LDS and Civil Rights

So Mitt Romney cited the civil rights movement as an example of the sort of common faith-based moral causes that bring people of all faiths together. Maybe he needs to re-read about church history. Here's the April 13, 1959 Time:

Whatever they may do or leave undone about their Negro brethren, most U.S. churches hold that all men are equal before God. One notable exception: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches that the colored races are descendants of the evil children of Laman and Lemuel, who impiously warred against the good children of Nephi and received their pigmented skin as punishment. Last week a Utah State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights drew on this Mormon scripture in a scathing report on the state of the tiny nonwhite minority in Utah.

Now, obviously, they've jettisoned that these days and that's not what Mitt Romney believes. But it highlights out vacuous this notion of an all-encompassing universal faith-and-goodness is. Most major religions do espouse a mostly-admirable moral creed. But old-style Mormon teaching on "the evil children of Laman and Lemuel" isn't admirable. Arresting people for naming a teddy bear "Mohammed" isn't admirable. Settlers who believe the entire West Bank is God's gift to the Jewish people aren't admirable.

Comments

Classy, Matt.

Posted by right | December 6, 2007 10:56 AM

Well what do you expect from someone who starts his big speech with a piece of blatant anti-antheist bigotry: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom"

Posted by goethean | December 6, 2007 11:10 AM

Don't you love how conservative Republicans try to claim the Civil Rights Movement for themselves because MLK was a preacher? Most of the Southern white evangelicals that Romney is trying to get support from are descended from those who opposed MLK. Jerry Falwell drew a strong line between "them" - black religious leaders involved in civil rights - and "us" - white conservative Christians who are against abortion rights.

Posted by Reality Man | December 6, 2007 11:13 AM

Romney's hardly the first to misuse the importance of religion to the civil rights movement. I think you often hear a reference to it in Republican speeches. And yet:

In February 1956, almost two years after the U.S. Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education ruling declaring segregation unconstitutional, Wallie Amos Criswell, pastor of Southern Baptists' largest congregation and arguably Southern Baptists' most popular preacher, addressed the South Carolina Baptist Convention's evangelism conference. As he exhorted his fellow ministers to greater evangelistic fervor, his sermon veered temporarily off course as he began a bitter denunciation of the Brown ruling.

As a general matter, I don't think religious doctrines should concern people so much as the makeup of the chosen congregation.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 6, 2007 11:15 AM

It's interesting that Mitt refers to our nation's "symphony of faith." Sounds like an awesome bit of performance art. I'm imagining a dozen different small clusters of musicians playing discordant and mutually incompatible melodies, while a dozen different conductors wrestle with each other for control of the podium.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 6, 2007 11:19 AM

Matt, both you and that Time piece are absolutely wrong about Mormon doctrine and belief. The Book of Mormon does not teach "that the colored races are descendants of the evil children of Laman and Lemuel." With only a few clicks on the internet you could have found out that Mormons believe some native Americans descended from "Laman and Lemuel" and that somehow, their disobedience resulted in a darkening of their pigmentation (many modern Mormons believe this was the result of intermarriage to people outside the covenant and from a different racial background).

Obviously, there's still a fair point to be made about the LDS church's position on race. Unfortunately, in your efforts to make a quick "gotcha" against Romney you don't make it. You might want to consider doing a little more research before spouting off on something you clearly do not know or understand.

Posted by cbs | December 6, 2007 11:25 AM

Settlers who believe that any of the West Bank is God's gift to the Jewish people aren't admirable.

Posted by otto | December 6, 2007 11:27 AM

"I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith," Romney said at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum.......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I doubt we'll ever hear a candidate (or a sitting president) add the phrase "should not be rejected because of his lack of faith" to any speech. For all the talk of inclusiveness and tolerance and separating religion and politics you'll never see an avowed atheist reach the White House. I can't even see a major politician in a position to ever rise to such heights advocate an atheist should get elected or have the opportunity to be the president.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency [....], one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal [....] had the following exchange with then-Vice-President Bush:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't happening.

Posted by steve duncan | December 6, 2007 11:28 AM

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom"

Go tell that to a devout Muslim, Mitt.

Posted by Bill | December 6, 2007 11:34 AM

Well, I doubt any residual racism will have influence policy, but stuff like the "fast offering" and "bishop's storehouse" might make me concerned about Romney's committment to entitlement programs.

I get tired of attacking the obvious & easy targets.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 6, 2007 11:44 AM

Matt, I realize the idea that God would "curse" a group of people with dark skin because they were evil is an offensive idea to modern sensibilities. It bothers me too.

You can read the text a variety of ways.

But it is important not to get fixated on the passages describing skin color as a curse and look to how these dark-skinned people (the "Lamanites") are treated throughout the rest of the text of the Book of Mormon.

The remainder of the book's text describes various wars and hatreds between the two factions. But it also describes missionary outreach to the Lamanites. Eventually, such outreach is successful and groups of Lamanites are described as actually being more righteous than their light-skinned brothers. At one point the entire "white" faction of Nephites falls into evil practices and the dark-skinned Lamanites are the ones who remain righteous - even sending a Lamanite prophet to reprimand the Nephites and call them to repentance.

So yeah, there's an ugly bit about a curse. But the rest of the book's narrative is remarkably free of the notion that skin color equates with moral character. In fact, the book reads as a refutation of that notion.

If you view the book as the translation of an ancient document (as Mormons do) the lack of a racially superior narrative is rather remarkable, given what we know about the attitudes of ancient peoples.

As for his personal life, Joseph Smith was an abolitionist. So were his Mormon followers. This got them in a bit of trouble in pre-Civil War Missouri among their Protestant neighbors (who were alarmed at the arrival of a large, unified anti-slavery voting bloc).

All I'm saying is you'd get a much different picture if you read the whole book, instead of focusing on soundbites from our critics.

Posted by Seth R. | December 6, 2007 11:57 AM

Settlers who believe that any of the West Bank is God's gift to the Jewish people aren't admirable.

Jews who believe any of Israel is God's gift to the Jewish people aren't admirable, but there we are.

Did you know Jews used to conquer people? It's right there in the Bible. And Protestants burned people at the stake? And Catholics and Muslims have launched vicious and bloody "holy wars"? It's true.

Of course religions can have "non-admirable" histories. That hardly advocates for the strict secularism we have today, which is the case Romney is making. Of course that would require Matt to take Romney seriously.

Posted by right | December 6, 2007 11:59 AM

"the strict secularism we have today"...I'm not sure how anybody can write that with a straight face.

Posted by Joel W | December 6, 2007 12:02 PM

Welcome to the new atheists, Mr. Yglesias. Once you start stating in public that religion often has a downside, your membership is processed without your approval or consent.

One of us! One of us!

Posted by Patrick | December 6, 2007 12:23 PM

I believe Romney claimed on Leno that he broke down and cried tears of joy in 1978 when the Mormons allowed black men to become priests, because he had wanted so badly for his church to change its position on the issue.

It's also worth noting that this Mormon position on the black "curse" seems not to have affected Mormom politicians' stance on racial issues. George Romney himself was one of the leading backers of the civil rights movement in the Republican Party, and I believe the Utah Congressional delegation generally supported civil rights legislation.

SCMT: It's clear from that full article, though, that Southern Baptists could be found on both sides of the civil right issue. Billy Graham himself endorsed integration.

Posted by James Kabala | December 6, 2007 1:20 PM

I was wondering how long it would take for the apologists for the Mormon's church's racism to come out of the woodwork and selectively cite certain parts of Mormon theology to argue that they really were not that racist at all.
I am certainly not an expert on the Mormon church, but I know a few things that cannot be disputed. Things that mark Mormonism with a deep, deep stain of racism. Mormons and those who support Mormons would do well to first acknowledge that racism, and then move past it. Attempting to argue that there is and that there never was a problem with the church and its racist past solves nothing.
It is the craziest type of denial, denying what is right there for everyone to see if they are curious enough to do a bit of cursory research.
If the Mormon church was so remarkably lacking in racist doctrine, why did the church refuse to allow blacks to become priests and participate in certain temple activities, a fact that was addressed, to some degree in 1978? Was the church needlessly beating itself up, or was there a real problem that had to be addressed?
While the reasons for Smith's abolitionist stance may be complex, the sentiments of founding fathers like Brigham Young are not. This is one of my favorite quotes from that pillar of Mormon egalitarianism:
"Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain]...in him cannot hold the Priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spoke it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."
Then there is this gem: "If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain (those with dark skin), the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
And on and on and on...
Denying one's ugly past and history is almost as egregious as participating in the acts themselves.
Why do you think Holocaust deniers are regarded as the scum they are?

Posted by frankie d | December 6, 2007 1:25 PM

To Seth R.
I have not read the book of Mormon, but I can tell you that it is a fact that NO African-American was a member of the Mormon Church prior to 1950 period! In the late 1950's two or three Negro families were ALLOWED to attend the main Church in Utah, but still were denied membership because of their race. Subsequent widespread negative publicity concerning this racial barrier by the Church caused eventually caused the Church to somewhat relax their rules, and in the early 1970's ONE African-American family was allowed to join the main Church in Utah.
Discussion of Mormon past history or interpretation of selections in the Book of Mormon is not as important as past actions by the Church itself. Another way put, "actions speak louder than words", and it is only very recently that the Church has allowed greater participation of African-Americans in its activities.

Posted by Bill B | December 6, 2007 1:38 PM

Frankied - in the context of Young's time, surely the "white man" who is mixing his blood is going to very likely be a slaveholder raping his slaves, no?

Posted by John | December 6, 2007 1:51 PM

Bill B,

Your "facts" are wrong. For example, Elijah Abel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel), a former slave, was baptized, given the priesthood, served a mission, and accompanied his fellow Mormons out west to Utah. He was one of many black members of the Church.

Please get your facts straight.

Yes, there was later a priesthood ban which many Mormon are uncomfortable with, but don't make false claims.

Posted by B | December 6, 2007 1:58 PM

"I was wondering how long it would take for the apologists for the Mormon's church's racism to come out of the woodwork and selectively cite certain parts of Mormon theology to argue that they really were not that racist at all."

I don't see anyone saying that the Mormons had no racist theology or practices in place, only that this blogger painted an incomplete picture of the issue of race in the Mormon Church. Both the idea that Mormon beliefs were completely racist and the idea that they were completely free of racism are too simplistic.

Posted by Jeremy Jensen | December 6, 2007 2:11 PM

John,

That is the most charitable view.
Considering the historical context, and Young's many, many other racist statements, forgive me for assigning a less forgiving interpretation.
Also, forcing a slave to submit to sex was not considered rape. Rape is a legal term that is defined by each society and culture. In America, during slavery, forced sex with a slave was simply a matter of using one's chattel as one saw fit.
It certainly was not considered rape.
(If it had been considered rape, then all of our slaveholding states were populated largely by rapists who simply were not prosecuted. In those days, the appearance of obviously mixed-race children was the open, but unspoken of, secret of American society.)
The idea that an openly racist person who lived in a society that approved of the holding of chattel/slaves would condemn forced intercourse is laughable.
Young's statement simply reveals the depth of his racism. He is simply decrying and condemning any union and association between the races.

