White Utah kids talking about Jews

[Portia]

In Church today the topic of discussion was "God is not a respecter of persons," which being a more progressive, inclusive topic, I was interested in. The textual portion was in Acts chapter 10, where Cornelius is an honest, decent Roman centurion who wants to become Christian, and Simon Peter has a vision of non-kosher foods that he's supposed to eat.

It was a decent lecture, but something the teacher said had me guffawing and looking around to see if anyone else had a raised eyebrow. Rather casually he drops in a "who are the only people who would kill their God? The Jews!" Wha- Did you just-? Is this a thing? In some kind of scriptural canon? I just don't think it's very wise for a bunch of young adults with last names like Lundquist and Rassmussen, who are universally Northern European, to just blithely be like, "Jews! Craziness!" I thought the awkward moments might come from discussing the 1978 extension of the Church priesthood to black males, but that was all surprisingly positive and what I'd consider to be a good thing.

Uh, do we not realize what happened in the forties? Do people not know that this was a really big sticking point between Christians and Jews and led to massacres of Jews in medieval times (cf blood oaths, etc.)? It just seemed rather glib to me, and sort of against the point that the scriptural passage is trying to make. Is it something Jesus or someone else said and a quotation? I'm at a loss . . .

[Marduk]

Christ said that he would be killed, but did not say that no other civilization or people would kill God. I'd be interested to know the context of that comment, as it seems entirely irrelevant of the topic at large.

[Rifka]

I've heard that quote before, but I don't know that I've ever heard a source for it. If it does exist, it's probably in the Journal of Discourses or something sketchy like that. I'm going to go do some digging and get back to this, though.

[Rifka]

That is a random thing to bring up during a discussion of respecters of persons. Did the teacher not realize the irony of what he was saying?

That said, I searched around and I think he probably got the idea from 2 Nephi 10:3. It's actually fairly clear about that:

3Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.
--2 Nephi 10:3

I was surprised that there was such a strong scriptural reference to back up your Gospel Doctrine teacher. He was right that this scripture states that the Jews were the only nation that would crucify their God. However, just stating that part pulls the quote a little out of context. Right before that, Jacob states that the more wicked part of the world (not the most wicked part of the world) would be among the Jews who crucified Christ. This references does NOT say that ALL of the Jews were the more wicked people on the earth, let alone the most wicked people on the earth, which is what your teacher seemed to be implying.

Regardless, that was a pretty tactless way of your teacher to bring it up.

And as a final note, you could share this quote with your teacher to quiet him:

"This generation is as corrupt as the generation of the Jews that crucified Christ; and if He were here to-day, and should preach the same doctrine He did then, they would put Him to death."
--Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 328

[Dead Cat]

My BoM teacher once noted that the scriptures say we're supposed to be nice to Jewish people.

[Eirene]

I'm Jewish by heritage, and I've always been massively offended when people say things like that so flippantly. It's toolish enough to pass judgments on large groups of strangers who you've never met and who lived thousands of years ago (regardless of the way that scripture authors phrased things, I will always feel guilty and inadequate trying to judge an actual human being's thoughts and motivations from just a few lines of text). What's worse is when people don't even make an attempt to separate groups even a little—like, would it really be so difficult to say things like "some of the ancient Jewish people" or, heaven forbid, leaving the "Jewish" part out and just saying "the people in these scriptures"? There are very few things that make me as angry as subtle, casual anti-Semitism—all I can think about is how I have so many close family members who I've never gotten to know because they died in concentration camps, and here's this [expletive] [expletive] going around saying my relatives, my family are wicked people (because whether you mean it that way or not, blanket statements about an entire race include modern members of that race)? That is just a crap thing.

Sorry for getting all soapbox-y there. But guys, please just don't ever be the kind of person who talks like that. It's sucky and awful to be like that (or to be around people like that).

[Rifka]

No offense, Eiren, but "the people in these scriptures" is incredibly vague and could lead to a lot more misunderstandings. Personally I'd say something like "the people who crucified/rejected Christ," or something like that. I'm not standing up for anti-Semitic sentiment by any means-- I'm just clarifying. I do appreciate your thoughts on having a Jewish heritage and how that makes you feel. It's good for those of us who don't have any genetic Jewish heritage (we all have Jewish gospel heritage, though) to hear from one who actually is part of that nation.

[Eirene]

No offense, Eiren, but "the people in these scriptures" is incredibly vague and could lead to a lot more misunderstandings. Personally I'd say something like "the people who crucified/rejected Christ," or something like that. I'm not standing up for anti-Semitic sentiment by any means-- I'm just clarifying. I do appreciate your thoughts on having a Jewish heritage and how that makes you feel. It's good for those of us who don't have any genetic Jewish heritage (we all have Jewish gospel heritage, though) to hear from one who actually is part of that nation.

It wouldn't be nearly as vague when you're discussing a specific verse, which is what I meant when I said "these" scriptures and not "the" scriptures.

[Tao]

An interesting approach to such a topic is our (LDS) approach to the children of Israel. Ancient Israeli culture was very much "us and them": either you were in the covenant or you were goyim. When such a seemingly anti-Semitic sentiment comes up in an LDS situation, we should instead of assuming that it is the Jews being addressed, presume it is us. For all the contrariness and backsliding nature of the children of Israel, we're not very different today. And with the covenants we hold, we'll be just as accountable as they were. (Picture a bunch of kids in the millennium sitting around and saying "who are the only people who would sustain a living prophet in front of them at conference, then unabashedly ignore his counsel the other 364 days of the year? The Mormons!"

[Portia]

Thanks for the sourcing, Rifka.

There wasn't much context, outside of being an aside about the chapter in Acts we were discussing, which had a Jewish/Roman dichotomy (ultimately resolved, of course, to be in favor of equality, even integration).

I'm with Eirene on this one. There are some things you just don't go around quoting flippantly, and that clearly falls under the umbrella to me. No sane person, especially under age 30, really believes or backs up black-as-a-"curse" theory, either. Anyone interested in this issue historically should start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel