
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
End quote: Rom 9:6-8
How can someone possibly read Romans 9 through 11 and come away with the idea that being born an ethnic Israelite was somehow was an unfair benefit as far as salvation Goes?
God chose the Jews and entrusted them with the scriptures not so that they would get a leg up in the eternal lottery but to prove conclusively that salvation by works of the law was impossible. The Jews were bound to disobedience so that by their disobedience insure all mankind could receive the grace of God .
Have you really never read this ??
Quote:
For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy for God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
End quote:
Romans 11:30-32
Peace
fifthmonarchyman,
So what you are saying is that a person must understand the much larger context within which a specific promise, doctrine, or or gift is given before making narrow-minded conclusions? Hmm. It seems I have heard that before. In fact, that is precisely what I am saying about the Book of Mormon and the curse spoken of within the text. So why not approach the specific passages in the Book of Mormon as you have the text of the Bible? Why the double standard?
The very same principle applies. I can take a narrow view and pick a passage to make the God of the Bible look like a racist. But doing so requires me to take a superficial, short-sighted approach. And that is precisely what you guys are doing with the Book of Mormon.
Another point. You guys are loving this opportunity to jump on the bandwagon and claim that those people were racist who believed that certain individuals were given a station here in this life that reflected their faith or performance in the pre-earth life. For the sake of argument, let’s just assume that is true. Now you tell me, which is more fair, blessing individuals based upon their performance and level of faith or randomly picking and choosing individuals for salvation and damnation? Because that is precisely what a significant percentage of non-LDS Christians believe- that God picks some people for salvation and others for damnation, all on criteria that remain completely unknown. So how is that fair?
While making hay out of statements of past leaders of our church, I suggest recognizing the hypocrisy inherent in such criticism. But that recognition is very unlikely to occur.
FOF said,
Do you think it was racist for God command the Israelites to kill their own who had married Moabites?
I say,
No, marring a Moabite was not wrong because they were an inferior race but because they were God hating idolaters set on the destruction of the seed that would eventually defeat Satan and save the world.
You say,
Do you believe God blesses those who follow Him? Did He destroy the people of the earth during the flood for not obeying Him?
I say,
Yes. Have you really never read this???
quote:
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually and the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land,
Gen 6:5-7a
end quote:
you say:
How do you explain the story of Jesus telling a women that He was only sent to the house of Israel and that helping her would be casting “the children’s bread to the dogs?” It is only after she begs and pleads that Jesus grants her desire.
I say,
Because she was a pagan idolater from a people devoted to completely destroying the seed that would eventually save the world. This is not difficult.
As soon as she demonstrated that she was not hostile to God’s plan he granted her request graciously. While at the same time he did not heal some of his very close kinsmen and even called them children of the devil simply because they did not believe.
This is the very opposite of racism.
Can you really be this ignorant of the Bible?
Peace
FoF stated,”How is it not racist for the “Jews” to be the “chosen” people of God, while others are not the “chosen,” based entirely upon ancestry? Do you think it was racist for God command the Israelites to kill their own who had married Moabites? Some were hanged, others were killed with a javelin. Nehemiah cursed Israelites who married people of other ethnicity. Israelites were commanded to kill those in the promised land because there were not of Israel. How do you explain the story of Jesus telling a women that He was only sent to the house of Israel and that helping her would be casting “the children’s bread to the dogs?” It is only after she begs and pleads that Jesus grants her desire.”
I agree with fifth monarchy man’s statement. “First of all Judaism in the Bible is not a race it is a religion anyone could participate in the Old Covenant simply by abiding by its terms race had nothing to do with it. If a Man was circumcised and obeyed the Law of Moses he was a Jew full stop.” You see this following the rape of Dinah, when the people were willing to be circumcised to make peace. You see this as a major dispute in the early Church, should Christians be circumcised? Do they need to be Jewish before Christian? And Paul is very clear on the answer to that. No. Why were these things happening if people from outside the seed of Abraham could not join in faith? The answer is outsiders could join.
More apples and oranges talk. The issue with the Moabites was that those who married the Moabites were becoming idol worshipers. The issue was with idolatrous worship not race.
As for the story of Christ and the Gentile woman. I would simply answer I believe he was trying her faith. He says, “Great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” You use this story to show racism, but she was not refused. You say it was only after begging and pleading. Did not even the Jewish people beg and plead to be healed. Was she that different? Weren’t they all humbled and showed great faith before healing came. Christ conveyed to her a truth, the Word was to go first to those who were waiting for it. Christ was announcing Himself to the people that would be able to recognize Him as the Son of God. The people he had been working through for thousands of years. The King of Kings was born quietly in a manger, announced his ministry quietly in the Jordan River, came peacefully on a donkey on Palm Sunday, even news of his death was rather localized. But his Resurrection, where through death He conquers sin and death and lives, this news goes throughout all the world. Because ALL can take part in the way, the truth, and the life.
So what we have is a group of people that God has chosen to work through, that are told to violently oppose idolatry in order to preserve the faith so that people would be able to know who the Son of God was he peacefully makes His entrance into our fallen world. He announces Himself to those who can know and understand who He is. But even with their knowledge many could not believe. But His death was for ALL, His life is for ALL, the Resurrection is for ALL, inheritance of the kingdom and life with God can be for ALL.
I just cannot see how this in anyway is similar to the Mormon Church and Blacks and the Priesthood.
FOF said,
So what you are saying is that a person must understand the much larger context within which a specific promise, doctrine, or or gift is given before making narrow-minded conclusions?
I say,
No, I’m saying one must simply read a passage of the Bible as it is written.
On the other hand the “much larger context” of the BOM passages on the other hand are the racist statements and actions of the LDS “prophets”
You say,
Now you tell me, which is more fair, blessing individuals based upon their performance and level of faith or randomly picking and choosing individuals for salvation and damnation?
I say,
If God gave people what we deserved we all would burn forever in hell. I suppose it would be fair but it would not be Gracious. Death is fair but I would not consider it to be praise worthy.
I thank God that he sometimes chooses to bless us in spite of our performance.
You say,
While making hay out of statements of past leaders of our church, I suggest recognizing the hypocrisy inherent in such criticism.
I say,
there is no hypocrisy at all. Racist Christians are fallible men not following the Bible.
The Racist Mormons we are talking about were supposedly prophets protected from error
Do you see the difference?
peace
FoF said, “Now you tell me, which is more fair, blessing individuals based upon their performance and level of faith or randomly picking and choosing individuals for salvation and damnation?”
lol, what a funny question. That’s like asking, “What’s healthier? A potato chips or cheese puffs? When health shouldn’t even be in the same sentence.
In all fairness you asked what is “more fair.” Which isn’t a relevant question. The question should be which is true? The answer is neither.