Posted by frankie d | December 6, 2007 2:17 PM

Jeremy,

Oh yeah, and you also forgot that the Nazi's were not completely anti-semetic. Didn't they have all sorts of other ideas that informed their attempt at governing Germany?
We just get hung up on that little Holocaust thing.
Geez, when are we going to take a more comprehensive look at the National Socialist Party of Germany back in the '30's and '40's and talk about things other than the Holocaust!?

Posted by frankie d | December 6, 2007 2:24 PM

Romney and others can claim that Mormonism is a religion as much as they want but that will never change the fact that Mormonism is a cult. And if the President of the Mormon Church decides that God told him to influence US policy...you better believe that he would be on the phone with Romney telling him exactly what to do. I am someone with a Bachelor's degree in both Bible & Religion and fully understand that Mormonism is a cult and why. A cult is any group (regardless of size) that interprets the doctrines of a religion in an unorthodox fashion. Unlike Religions which create their doctrines based on interpretation of book(s)of scriptures within their context, cults create their doctrines first and then take the scriptures from the books of other religions and force them outside of their context to fit the twisted ideologies of the cult. Cults have come out of all religions and Christianity is no exception. The 2 largest cults that have come from out of Christianity have been the Jehovah's Witness cult and the Mormon Cult.

Next time someone tries to tell you that Mormonism is Christian, keep in mind that Mormon doctrine teaches that their god was once a physical human being who attained god status (the Adam God doctrine of Mormonism), there is no trinity, Jesus Christ and Satan are half brothers (Satan was not an angel created by God), Blacks were once considered a cursed race by God (until civil rights movements made that inconvenient), Women are second class citizens and will be eternally pregnant with their Mormon husband in the after life ruling over their own planet, you can baptize the dead by proxy using the living and lastly, Mormonism fails every test of archaeology as nothing claimed by Joseph Smith has never been found.

In retrospect, those who have done their homework regarding the Book of Mormon are pretty clear that there was never any Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith stole the draft of a fiction story titled “A View of the Hebrews” and published it under the heading of “Book of Mormon. Ultimately, Mormonism fits every parameter of a cult and like all cults...they can change their doctrines at the drop of a hat which is something true religions never need to do. They may claim to believe in God and Jesus Christ but they are referring to a totally different God and a totally different Jesus Christ compared to Christianity.

Posted by Jedadiah Bravo | December 6, 2007 2:33 PM

Blacks have always been allowed in LDS membership. Always. During the 50s and 60s there were a LOT of baptisms in Africa.

The only thing denied to blacks was to be ordained as a part of the Church's lay ministry (which is normally given to all "worthy" male members at a certain age). That practice started with Joseph Smith's successor Brigham Young.

And yes, the early LDS were abolitionists. That is an undisputed fact.

Posted by Seth R. | December 6, 2007 2:55 PM

A cult is any group (regardless of size) that interprets the doctrines of a religion in an unorthodox fashion.

What religion are you talking about? Christianity? Or Mormonism?

Unlike Religions which create their doctrines based on interpretation of book(s)of scriptures within their context, cults create their doctrines first and then take the scriptures from the books of other religions and force them outside of their context to fit the twisted ideologies of the cult.

I'm pretty sure when Moses and his associates wrote the Torah, when the Evangelists wrote the New Testament, and Muhammad produced the Koran they all had pretty good ideas of what doctrines they were looking to support.

Posted by right | December 6, 2007 3:03 PM

Matt (and oh, so many others) criticizes old-style Mormonism for its racism.

Um...wasn't old-style Christianity racist?

Uh...wasn't old-style American secularism racist?

Jeez, practically all of old-style America was racist. No?

And the Jews in the Torah were slave-holders and racists -- not judging by color, but by tribe.

Cut Mormonism some slack and quit pretending it's somehow uniquely evil because of the racism in its past.

Posted by Jason | December 6, 2007 3:51 PM

The "cult" claim is ridiculous. It's alarmist and stupid.

Anyone who actually knows any real-life, practicing Mormons -- doesn't merely know of them, but knows them -- is going to see through the sheer lameness of this "cult" tag.

Show a modicum of tolerance, intelligence, and awareness. Please. It's only the Right-wing, Evangelical haters who keep tossing around the "cult" accusation -- and like I said, it's alarmist and stupid.

Posted by Jason | December 6, 2007 3:59 PM

Who cares about some fringe Third World religion?

Posted by answer me this | December 6, 2007 4:03 PM

Oh, stop attacking the Mormons. For goodness' sake, we have them to thank for handing us down the secret of root beer, whose formula was revealed to the prophet Nehi.

Thus it is written.

Posted by Henderstock | December 6, 2007 4:16 PM

I assume the "Third World" question is a joke. But it reminds me: there are books and articles written -- by non-Mormons -- claiming that Mormonism is the "most American" of all religions. And not just because it was founded in America -- but because it inculcates certain key "American" values, ideals, etc.

Harold Bloom (a secular Jew) wrote one of those books. Can't remember what it's called though....

Posted by Jason | December 6, 2007 4:19 PM

Cut Mormons some slack?
Why?
A man who was born into the Mormon faith wants to be President.
He was born in 1947. In 1978, his church repudiated some of its admittedly racist doctrines.
So, until he was 31 years old, he participated in the religion, acted as a missionary for the religion and apparently raised at least some of his children in this faith. While it used admittedly racist doctrines.
As an African-American, I want to know how he navigated those waters.
Did he preach those racist doctrines when he worked as a missionary?
Did he teach his children those racist doctrines?
Did he object at all to being made to preach racist doctrines and if the answer is yes, what is the proof?
These are just a few of the very legitimate questions that arise about his religion and his involvement in his religion and they deserve answers.
If Minister Louis Farrakhan ran for political office, I would expect that he would have to account for the absolutely nutty, racist origins of Elijah Muhammad's version of Islam.
Why should Romney be any different?

Posted by frankie d | December 6, 2007 4:28 PM

"Cut Mormons some slack? Why?"

Cause charges of historical racism could help Romney win the Republican nomination and electoral victories in many Red States.

Rove was right. Attack people at their strengths.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 6, 2007 4:37 PM

Talk about a double standard...

So if I can find 19th century atheists or deists who happened to be pro-slavery or racists does that mean I can discount all atheists or deists?

People exist in the context of their times. The very tenant of Christianity is that folks are flawed and imperfect. We ought be trying to do better. Were there racist Mormons? Certainly. Were there racist atheists? Certainly. So what?

Posted by Clark Goble | December 6, 2007 5:04 PM

"Talk about a double standard...

So if I can find 19th century atheists or deists who happened to be pro-slavery or racists does that mean I can discount all atheists or deists?

People exist in the context of their times. The very tenant of Christianity is that folks are flawed and imperfect. We ought be trying to do better. Were there racist Mormons? Certainly. Were there racist atheists? Certainly. So what?"

The above quote is just plain stupid.
If Clark Goble cannot understand the difference between an organization being founded on racist doctrine and an individual racist within a non-racist organization, well, he deserves to continue to live in his fantasy land.
And that BS about the "context of their times" is just the typical racist excuse for people who did not have the moral courage to stand up to wrongdoing. There were, and always have been, people who stood up, even within the context of their times. Those people were heroes. The ones who succumbed to the pressure to fit in were significantly lesser people.

Posted by frankie d | December 6, 2007 5:14 PM

Pray tell how the LDS Church is "founded on racist doctrine."

Last I checked, we were founded on the idea of Christ's Atonement and modern revelation from God via prophets, but what do I know?

I love how people take their own pet issue and inflate it to dominate the entire field, no matter how tangential and marginal the issue might have originally been to that field.

And, for the record, I do not support the racist sermons and teachings my church engaged in prior to the lifting of the ban. My own feeling is that they were simply products of the prejudices of the LDS leadership at the time.

Posted by Seth R. | December 6, 2007 5:45 PM

Comparing the religiously supported racial bigotry of people in the 18th century with the LDS supported bigotry of 1976 is completely ridiculous. That's like ridiculing someone in ancient Rome for thinking the world was flat.

Posted by colonel danite | December 6, 2007 5:49 PM

For those looking for an LDS retraction, how's this for a mea culpa -- from a speech given two months after the revelation on the priesthood in 1978 by Bruce R. McConkie, an LDS Apostle when he gave it and who had earlier written some of the apologetics favoring the ban:

"We have revelations that tell us that the gospel is to go to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people before the Second Coming of the Son of Man. And we have revelations which recite that when the Lord comes he will find those who speak every tongue and are members of every nation and kindred, who will be kings and priests, who will live and reign on earth with him a thousand years. That means, as you know, that people from all nations will have the blessings of the house of the Lord before the Second Coming.
.
"We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
.
"We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.
.
"It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles."

(complete text available from BYU's site here:
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11017)

Posted by manaen | December 6, 2007 6:23 PM

I think there are some legitimate complaints about the Mormon religion. Its founder indeed married underage girls, performed elaborate rituals with "seer" stones which certainly seemed like parlor tricks. And the church of Mormon has a long history of racism and the subjugation women. Utah was founded as theocracy, with the churches leaders behaving very much like the Mullahs of Iran do today. There even was massacre of non-believers carried out by Mormons. (recently documented in a movie)

While the Church is certainly less harsh and totalitarian than it used to be, but there are indeed some reasons to still be wary of the Mormon religion.
However, I wouldn’t worry too much about Romney being a "Mormon Candidate" who would use his office to advance the Mormon agenda. He's an opportunist who want wealth and power, not religious fanaticism. In fact, what is striking about Romney is his utter lack of conviction of any kind. He changes his positions at the drop of a hat. Hardly a full blown Mormon dictator.

Posted by George Arndt | December 6, 2007 6:34 PM

Most of you aren't going to understand or believe this, but who said that the "blacks and the priesthood" issue of LDS history had anything specifically to do with their skin color? In other words, who says it's "racism" as it has been designated (mostly by those who are not members nor have ever been members of the church)?

There was a time when only Jews from a certain tribe of Israel were allowed to officiate in certain ordinances (i.e. hold the priesthood). Would you call that racism, or maybe "tribism?" What about women? They've never been allowed to hold the priesthood in many religions. Is that sexism? Maybe by outsiders' standards.

The reality is that all of this stems from a complete misunderstanding, mostly among non-members, of what the priesthood is all about, what it means, etc. Most believe it to be some kind of power position. Nothing could be further from the truth, although admittedly many have usurped power and influence over others in the name of God and priesthood, both inside the LDS church and out...really in religion as a whole. That doesn't mean that the religion is bad or was wrong. Just certain individuals.

There is no history or doctrine within the LDS religion, however, that equates the limitation of priesthood with racism, or that indicates that blacks could not hold the priesthood because they were deemed as unequal. Isolated comments of some members aside (the veracity of which in most cases is dubious at best), no true Mormon believes or ever did believe that blacks are less than whites or that any race or sex is superior to another.

Posted by Ryan | December 6, 2007 6:35 PM

And George, let's not stoop to calling propagandist, anti-Mormon fiction (September Dawn) "documentation" of any merit.

Posted by Ryan | December 6, 2007 6:40 PM

Don't you love how conservative Republicans try to claim the Civil Rights Movement for themselves because MLK was a preacher?

Etc, etc., from BIll B and frankie d in the guise of being anti-racist, they plunge into flaming religious bigotry and attempt to smear present day Mormons collectively for past errors. Same as others have done to Jews or Catholics in the here and now for what they "object to" which happened hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Mitt Romney's father George was a civil rights leader in the Republican Party and corporate community. He marched with MLK and was one of the main reasons Republicans almost unanimously supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. George Romney is one of the inventors of partner volunteerism, something George H. Bush mentioned in his intro to Mitt, where the corporate community partnered with NGOs and churches to fund and help coordinate help to the less fortunate.

Like his father, Mitt Romney has had a strong commitment to civil rights and volunteerism, something he established was a lifelong pattern with him in what he did in his business ventures and personal time and with his own wealth - in his debates with Ted Kennedy and later.

It would amaze me if frankie d or Bill B felt comfortable sliming the past of other religions like they do Mormonism and putting out similar bum dope. To do so against Judaism's past and it's restrictions on priesthood would be instantly recognized for the raw bigotry and anti-semitism it was. To slime a present Catholic like Giuliani would galvanize the Catholics and others who believe that JFK had put anti-Catholicism in America's past once and for all 47 years ago.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 6, 2007 7:04 PM

It's interesting that Mitt refers to our nation's "symphony of faith." Sounds like an awesome bit of performance art. I'm imagining a dozen different small clusters of musicians playing discordant and mutually incompatible melodies ...

Charles Ives's best music. Coincidentally, the most American of composers.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 6, 2007 7:05 PM

"Isolated comments of some members aside (the veracity of which in most cases is dubious at best), no true Mormon believes or ever did believe that blacks are less than whites or that any race or sex is superior to another."

So Brigham Young wasn't a true Mormon? His racism is a matter of public record.

The problem with the Mormon apologists on this thread vis-a-vis racism is that other LDS groups were far less racist than the Mormons. The Community of Christ or the Strangites, for example, didn't deny the priesthood to blacks.

There is a long tradition of Mormon racism, largely originating from the discusison of the curse of Ham in the book of Mormon and the book of Abraham. Thus you get the idea that people who behave well in life will somehow "whiten" their skin.

Posted by Hektor Bim | December 6, 2007 9:24 PM

Hektor, I think it hard to make any sort of straight-faced claim that racism of some sort or another wasn't involved in some of the LDS leadership's statements throughout the length of the black Priesthood ban.

My only point in initially responding to Matt was to point out that the Book of Mormon support for such racism is tenuous at best. In fact, I think that book of scripture has an overall anti-racist message if anything.

Posted by Seth R. | December 6, 2007 10:08 PM

I think it's fairly clear from this discussion that nobody holding any of these beliefs should be allowed anywhere near political office.

The only religious test the Constitution should allow is whether you're religious at all - and if you are, get lost.

That supposedly sentient individuals in the modern day could hold any of these beliefs is a shattering condemnation of the human species.

But then, the existence of politics at all is also a shattering condemnation of the species.

You chimps are truly fucked.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 6, 2007 10:23 PM

but I can tell you that it is a fact that NO African-American was a member of the Mormon Church prior to 1950 period! In the late 1950's two or three Negro families were ALLOWED to attend the main Church in Utah, but still were denied membership because of their race. Subsequent widespread negative publicity concerning this racial barrier by the Church caused eventually caused the Church to somewhat relax their rules, and in the early 1970's ONE African-American family was allowed to join the main Church in Utah.

If a central tenant of your religion is not only "no blacks aloud", but also that black people are children of Cain, and you still are able to get some black people to want to convert to your religion, you have missionaries that are the greatest salesmen ever. Either that, or some late 19th century african-american families in Utah were so self-hating to make Clarence Thomas look like Malcom X.

Posted by Kolohe | December 6, 2007 10:46 PM

Hektor,

What public record? The Journal of Discourses (that favorite reference of all anti-Mormons)? I guess it doesn't matter to you that the validity of the Journal of Discourses is seriously in doubt. It's not part of the official LDS doctrine or beliefs and you won't find a single reference to it on the official LDS web site (www.lds.org). That's the only "public record" that anyone ever uses to try to pin "racism" on Brigham Young and it's simply not valid.

And, the curse of Ham in the Book of Mormon? Could you provide a chapter and verse reference of any such discussion? (HINT: there is none)

Finally, Hack: you must be a genius. Such brilliant analysis.

What a moron.

Posted by Ryan | December 6, 2007 11:20 PM

Anybody that's even remotely sanguine about having a devout member of the LDS church as president has never lived in Utah as a non Mormon. The church *is* the state here.

Posted by justinb | December 6, 2007 11:28 PM

It's funny, really, reading all the apologists for the Mormon church, all the little whiners writing about how Mormonism is just another religion, and about how what we need is religious tolerance.

What I've seen little mention of is the way that Mormons tend to treat those who were once part of the church but who chose to leave. Living in a small town in Utah for seven years, I had former Mormon friends who were isolated and ignored by their family and former friends who belonged to the church. That's a classic cult behavior--if someone leaves the fold of the true believers, they are to be shunned. After all, how can someone turn his back on the Truth and still deserve respect?

I'm sure tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Mormons remain in the church for social, not religious reasons. Rather than risk being socially outcast in their own communities, they go along to get along. Hardly something for the church to be proud of.

Nice try, folks. Religious tolerance begins in the stakehouse.

Posted by Castanea | December 6, 2007 11:43 PM

justinb--Amen, man. I'm a gentile who pulled two tours behind the Zion curtain. Ate my share of frogeye salad and green Jello with the locals. Drank more than my share of 3.2 beer.

In the end, I get the creeping feeling that Romney would do whatever the hierarchy of the Mormon church told him to do. As I've mentioned previously, at its core, the Mormon church is not a religion, it is a business. And I have more than a few friends back in Zion who are jack Mormons who'd agree with me.

Posted by Castanea | December 6, 2007 11:55 PM

Where and what year daddy Romney marched with Dr. King? The March on Washington? Since Dr.King is safely dead and can not pose a threat all these Republicans pols now bray how wonderful his message was while doing everything to limit the federal and state agencies that were set up to safeguard the rights of minorities. As for the cult and its adherents; nothing like another celestial ego stroke for human vanity. Romney panders to whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear and like his fellow aristocrat George B. Jr. has no empathy for the travails of the peasants until there is a photo opportunity.

Posted by Phineas | December 7, 2007 12:23 AM

Oh man, more of the standard "I'm a non-Mormon in Utah, so I'm an expert..." B.S. Please.

First, if you don't like Utah, move away. No one will miss you. Since it was the Mormons who were murdered and run out of the East and the Mid-West for being Mormon, since they crossed the country on foot and built Utah out of desert, you'd think you "enlightened" preachers of tolerance would be a little more...well...tolerant. You certainly have done nothing to build or add greatness to the state (and no matter how much you hope to impair your already weak mind with alcohol, loosening Utah's liquor laws will not add greatness).

And which part of the state of Utah *is* the church? Is it Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake's super-devout Mormon mayer who has been a pillar of honesty and justice during his terms?

It's always so amusing how the anti-Mormons always have "former Mormon friends" who are such pure sources of truth about the LDS religion. Yeah...there's no agenda there.

Newsflash: if someone leaves the church (any church), there will be some who shun them, some who applaud them, and most won't think any differently about them from either side of the "Zion curtain." Cults don't shun those who leave their midst, they simply don't let them leave.

Nice try with all your enlightened brilliance, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. You know nothing about Mormons or the LDS religion except that it represents what you hate: decency, restraint and morality.

So go back to your Girls Gone Wild tapes and Second Life in your mom's basement. Leave the political conversation to the intelligent people. Or at least try to have your facts straight before you launch into your hate speech.

Posted by Ryan | December 7, 2007 12:59 AM

Romney tries to raise the level of political dialog and have a discussion on the foundation of this country, and the bloggers bring it right back into the mud. Great job!

Posted by Jon | December 7, 2007 1:04 AM

So go back to your Girls Gone Wild tapes and Second Life in your mom's basement.

That's some pretty hard debauchery there, you sure you want to accuse someone of such licentious behavior?

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 7, 2007 1:13 AM

Frankie D, you comparing Mormons to Nazis is dishonest and disgusting. There's a difference between theology with racist elements and genocide. You know the old saying, though, as soon as you invoke Nazi Germany to a situation that clearly makes no sense, it's like conceding the point of your opponent.

So, thank you for conceding the point.

Posted by Jeremy Jensen | December 7, 2007 1:13 AM

"The idea that an openly racist person who lived in a society that approved of the holding of chattel/slaves would condemn forced intercourse is laughable."

This is truly, utterly without even a semblance of coherence or logic. Brigham Young believed in blood atonement for any kind of adultery. It's completely moronic to suggest that under any circumstances he would approve of rape. Yes, he had racist ideas, like most of his contemporaries, but that doesn't mean he approved of rape, especially when you consider that he believed in the death penalty for any kind of adultery.

Posted by Jeremy Jensen | December 7, 2007 1:19 AM

Jon,

Good point. I got carried away. My apologies to you and any other reasonable people who prefer insight to insult.

Posted by Ryan | December 7, 2007 1:26 AM

Castanea, you should really stop applying your subjective, personal experience in a small in Utah to a church of 13 million, only a million and a half or so live in Utah, with an even tinier number in rural Utah. I see no evidence of shunning in my town of Boise, Idaho toward friends and family that leave the church. None whatsoever. I'm not saying it never happens, but it is not widespread enough for me to see any evidence of it. Furthermore, shunning is not at all condoned by the Church, which counsels its members to love their children unconditionally.

Posted by Jeremy Jensen | December 7, 2007 1:35 AM

Yes, he had racist ideas, like most of his contemporaries, but that doesn't mean he approved of rape, especially when you consider that he believed in the death penalty for any kind of adultery.

I don't think you really grok what adultery meant in the context of the times.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 7, 2007 1:36 AM

Leaving the LDS Church for some folks, is like going through a nasty divorce. Both sides tend to get very irrational and angry. Objectivity is usually absent from the equation.

Whenever I hear some frustrated man or woman who wants to rag on his or her ex, I get very suspicious and non-committal. I'm pretty sure I'm not getting the whole story and I avoid taking sides or encouraging the person much.

You need to handle ex-Mormons the same way. Go ahead and listen to them, and decide for yourself whether what they are saying is accurate. But take it with a BIG grain of salt. A lot of them are just angry people who are determined to destroy their ex even if it means shooting the family dog, burning down the house, and taking a chainsaw to the convertible in the garage.

That said, ex-Mormons are definitely a legitimate source of information and some criticisms are actually accurate. But don't fall for the Wizard of Oz routine some of them try to pull with their all-powerful mantle of "been-there-done-that" cool factor. Actually, their views are no more valuable than those of believing Mormons, or those who have never been Mormons at all.

So you used to be a Mormon? Congratulations. As Chris Farley put it - "that and a nickel, will get you a hot cup of JACK SQUAT!"

Posted by Seth R. | December 7, 2007 1:51 AM

manaen, the problem with the mea culpa… is that it came in 1978.

1978?

Where the heck was the church in 1964? Or 1965? Or *before* that? Did the bombing of a church in Birmingham, Alabama wake anyone up and make them realize, you know, maybe there were good guys and bad guys here, and it was time to step up for the good guys?

"no true Mormon believes or ever did believe that blacks are less than whites or that any race or sex is superior to another."
Ryan, I'm sorry, but this is a stretch. If blacks, as a rule, weren't allowed to be priests, that's racism, no matter what other justifications one can come up. And your tortured apology for it undermines your other, more rational comments.

Honestly, if Rocky Anderson were running for President, I'd support him in a heartbeat, and if Harry Reid were the Democratic nominee, I'd support him too. I think a lot of this is from the fact that we've already had a theocratic Republican President. Heck, several leaders of the Republican party have as much come out and said they want a theocracy. It'd be a lot easier if those of you trying to defend Romney would pledge, a la JFK, a firm commitment to separation of church and state, coupled with an explanation in your own words of why it's important. But it doesn't even matter if you were to do that, because Romney didn't do that--in fact, he said we have too *much* separation of church and state--an alarming and dangerous statement to me.

And, hey, Ryan, great tolerance there for those who aren't Mormon--"Move away from Utah and no one will miss you." Fascinating. You gonna extend that attitude to non-Mormons in the U.S. if Romney's President?

Jeffrey Davis--Ives is *one* of the greats, no doubt, but I'd put Bernstein, Copeland, Ellington, & Gershwin up there with him as "most American."

Posted by GM | December 7, 2007 4:26 AM

"[I]f you don't like Utah, move away. No one will miss you."

That pretty much sums up the "tolerant" attitude of the church. Too bad your propaganda keeps you from seeing the truth.

And as for treating ex-Mormons as just one party in a relationship that "just didn't work out," well, nice attempt at rationalizing the way Mormons shun their former brothers and sisters, but that sort of "blame the victim, too" mentality just won't wash.

Posted by Castanea | December 7, 2007 8:22 AM

Instituting a ban on blacks in the priesthood _is_ racism, pure and simple. We know Brigham Young was instrumental in this, and we can do the comparison with other LDS sects, like the Community of Christ or the Strangites, to see that the Mormons were more racist than the others.

As for the the whitening of skin and the blackness as a curse, just go to Nepthi:

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."

So being white is fair and delightsome, but being black is a curse from God and makes you loathsome. It's pretty hard to interpret that as anything but black skin as a curse from God. And Mormons in fact did interpret it that way.

Posted by Hektor Bim | December 7, 2007 8:50 AM

Let's compare dates for when the various LDS churches accepted black priests:

Before the split (1830s and 40s): abolitionists, ordain blacks as priests

After the death of Joseph Smith:

Church of LDS (Mormons): Brigham Young takes over, teaches the Curse of Ham and blacks are denied the priesthood (Book of Abraham). Only overturned in _1978_!

Community of Christ: 1845, Joseph Smith III has a revelation and it is incorporated in official doctrine, blacks are full members, with essentially no break.

Strangites: Significant black elders while Strange was alive, no real break.

Fundis: Still in favor of polygamy and against black ordination.

So, given the choice of staying anti-racist like Joseph Smith, the Mormon church decided to go full-bore racist, incorporate it into the Book of Abraham, and only became institutionally non-racist in 1978. I don't think there is any reasonable defense for this, particularly when other LDS sects never were institutionally racist.

Posted by Hektor Bim | December 7, 2007 9:01 AM

Telling someone to move away from Utah if he/she doesn't like it isn't intolerant. It just makes good sense. If you don't like a situation somewhere, remove yourself from the situation. It's silly to suggest that the church has a strangle hold on Utah, when the Mormon population in Utah isn't even a majority anymore (maybe a very slim majority...haven't seen the latest count). It gets pretty old hearing the anti-Mormon contingent complaining about the Mormons being in control of Utah when 1) it's obviously not true, and 2) if the LDS church did have inordinate influence over Utah policy, don't you think maybe they've earned a little latitude? Can you give me any other example of a group of American citizens having been officially targeted for extermination, murdered and run out of state after state because of their religion? I think we can cut them a break if they want to do their best within the law to ensure Utah remains a place that remains true to its founding.

On that point, democrats, liberals and the anti-religion crowd always reference this separation of church and state, but you rarely actually understand what it means. As Romney accurately indicated, the US Government cannot and will not endorse any one religion or philosophy to be imposed on the citizens. That does not presuppose the preclusion of God and faith from political discussion and policy. The countless references to God and Creator in the Declaration of Independence and the historical records and writings of the founders proves beyond doubt that "separation of church and state"--which is a statement made by Jefferson, not found in the Constitution--does not mean removing religious consideration from matters of policy; it just means not favoring any one religion over another as a matter of policy. Romney stated that very clearly and there is no reason to think that he would hold the office of President with any more religious dictatorship than any previous President.

Besides, you people also tend to think the President is somehow autonomous in the US, as if he could just enact whatever he wants. That's not how this nation works. We have three branches of government with different roles and equal authority. The President can only approve and execute law, he can't write it. He can't do anything without the approval of Congress. That's what "checks and balances" is all about.

Posted by Ryan | December 7, 2007 9:28 AM

Hektor,

I suppose there might be a reason for the ban. My preferred read is just that we LDS missed the ball on this one. We were wrong. My mother almost left the LDS faith over this issue, but ultimately decided to stay for other reasons. She was quite happy when the church rescinded the ban one year later.

I'm just one lay member, so I can't speak for anyone else... But for my part, I'm sorry this is a part of our history. I don't know what else I could say about it.

Posted by Seth R. | December 7, 2007 9:36 AM

Sorry, I can't let this one slide without rebuttal.

Hektor is obviously from one of the splinter groups that broke off from the LDS church, or once was and is now on a crusade to discredit the church; but he's attempting to mislead people. (Or maybe he's just another boring anti-Mormon.)

First, you haven't provided any specific references to the "Curse of Ham," just "book of Abraham." A nice ambiguous reference to give the semblance of research without having any real substance to rely on. Chapter and verse, please.

Second, you suggest that after Brigham Young became the president of the church, the newly adopted LDS policy of racism that you claim he instituted was "incorporated into the book of Abraham." But it's a matter of record that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham and that it has not changed since it was originally published. That can be absolutely proven if you are inclined to do the research (which you obviously are not).

Finally, racism means that a certain segment of people are discriminated against because of their race, which is only incidentally about skin color in certain circumstances. The LDS religion is founded on a few core principles, one of which is that God still communicates directly with people on Earth, just as He has always done, and that we are to live according to whatever He commands today. The exclusion of blacks from the priesthood is simply a case of God making the rules in His own wisdom, which we may not necessarily get to understand. Because racism is such a popular and divisive issue, we humans tend to try to see it in everything; however, there is no official statement or doctrine of the church that shows any racism against blacks or any other group, no explanation of why blacks didn't get the priesthood until 1978, nothing that suggests blacks are cursed or that black skin is an indication of such a curse as a rule.

I told you you wouldn't understand this. I'm telling you, however, that despite the appearance of racism as ascribed by those outside the church, the limitation on priesthood had nothing to do with LDS people believing that whites are superior to blacks or any other race or group. As an insider, I can guarantee that. Take it or leave it. You obviously won't believe it, so there's not much more I can do about that, but reasonable people will at least recognize that there is no racism in the church, nor has there ever been. There's much more at play in God's plans than can be revealed by our myopic human vision. Racism has and never has had any place in those plans.

Posted by Ryan | December 7, 2007 9:53 AM

Sorry Ryan, I don't think I'm quite with you on this one.

Posted by Seth R. | December 7, 2007 9:56 AM

That's ok, you just don't get it. Study harder, man.

Posted by Ryan | December 7, 2007 10:03 AM

Ryan,

You have no idea who I am, but it is amusing that you are wrong on all counts, actually.

I'll say it again - denying the priesthood to blacks is racism, pure and simple. All the records indicate it was done because of a belief that blacks were impure or cursed. You can try to spin it, but you can't even convince Seth - you just tell him to try to "study harder".

The other LDS sects don't recognize the book of Abraham as scripture in many cases, so it isn't as simple as saying Smith did it, so there it is.

Seth, I appreciate your honesty on this thread.

Posted by Hektor Bim | December 7, 2007 10:24 AM

"As an insider, I can guarantee that. Take it or leave it. You obviously won't believe it, so there's not much more I can do about that, but reasonable people will at least recognize that there is no racism in the church, nor has there ever been. There's much more at play in God's plans than can be revealed by our myopic human vision. Racism has and never has had any place in those plans."

I don't think we have anything more to discuss after this. If you aren't willing to allow that there was ever any racism at all in the Mormon church, then you are delusional, and there is no point in talking to delusional people.

Posted by Hektor Bim | December 7, 2007 10:26 AM

I should clarify: I'll definitely recognize that there have been racist in the church...probably still are some. Members of the church, that is.

I'm speaking about church doctrine and policy. Racism has no place in it and never has.

Your comment about the "other LDS sects" makes no sense. Any sects that split off from the LDS church are not LDS. They make their own policies and have their own doctrines, some of which coincide with the LDS religion, but they are not LDS so your constant comparisons are about as valid as comparing the Evangelical Christianity to Catholicism. They both have the bible and yet interpret it in very different ways.

There's only one source from truth about LDS doctrine, that's the LDS church. So yes, it is as simple as that.

Posted by Ryan | December 7, 2007 10:35 AM

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978.

People who talk about "the Negro matter" in 1978, more than two decades after Brown and 14 years after the Civil Rights Act, really aren't convincing to me, as an outsider, as to the enlightened non-racist nature of the speaker.

Hell, I remember 1978, dude.

What sort of closet Klansman did you have to be back then to keep calling blacks "Negros?"

Racism has no place in it and never has.

Really, Ryan? Then why does this guy believe differently?

We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

Oh, by the way, your church is sexist too.

Mine used to be -- I'll freely admit that! -- but we changed and now ordain blacks, women, gays, and a bunch of other people who have been (or who continue to be) excluded by your church.

Posted by Kynn | December 7, 2007 12:05 PM

Seth R,

I too appreciate your honesty.
On a personal level, such honesty is ALL I ever want or need from a discussion on this issue.
I don't want a pound of flesh.
I don't need to beat someone up about their chosen faith. Everyone has a right to believe whatever they wish to believe.
But I do think that it is essential that people have a forthright, honest discussion about these kinds of issues. And I do appreciate that you've done so and have the guts to say what you said in a simple and eloquent way.
Thanks.
Ryan, on the other hand, illustrates the problem. What a crock!
He's telling us to believe him and not our lying eyes, when it comes to this issue. According to him, words or actions have no objective meaning, only the significance he chooses to assign. Racist words? Racist actions? Nahh!! Those words and actions really mean only what I tell you they mean! A somewhat sophisticated, but, ultimately vacuous and corrupt attempt to explain away the church's historical problems with race.
You'd be better served by first being more honest.

Posted by frankie d | December 7, 2007 12:44 PM

"The exclusion of blacks from the priesthood is simply a case of God making the rules in His own wisdom, which we may not necessarily get to understand."

I don't even know what to say to something like that, but I thought I'd point it out. How can you even argue with someone who thinks this way?

Posted by too many steves | December 7, 2007 2:50 PM

Pardon the interruption. I think it is useful at some point during these delusional discussions that a certain verifiable fact enters the arena that applies to all "godfigure" worship. It's really rather simple. There is no evidence anywhere, anytime, in any era, that any of the many "godfigures" mankind has chosen to bow down before exists. If you have contrary information, I'd like to see it. And, no, seeing a beautiful rainbow is not proof. There is nothing more humorous than seeing supposedly thinking adults who've decided to believe in superstition and myth themselves to accuse others of "cultism". All religion is a "cult", and you all are spending a lot of time arguing about whose imaginary friend is superior. Remember---man made god, not the other way around. If you disagree, please post something of substance to back your position. Thanks.

Posted by Buzz | December 8, 2007 10:23 AM

"The exclusion of blacks from the priesthood is simply a case of God making the rules in His own wisdom, which we may not necessarily get to understand."

I don't even know what to say to something like that, but I thought I'd point it out. How can you even argue with someone who thinks this way?

----------------

I agree Steves---However, I would hardly call it thinking. The above is a perfect example of what too much "Godfigure" can do to one's abilility to reason properly as it applies to what is required for living in a free society. Maybe God needs to read the Constitution.

Posted by Buzz | December 8, 2007 10:56 AM

God needs to read the Constitution? Are you kidding? Where do you think "rights" come from, dude? Without God, there is no "right," there is no equality. Just ask Darwin. For example, what part of natural selection does "equality" fit into? Without an absolute moral authority, there is no equality.

You seem to think that the Constitution was written by men to identify the rights that government is willing to recognize for American citizens. If that were so, any talk of equality is null and void. Men giving rights to other men? Where's the equality in that? The Constitution answers to God, not the other way around, man.

The reason you guys can't seem to grasp all this is because your "reasoning" is limited by your own myopic paradigm of right and wrong. You don't even bother to ask, in this case, if there is any other indication of racism other than blacks didn't hold the priesthood. Were they segregated from the white Mormon congregations? No. Were they held as slaves? No. Does anything in LDS doctrine claim that blacks did not hold the priesthood because they were unworthy or less than whites? No. Were there some Mormons who wrongfully interpreted the limitation of priesthood as having something to do with curses and skin colors? Yes. Are there still Mormons who believe that? Probably. Are they correct? No.

That's the point. There is no evidence of racism on this issue in LDS doctrine and never has been, certainly not in the way that you outsiders (and some insiders) are trying to characterize it. God had a reason for limiting the priesthood at that time. It had nothing to do with institutional racism in the LDS church.

But you'll probably never understand it, because you're so certain that you know all about it, you can't even look objectively enough to recognize that there might be more to the issue than what you have already decided.

Posted by Ryan | December 8, 2007 11:34 AM

So, no proof of the existence of "godfigures"? It's not hard to decide when one looks through the evidence. I have. It's not there, or religion wouldn't be so "mysterious", would it? Religious beliefs are fine, but, they have no place in public affairs. That's all I'm saying. It's fine to believe anything one wants to. Why attempt to make it relevant to public policy when there are other citizens with equal right to disbelieve it? Basing public policy on lessons, ideas, and most importantly, rules, (that may, or, may not make sense) based on the dictates of someone's imaginary friend, doesn't make much sense to me. Common good and fairness to all citizens is achievable and requires only a basic understanding of the Constitution and how it pertains to the seperation of church and state. Mitt doesn't understand it, and neither do you. Isn't this what Mitt just said (unwittingly) the other day? You still don't get it, and it seems doubtful you will. You are basing a lot in your life in choosing to make a supernatural being an obviously important part of your life. Fine. It has no place in a free society as it pertains to government, however, and to continually spout things about a "godfigure" being necessary in a free society, are an indication you (and Mitt) refuse to understand what the Constitution sez. So--before questioning my motives, please explain why you think your choice to believe in a higher power has any business in the government of a free society? That's my problem with religion. The Constitution does not exist to promote the spiritual ideas of ANYONE. If you learn anything, about the Constitution, make it that.

Posted by BuzzDaly | December 8, 2007 12:54 PM

"nice attempt at rationalizing the way Mormons shun their former brothers and sisters, but that sort of "blame the victim, too" mentality just won't wash."

"Mormons" don't shun their former brothers and sisters any more than gays talk with a lisp or Asians are good at math. Some Mormons have acted poorly toward ex-Mormons and vice versa, but it's wrong for you to tar all Mormons with the same brush. The Mormon teaching on this subject is that you should love ex-Mormons, and that you should never shun family members just for leaving the church. I know you think you're an expert on everything Mormon because you lived in Utah, but believe me, you're not.

Posted by Jeremy Jensen | December 8, 2007 7:49 PM

The connection between LDS and racism is VERY well established and still practiced by the fundamentalist sects.

According to Jon Krakauer, the fundies consider sex or marriage with a black a capital offense to god. Sex or marriage of your own children or with children is OK.

The LDS' relationship to native Americans is another example of this LONG HISTORY of racism, and an even more significant interpretation of this BM theory of skin color.

Intolerance is basic to LDS culture. It is a culture based on cult beliefs in a whole range of intolerant, anti-liberal relationships to women of whatever age and sexual-usability. When are they going to ordain women? NEVER.

How are they on the gays? "Homosexuality Is Sin: Next to the crime of murder comes the sin of sexual impurity." "The leaders of the Mormon Church teach that a man is a God-Embryo and therefore cannot be born gay."

If people want to pretend that the BM doesn't regard blacks as black because of evil, all you have to do is turn to the Sixth president's writings::

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.... There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits."

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages 66-67

Posted by Paul in LA | December 9, 2007 6:10 PM

You can't point to splinter groups of the LDS religion and use that as a criticism of the LDS religion. As I already said, they're not part of the LDS church. They split, obviously, so they're on their own and are solely responsible for their doctrines and beliefs.

Doctrines of Salvation is not official doctrine of the LDS church. It's just a book. There is no claim that it represents pure LDS doctrine. It does not play any role in LDS teaching, it is not used in LDS church instruction, it's not used as a tool of instruction for or by missionaries. You don't seem to understand that all members, including would-be presidents of the church, are just people who are subject to the limitations of human understanding. Our responsibility as a people (humanity) is to think about and struggle with issues until we find the complete truth about them. We don't get the luxury of trying to squeeze truth into our own paradigms, we have to accept it as it's given, in the context in which it's given. That's why Joseph Smith said that (paraphrasing) a prophet is only a prophet when speaking in the name of the Lord; otherwise, he's just a man. Doctrines of Salvation is just the writings of a man based on his thoughts, beliefs and theories (as indicated by the use of the word "evidently" in the quote...it's just his own theory).

The Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price are the only official, "canonized" books of doctrine recognized by the LDS religion. Everything else is just writings of thoughts and theories, some of which have been revealed to be incorrect (which is why they don't pass muster as official doctrine).

Remember, Paul also got a few things wrong, as in "let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted for them to speak...for it is shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

So either Paul was right and many Christian religions are getting it wrong according to the bible (including the LDS religion, which does not keep women silent in the church), or Paul was wrong and we have to recognize that people are just people--even apostles and prophets--and have their own thoughts about issues until the complete truth of the issue is given to them.

Posted by Ryan | December 10, 2007 11:12 AM

I don't want to be President, I just want to be the one who, in this day, can officially declare and pronounce, with the authority of God, who really is "Christian". If I could get accepted as THAT person, I think the "Who's Christian Conflict” would end.

How do I get such a position of trust and authority? Does someone already have it? There is a problem since no church group, except the LDS, that believes that God could or would talk to us in this day, therefore it would seem the LDS Prophet would be the most likely one to be able to make such a declaration today and that's not me. Sadly though, a high percentage of people do not accept his word on the subject, so the job must be still open.

How can I get the job then? Do I get elected by all non-atheists in the world? No, it's not practical to even organize such a vote and there’s no chance the vote would be unanimous for me. Do we let the "God believing" Church leader with the largest number of followers in the world be the spokesman. No, if we do that we'll all be worshiping Allah. How about the oldest Church? No, because Christ is completely left out of the Jewish understanding of God. How about the newest significant Church with some declared affinity for Christ? No, the LDS Church would be in the driver's seat again and it's already seemingly been decided that that won't do. How about selecting the leader of any group that bans together to shout the loudest, "You're not Christian" because they obviously care the most and have given it the most thought? No, that behavior is characteristic more of a self-righteous bully and that’s not what Christ advised (in both the Old Testament in Leviticus 19:18 and the New Testament in Luke 10:25-27 relative to how we should treat our neighbors.

This goal of mine isn't working out so well. Maybe I could just be the scorekeeper as an impartial group went through the New Testament (maybe the Old Testament too) verse by verse and I would keep score as to whether they decided that that verse ”supported” the "creedal" definition of the Godhead or not. They would be looking for evidences of "oneness" or "separateness" among the Godhead, body parts or not, passions or no passion (like love, sadness, joy, sorrow, mercy, grieving, etc.). I worry that this won't be well received because the creedal definition believers, although they will score some points, they won't get the highest score. Also, I don't think we'll ever agree on who should be in that "impartial group" let alone agree on me being the score keeper—but if I demand loud enough and often enough that I should be the score keeper that should be enough to get me selected.

I'm running out of ideas—maybe neither I, nor anyone on earth, can declare for anyone else who is “Christian” and therefore acceptable to God and that only God Himself will decide the matter relative to us each individually at the Day of Judgment.

Of course if we let each of us decide for himself on earth if we are "Christian" enough and we let God be the final judge, it takes all the fun out of these discussions. But maybe if we all did that, we could have some peace among the followers of Christ as we each strive to follow His teachings as best we understand them and let others do the same in peace.

Posted by Griz | December 10, 2007 5:21 PM

Mormon apologists here want to confuse abolitionism with not being racist. Just because one was an abolitionist during slavery days does not mean one was not a racist. It could be argued that the vast majority of abolitionists were in fact still racist. Many wanted slavery to end but still supported the status of blacks being less than full citizens. Many abolitionists, including Lincoln at one point, supported repatriating blacks to Africa once they were freed, and overwhelmingly, white abolitionists supported segregation of the races and miscegenation laws.

So to imply that the Mormon Church was/is not rascist simply because its founders were supposedly abolitionists or even because blacks were babtized, is a poor and misleading argument.

Posted by tim | December 10, 2007 6:26 PM

Well said, Griz.

Personally, I don't think the "live and let live" attitude is good enough because we as a society, as a race, have the requirement to find and accept all truth. So I think the discussion is not only healthy, but necessary, even when it becomes spirited. The important thing, then, is not the do away with the discussion and simply isolate ourselves, but rather to discuss openly, objectively, and of course, tolerantly. No one is demeaned or demonized for disagreeing, certainly no one is murdered for rejecting (as has happened in the past and still happens now in some places); but all are expected to present the best arguments they can with reason (and passion). There really is no more important question or set of questions than these:

Does God really exist?
If so, what is His intent with the human race?

All other serious questions flow out of those.

The questions have answers, as provable as any science known to man. It all depends on the sincerity of the seeker. "I have my beliefs, you have yours," just won't cut it in the end. If there is absolute truth in the universe, that's the only thing that matters. What you or I or anyone "believes" doesn't amount to much in comparison.

But your comment is well-taken, at least on my part.

Posted by Ryan | December 10, 2007 7:26 PM

According to Seth:

"And yes, the early LDS were abolitionists. That is an undisputed fact."

Sorry Skippy, I mean Seth, the fact is that Mormons brought slaves with them and Utah was the only pro-slavery state/territory in the U.S. West.

Try this link from the Stae of Utah Historical Society on for size or simply Google "Utah slavery."

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/pioneers_and_cowboys/slaveryinutah.html

Poor little Morbot apologists and their "facts." How about the fact that Joseph Smith was married to a fourteen year old (Fanny Alger) and two sixteen year olds? Fully one-third of his plural wives were teenagers. This man makes Warren Jeffs look like Walter Mitty.

Posted by Docmandingo | December 10, 2007 8:32 PM

How about what a modern day Mormon General Authority (a very high ranking apostle) has to say on the subject???

Elder MARK E. PETERSON
Race Problems -- As They Affect The Church
Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level,
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.

God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death....

The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders"....

The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth....We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject....

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....

HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN IT BE HOW MORMONS FEEL ABOUT BLACKS?

Posted by Docmandingo | December 10, 2007 8:39 PM

"HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN IT BE HOW MORMONS FEEL ABOUT BLACKS?"

Let me fix that for you.

"How much clearer can it be how one particular mormon in 1954 felt about blacks?"

Posted by Syka | December 11, 2007 3:43 PM

This is EXACTLY why we have seperation of church and state. The people running for public office should keep their religion to themselves! No one should be kept from or encouraged to run for president based on their religious preference.

Posted by Sarah | December 11, 2007 4:40 PM

Syka: Exactly! Man, how much clearer can it get? Obviously some people have already made up their minds. They must be geniuses!

Sarah: I don't agree that people running for office should keep their religions to themselves, necessarily. I agree whole-heartedly that it shouldn't be a campaign issue. Sadly, that's not the world/country we live in. I'm a Christian (contrary to what many "Christians" will claim about Mormons), and I'm saddened that it's largely the militant Christians that make it into a campaign issue. Such attitudes marginalize Christianity as a whole and do more to damage the Judeo-Christian value system on which the US was founded than almost anything a smart political candidate would do, regardless of his/her religious persuasion (or lack thereof).

Posted by Ryan | December 11, 2007 7:15 PM

I think this whole bitter and convoluted discussion proves the point Romney was trying to make in his speech. People start throwing around what they think about Mormon doctrine and this or that and before long we're arguing over how many black versus white angels can dance on the head of a pin. (I think it's 4-6, but I am trying to get God to sign my bill implementing affirmative action quotas so it's 5-5. I won't settle for anything less!)

I think it's perfectly fair to ask Romney what *he* thinks about blacks. Does *he* think they were the inferior race and are being punished because they were sinful before they came to earth? Does *he* support the civil rights legislation like his father did? It's also proper to look at his record. Does his record as governor, or in business, or even his personal life, show evidence of racism? Have Romney's actions or words been racist? Those are perfectly proper questions.

But to ask him to defend or disavow everything any Mormon ever said about blacks, or slavery, or American Indians, is ridiculous and unfair. No one is asking Guiliani to give us a detailed defense of the encyclicals of Pope Paul I before they can vote for him. Nor should they.

Posted by Jeff | December 11, 2007 8:01 PM

I would advise all of those submitting comments to take a good look at the Mormon doctorine concerning all of those who have died before the LDS baptismal age of eight. What is the equality of all of these regardless of race or skin color?
It should be enlightening to you.

Posted by John C. Brown | December 11, 2007 10:53 PM

Just because a religion espouses certain values or beliefs as truths doesn't mean that the people of America must vote for a person who believes these precepts to be President.

Certainly, the Constitution appropriately guarantees that the government cannot discriminate against people on the basis of their religion (the Equal Protection Clause and the Free Exercise Clause). The government cannot and should not discriminate against people based only on their religious identity or tell people what to believe about the "mysteries of the universe and life" (to paraphrase Justice O'Connor in Casey).

But, it does not follow from the legitimacy of these constitutional values that the people must ignore the substance of a candidate's views in choosing who to support for the Presidency, simply because he holds them as a result of his religion.

Romney gave an honest and respectable speech last week, but if Mormonism espouses racism, etc., people who oppose racism, etc. should be respected in opposing Romney, considering his position that he fully supports the tenets of the religion of his fathers.

Posted by A Phillips | December 11, 2007 11:38 PM

Man, where were all you folks when Harry Reid was named Senate Majority Leader?

Posted by hamburglar | December 12, 2007 2:20 AM

Hamburglar: Ha! Nice one. (or should I say, "robble!")

Posted by Ryan | December 12, 2007 9:19 AM

What a mess this is! I can't read this without getting furious.

Perhaps some of the LDS leaders believed in the curse of Ham and refused (maybe wrongly) that black men could not have the priesthood. In Mormon theology that all changed when the leader of the church said that God had confirmed to him that it was time to give men of color the priesthood.

So are we to deny Jimmy Carter the presidency because his father was racist? How about Billy Clinton's father or mother. Please!

The Mormon faith did the right thing by changing its course. Whether it was a revelation or just good men changing the course of a church, the point is they changed. Jesus Christ himself refused to preach to the Gentiles. Are we now calling him a bigot too?

This religious hatred has got to stop! We have to stop judging a religion founded in 1830 by the 2007 values we have refined through much blood and conflict.

Clearly, the Mormon faith is not a bigoted or racist church today. Those who think that or preach that are only showing their own hatred to a theology not one of them can say they know or understand with any degree of certainty.

If a man says he knows about Mormonism, he had better have a Ph.D. in comparative religions. I have yet to see any such "experts" get anything right.

P.S. I do have a Doctorate Degree (not in theology) and I can speak with a great deal of knowledge on this subject. Most of what I read here is not factually sound. (and that may be on both sides)

Posted by Rob | December 12, 2007 10:33 PM

Is it true that somewhere around 90% of Protestant congregations in the United States are segregated?

Posted by john f. | December 13, 2007 10:59 AM

frankie d, this one's for you ;).

In my quick browsing, I didn't see anyone quoting Brigham Young when he alluded to the possibility that Black people could receive the priesthood at a later time. This ties in with Rob's note that the leader of the Church said that it was time (current Church president Gordon B. Hinckley was also present at that blessed occasion).

"The Negro - The seed of Ham, which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a "servant of servants" to his fellow-creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it."

Discourses of Brigham Young, p.279 (2:184)

Whether you agree or disagree with what brother Brigham said about black people being the seed of Cain, etc. etc., the fact is that Mr. O'Donnell and every other bigot who tries to make him out to be a bigot are just caught up in the hype and haven't done their homework. It reminds me of kids stealing homework in grade school.

Also, if we are right, God did remove the curse and then made it known to his servant the Prophet, who immediately opened up priesthood ordination to any WORTHY male. That just happened to be in 1978, which for some people just wasn't good enough. Most people are never satisfied with God's timetable for anything, let alone this subject.

I was only a year old when this happened, so I suppose that for one year, I was a racist ;).

One other thing to point out is if I read the transcript correctly (again, I just brushed through it), O'Donnell sites Joseph Smith as being the racist, not Brigham Young. This is historically incorrect to the point of absurdity. I wonder what O'Donnell's report card said about his history classes. Quit looking at my paper!

I had a missionary companion in Atlanta, GA (1998-2000) who is a native of Ghana and currently translates LDS General Conference into Twi. He was a valiant missionary (more so than myself, I have to admit) and he would set people straight who tried to say that the church was racist.

It is convenient for people out there to call us racist, and that one of the espoused and founding principles was racism. Let's remember, if you are a "God-fearing" and "Bible-toting" Christian, you have to believe that Christ is the judge. Anyone can think what they want; they have the privilege of doing so. That doesn't mean that they are correct, especially when history states otherwise. Hence, we have no denial that we have to cover up, make peace with or move on from. Good try.

I have already donated to Mitt Romney's campaign, and think that it's about time to make another contribution. My sister is living in Alexandria working on his campaign.

I might be saying this because I'm a Latter-day Saint, but from what I've seen, heard and read, Mitt Romney is the best Republican candidate. Period. If he loses, I'm convinced it will be in large part to religious bigotry.

Hats off to Pat Buchanan. You've got a great name!

Posted by Patrick S. | December 14, 2007 2:58 AM

Fascinating posts from both sides of the fence. Ryan is the kind of Mormon who is so caught up in the hype that in his mind he 'gets it' while everyone else with an opposing or slanted view wallows in the mire, aimlessly wandering with no valid path to travel.
Seth R. seems to be a more pragmatic LDS believer and apologist. It takes all kinds to make it work.
I personally am an 'inactive' or 'jack' Mormon, but I served a two-year mission and believe it's a good religion, albeit VERY difficult to abide by (I like my bourbon, along with a little herb on occasion).
As a fifth-generation Mormon residing in Salt Lake, it's hard to get away from 'THE Church' sometimes. It's also difficult accepting some past indiscretions/beliefs of past LDS leaders, the Priesthood ban on blacks being one of the most difficult to swallow.
And there are items from the LDS Church's history that don't jive with me - the recent studies showing a lack of Hebrew DNA evidence in Native Americans comes to mind. The Book of Abraham being called 'scripture' and how it came to pass is also troubling, but I'm not here to bash the Mormons.
I personally don't believe Latter-day Saints are 'racist' as much as they probably are 'ignorant' on matters of race and culture. Living in Utah today versus 20 years ago is vastly different from a cultural standpoint, but the population of African-Americans remains pretty low in Salt Lake, and especially statewide.
I was raised with parents who taught acceptance of all people regardless of faith and/or race - active Mormons, non-Mormons, black, white, etc. We are ALL human beings - brothers and sisters. It's a Utopian idea, one that rarely plays out. The LDS Church and the people within this religion are far from perfect - starting with myself. That said, I believe Mormons, for the most part, honestly try to be good people and be accepting of others - period! There are exceptions, as there are with any group of people who believe a similar way or support a certain cause.
Mitt Romney seems like a decent guy, albeit someone who probably fits in nicely with the 'good 'ol boy society'. Most politicians in this day and age are like that anyway. If people don't vote for him because of his faith, that's the way it is. That said, if he doesn't get elected into the office of the President because he's not a member of a 'mainstream' Christian faith, that's flat-out bogus and wrong.
Why is a Baptist, or a Methodist, or a Lutheran, or an Episcopalian, or a Seventh-day Adventist, or a non-denominational Christian a more 'worthy' candidate than a Latter-day Saint? Explain it to me with an ounce of ration.
Just remember that Martin Luther is responsible for the Reformation - which is why we have a multitude of Christian faiths in the world today. Joseph Smith felt none of those religions offered him the truth and peace he sought. He was a very influential and persuavie individual, and one who brought about a faith that has thrived in its 177-year history.
Say what you want about the LDS Church being a 'cult' or 'racist' or any other mindless drivel. T
he bottom line is that it's a very powerful global organization with monstrous financial resources and a membership that is ultimately loyal and hardworking. The LDS Church is not going away people, no matter how hard you try to 'kick against the pricks'. I'm currently on the fence, but the Mormon side does look inviting at times, even if the Gentile side is a lot more fun. I'm trying to find that essential life balance...it's a cross between an LDS sacrament service and a James McMurtry bar concert....

Posted by Bubba Sugarhouse | December 14, 2007 5:20 PM

BTW, the "Time" excerpt in the original posting has it way wrong: The Book of Mormon only teaches about the origin of the skin color of one group of people in the Americas and this group never was denied anything in LDS theology because of that. In Book-of-Mormon times and in the modern Church, these Lamanites/American Indians always have had full access to all blessings, dependant only upon personal worthiness.
.
The Book of Mormon teaches that eventually the darker race would be preserved, and the lighter race destroyed, because of the greater worthiness of the darker race and the greater iniquity of the lighter race. Here is an example from The Book of Mormon:

Jacob 3:
5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.
6 And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall bbecome a blessed people.
7 Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator?
8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.
10 Wherefore, ye shall remember your children, how that ye have grieved their hearts because of the example that ye have set before them; and also, remember that ye may, because of your filthiness, bring your children unto destruction, and their sins be heaped upon your heads at the last day.
.
Jarom, the grandson of the prophet who wrote those words, understood this and wrote,
Jarom 1:
2 And as these plates are small, and as these things are written for the intent of the benefit of our brethren the Lamanites [who would survive until The Book of Mormon came forth], wherefore, it must needs be that I write a little; but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me.
3 Behold, it is expedient that much should be done among this [the lighter] people, because of the hardness of their hearts, and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the stiffness of their necks; nevertheless, God is exceedingly merciful unto them, and has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land.
.
The Book of Mormon does not say anything about differences in color or other aspects among races such as northern Europeans, Asians, Blacks, Indian-Pakistanis, etc.
.
The priesthood has been withheld at times from different groups as in the Old Testament when only Israel held it, later further concentrated only in the tribe of Levi. In the New Testament, Paul had to receive a special revelation even to take the gospel, hence also the priesthood, to non-Israelite peoples. My people mostly come from northern Europe's gene pool so we were denied the priesthood for almost as much time as were Blacks -- I don't rail against the Church because of this, although I am curious about it.
.
For info about Blacks in today's Church, please check these links:
.

http://www.BlackLDS.org
.
New 5-story Mormon chapel on Malcom X Blvd in Harlem, NYC (NY Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/nyregion/02mormon.html?ex=1130212800&en=3b984001abe44410&ei=5070
.
African-American LDS bishop in Washington, DC
http://www.ldsmag.com/people/060213bishop.html
.
GHANA:
Dedication of LDS temple in Ghana, Africa – 6-part photo essay
http://www.ldsmag.com/churchupdate/040116dedication1.html
Visit to one of LDS wards (congregation) in Accra, Ghana
http://www.ldsmag.com/photoessay/040204nungua.html
Various LDS converts
http://www.ldsmag.com/churchupdate/040130faces.html
.
Gladys Knight’s (LDS convert in 1997) Grammy-winning gospel choir:
http://www.suvchoir.org/
.
Growing LDS Church in Africa (Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/18/AR2007111801392_pf.htm
-- see embedded video also
.
Helvecio Martins, black General Authority in LDS Church from Brazil
http://www.ldsmag.com/people/030610martins.html
.
LDS (black) returned missionaries in Sierra Leone, service project
http://news.sl/drwebsite/publish/article_20055503.shtml
.
Sam Warren (Drifters founder), LDS convert
http://www.ldsmag.com/people/060224warren.html
.
Camaroonian LDS trip to LDS temple in Nigeria
http://www.bsmarkham.com/mission/Africa/Aug%2005/aba.html
.
Elijah Abel, early black LDS preacher
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3027
.
Various current-day African-American LDS converts
http://www.ldsmag.com/people/030610families.html

Posted by manaen | December 15, 2007 1:00 PM

I am a practicing Latter-day Saint (former Bishop - like Romney) but not a political supporter of Romney. I, like Romney, speak for myself and not on behalf of the LDS Church. I used to like Romney as a moderate Republican but not in his recent turn to the right in an apparent attempt to gain the support of the so-called "Christian" Right that I never thought would support him anyway. What I find most interesting - although I am not surprised - is how his candidacy has brought to the public forum such an energetic discussion of Mormonism with such angry, and often factually incorrect, attacks on the faith from both the radical right and the left. (We must be doing something right!) I think that even many of the proclaimed members of the church get it wrong in their zealous defense.

For my part, all I can do is state my own perspective. I am of European ancestry and my Grandparents were racist but I think it was by culture, not necessarily because of their religion. My parents tried really hard not to be racist and in the 1960s made social connections with the families of African-Americans with whom my dad worked. It was a good example to me and I have done the same at school, work and even the LDS church where I have belonged to mixed race congregations at various points of my life.

Growing up, I was aware of the Church's restriction that Blacks not hold the priesthood and while I never really understood it, I did not do anything to address the issue. As a youth, I accepted the general teaching that all these things would work out eventually, somehow.

I served a mission for the Church in Brazil and knew several members of African descent before the revelation on the priesthood in the last month of my mission in June of 1978. It was such a blessed relief and the revelation was met with such joy. When I began my mission two years earlier, we had an unofficial lesson to teach about the restriction on Blacks and the priesthood. We were also instructed in our local mission that we could teach blacks and baptize them but we should not seek them out but let them come to us and that if there was any question about mixed-race ancestry, we should not ordain them to the priesthood. After the revelation, it was immediately wide open without restriction.

My Brazilian Mission President was either prescient or inspired (the latter I like to think) as he instructed us in March of 1978 that if we weren't sure of ancestry, we should go ahead and confer the priesthood anyway explaining that the Lord would sort it all out in the end. I only saw one negative reaction to this change from a Brazilian missionary who thought the President had apostatized. I supported the President.

Recently, I have read about the fascinating process undergone in preparing to receive the revelation on the priesthood by Spencer W. Kimball, President of the Church n 1978. The most interesting part is that he invited General Authorities of the Church to research the doctrinal basis of the priesthood ban and and that "Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote a long treatise concluding that no scriptural barrier existed to a change." from Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball (Deseret Book 2005) p. 216.

I can't explain the previous policy or the revelation. I don't understand it. I willingly and gladly accept it and so grateful to have a living prophet on the earth today and the access to continuing revelation that comes from the Lord to him and to me in confirmation that this is the right thing.

We live in a troubled world and we humans are full of error. It is a blessing to know that continuing revelation can help us draw closer to God and our fellow human beings in spite of ourselves.

And all of this doesn't have much to do with who should or should not be our President.

And I didn't even get to plural marriage.

Peace!

Posted by Grant Vaughn | December 15, 2007 8:01 PM

Show me any European based religion and I can show you doctrinal evidence of bias against non-white, non-Christian people. Just because the LDS gave up this part of its doctrine more recently than the Catholics or the baptists or the ( fill in the blank), does not mean that they are more or less racist than any other faith. How many states in the South used the Christian faith against miscegenation as recently as the late 60's?
As a non-theist person, I find all this mud slinging amusing.

Posted by John | December 16, 2007 5:28 AM

I'm surprised that no one has noted that one of the very important -- not the sole -- agenda behind the late 1970s Mormon Prophet's "revelation" that Mormon priests could now be black had to do with the fact that it was becoming increasingly difficult at that time for Division I football schools to compete unless they were out there recruiting black athletes, who were just starting to flood into big time college sports at the time.

Please note the word "flood". Of course there were black athletes in major colleges prior to 1978, and even at BYU. We're talking here about the fact that blacks really had started to make a measurably statistical -- and favorable -- difference in athletic outcomes.

Thus, it was clear to BYU coaches that it was a decided handicap for recruiting black athletes if they had the image that they were going to be in a more than usual hostile environment on campus, one where their white peers might not only harbor secret racist resentments, but also be overwhelmingly aligned with a Church which had formally declared blacks to be second class members.

Coaches and Boosters to Prophet: Time for a "revelation", Proph.

If you think I am making this up, do a bit of research on your own.

Posted by Billyblog | December 16, 2007 9:34 AM

While we are on the subject of the abject poverty of the mormonism philosphy: any mormon apologists want to tackle its inherent sexism. Central to joseph smith's bizarre creed is the idea that women cannot get into heaven without first being called over by a man using her 'secret name.' Makes one wonder why ANY woman would be a mormon

Posted by James Farrell | December 16, 2007 12:04 PM

Simple: women want to be Mormon because they are smarter than those (such as yourself) who buy into any drivel that serves their decidedly anti-Mormon agenda. They investigate the church for themselves, separate the fact from the fiction, and make an informed and personal decision.

You should try it, man. It's amazing what a little factual information will do for your attitude.

Notice, ladies and gentlemen, how this genius tosses out assertions about Mormon theology, yet gives no reference to which you, the discerning public, can go to verify his assertions. That's from page 1 of the generic radical play book that serves all sorts of brainless radical activists, authorities, and self-proclaimed experts, irrespective of their preferred platforms.

Notice the same tactic at work for that other genius, Billyblog. In both cases, they present themselves as having some kind of insider information, dropping such comments as "if you thinking I'm making this up, do a bit of research on your own." This serves as a suggestion that such primary research has already been done by Billy himself, so he can be trusted as an expert on the matter. Yet devoid of any references of merit, what he's really suggesting is that you, the reader, are too stupid, ignorant and lazy to do any research of your own, so he can fling whatever claims he wants, suggest that he's got research to back it up, and he thinks you'll accept it as fact.

Assertions stated as fact without supporting references are about as valid as Hillary's claim of being a "life long Yankees fan."

Posted by Ryan | December 16, 2007 2:48 PM

The most interesting part of this entire debate about Romney arises from the fact the the LDS Church was founded within the limits of recorded, secular history. Both Christianity and Islam were founded long before the advent of the industrial revolution, mass communication and transportation that would, eventually, encompass the entire world. As a result, the activities of the LDS Church are couched in modern terms.

For this reason, and this reason only, the founding of LDS Church is subjected to much more scrutiny than the genesis of most of the major religions of the world. Many would say this is "bad" or "unfair". In reality, it just 'is' and is neither good nor bad. Because the LDS Church's history is much more available to everyone - Mormon or otherwise - it is reasonably subject to critical analysis in the present. There is no entrenched dogma that quells critical analysis. I would suppose the same, or much worse, analysis was directed at the founding of the Christian Church 2007 years ago. It is just that no one alive today was around to see or participate in it.

The real scary thing about Romney's beliefs is they are not the beliefs of a majority of the electorate that he is appealing to. Even scarier is the fact that Romney constantly tries to morph his beliefs into something that is palatable to everyone, (or, if we are to believe his speech, believers in religion, anyway). The issue of Romney's faith aside, is it a good idea to vote for someone who's values system is built on such a shaky foundation? If he vacillates on his religion, what else will he vacillate on?

Every online discussion I have encountered on this subject, (Romney's following of the teachings of Joseph Smith and the LDS Church), is further clouded by the constant repetition of two things by LDS members who seem to have been either been sent out or come out on their own to try to explain their religious beliefs - that they are "good people" who live "good lives." And, that their own scripture doesn't really mean what it says. In supporting these two concepts, (the former completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and the later a sort of a theological Möbius strip), LDS apologists have an interesting row to hoe. Especially as the row is blocked by such anti-social beliefs such as polygamy, institutional racism and murder of non-believers.

Personally, I don't really give a moments thought to what the LDS Church believes. I am offended, as a professional historian, that they practice revisionist history and, seemingly, intentionally spread misinformation about their faith. That they do this to make it look better in the eyes of the rest of the world is even worse. Yet, even as they spread misinformation and syncretism they only hurt themselves. Moreover, it appears Romney doesn't believe in what the Mormon apologists of the 21st century have to say, because he believes in the "faith of his fathers."

And, I think we should accept Romney's statement for what it is - an affirmation of the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He didn't accept part of the "faith of his fathers" or try to discretely pick out bits he likes. (Of course, independent of this speech, he does try to be all things to all people, but especially to the voting block he seems to hold dearest - evangelical Christians.) So, we must assume he embraces it all - polygamy, institutionalized racism, child abuse, massacre of non-believers, et cetera. That, combined with the belief in, essentially magic, (diamond encrusted glasses used to read golden plates, getting prophecy from a hat, et cetera), makes the man, in my opinion, an inappropriate candidate to be leader of the world's only remaining superpower.

Forgetting the theological issues, I wouldn't vote for a man who supports an organization that instigated the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Nor would I support someone who has relatives in Mexico are still living polygamy, (and who is only two generations from polygamy, himself). Getting prophecy from a hat is just silly and, somewhat, delusional. None of these things, which Romney has said he embraces and believes, speak highly of him. Do they disqualify him from being POTUS? That's an interesting question that is, probably, best left to each individual. As for me, simply based on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, you can count me out. (Yes, I know there were myriad massacres in the Old Testament and there are continuing murders in the name of religion. None of them are as contemporary or, in my estimation, so brutally carried out as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. That the history of the massacre is so readily available is a problem with having a religion that was started in the 19th century.)

In the end, the discussion of Romney's faith is pointless. As I pointed on in the first of this post, Romney doesn't represent the beliefs, values or politics of the majority of the electorate. His belonging to the LDS Church is the "800 lbs. gorilla" that he is trying to ignore or explain away. He might as well face it, he is unelectable...

Posted by Doc Holliday | December 16, 2007 3:58 PM

Oh my!

I really did not think that my particular comment, made as it was nine days after the first post in this thread, would attract any attention. But there was Ryan, playing the Pit Bull to guard the Mormon flame!

And on the same day when Mitt Romney had all of us, including himself, awash in tears on Meet The Press with his account of how he was emotionally overcome when he was driving in Massachusetts in 1978 and first heard the news that the Prophet had decided it was now OK for blacks to become Mormon priests.

Just imagine the anguish Mitt must have had bottled up inside of him over the black exclusion (aka racist) policies of the LDS for all those years BEFORE 1978. Why it must have been akin to the previously repressed angst he has lately expressed for unborn fetuses, after having run for the Senate against Teddy Kennedy in 1992 as a pro-choice candidate!

Le pauvre Mitt!

But this post is not about the weeping Mitt.

I am more interested in the fact that Ryan rails against me for suggesting that someone interested in this or that aspect of Mormonism should "do a bit of research on your own."

And I have also noted the way in which he has dismissed James Farrell's claim, which I would paraphrase as suggesting that there might be just a wee bit of patriarchalism in the historical roots and contemporary practices of Mormonism vis-à-vis women. Specifically Ryan excoriates Farrell because he provides no references for his claims.

This is, of course, a charge he also wheels out against me when I make the point that the Prophet's pronouncement on blacks and Mormonism in 1978 might just have something (note, not everything, but certainly something) to do with big time college athletics as practiced at BYU. (I hope Ryan will forgive me for not providing references to support the claim that BYU has an identity as a, well, Mormon school.)

I'll leave aside Ryan implicit claim that blogging – with Google only a mouse click away – is under a special obligation to observe the structured protocols of academic writing, footnotes, bibliography, et al. Permit me instead to note the following points.

1. Here is a link, one of many, which those who have an interest can follow up to note that, as early as 1967 (close enough to 1978 when we consider the glacial pace at which even Mormon prophecies tumble forth from its Prophets), Mormonism was impressing black track athletes at UTEP, including the legendary Bob Beamon (does Ryan perhaps need a citation to Bob Beamon being a legend in his own time?), as something which they did not consider all that delightful to be associated with – even on the oval where the Mormons were their athletic opponents.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_199701/ai_n8735454

Spin it Ryan, baby, and tell us that this sort of thing made no impression on the Elders – and Boosters -- at LDS and BYU in the 1960s and 70s.

2. Ryan apparently thinks that significant blog claims should be backed up with citations, as for example the following claim by Mr. Farrell:

"Central to joseph smith's bizarre creed is the idea that women cannot get into heaven without first being called over by a man using her 'secret name.' Makes one wonder why ANY woman would be a mormon"

OK, I await the peer reviewed survey data which Ryan no doubt has to support his counter riposte.

"Simple: women want to be Mormon because they are smarter than those (such as yourself) who buy into any drivel that serves their decidedly anti-Mormon agenda. They investigate the church for themselves, separate the fact from the fiction, and make an informed and personal decision.

You should try it, man. It's amazing what a little factual information will do for your attitude."

I am humbly asking Ryan to provide the citations for his claim not because I am "lazy", but because my reasonably diligent – though by no means exhaustive -- search did not turn up any literature to support his claim that Mormon women, as a general matter, "investigate the church for themselves, separate the fact from the fiction, and make an informed and personal decision."

I know that Ryan will be more than willing to provide the necessary citations because otherwise we might think "what he's really suggesting is that you, the reader, are too stupid, ignorant and lazy to do any research of your own, so he [Ryan] can fling whatever claims he wants, suggest that he's got research to back it up, and he thinks you'll accept it as fact."

Now, now, Ryan, don't get alarmed. We would never think that you are just blowing smoke about (at?) Mormon women.

But maybe this research is locked up in a Temple somewhere in Salt Lake City and not otherwise accessible even to you, let alone, the Gentile public?

BTW, Ryan's admonition to M. Farrell that "You should try it, man," after NOT having provided Mr. Farrell with any citations, does seem strikingly similar to my own "do a bit of research on your own," an admonition which, when made by me, was apparently not to Ryan's liking. But, hey, let's not get picky here.

3. Though I am NOT a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries (I WOULD, however, vote for her if she becomes the Democratic nominee, certainly if the Republican nominee is one of the currently announced Republican candidates), I would ask if Ryan would like the following statement of his served to him with ketchup or mustard?

"Assertions stated as fact without supporting references are about as valid as Hillary's claim of being a 'life long Yankees fan.'"

Um, yes, here's the link which constitutes Ryan's hat in this particular matter.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710260010?f=s_search

4. Finally, with reference to Ryan calling me "that other genius, Billyblog," all I can say is, "Oh Ryan-poo, you are such a caution. Stop it, you're embarrassing me!"

Posted by billyblog | December 16, 2007 5:55 PM

I like most of what Doc Holliday has to say, and he expresses it well.

But one small nit.

It is incorrect to say that the Christian Church was founded 2007 years ago. Jesus was, by most consensus accounts, 4-8 years old 2007 years ago, and no historian of Christianity maintains that it would be meaningful to say that the Christian Church was founded when he was such a lad. Indeed, increasing numbers of historians of Christianity would argue that Jesus himself never founded a Church, though it is pretty clear that certainly by the third or fourth decade of the 1st century A.D. a Christian Church had been founded by someone or other.

Interestingly, Keith Olbermann, who is otherwise one of my favorite "rock stars," made pretty much the same sort of mistake a couple of weeks ago by dating the death of Jesus "2007 years ago," all in the embarrassing context of citing Bill O'Reilly as the Worst Person in the World for saying that the Book Of Revelations was "5000 years old." Not that Billo shouldn't be entitled to retire the trophy.

I do have citations for all of this, though I doubt that even Ryan by now thinks it is absolutely essential that I produce them here.

Posted by billyblog | December 16, 2007 7:11 PM

MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE
-- With links

Here's part of a statement by an Apostle of the Church at a remembrance on 9/11/2007:

“What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct. We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here

“Many of those who carried out the massacre were haunted all their lives by what they did and saw on that unforgettable day. They and their relatives have also suffered under a heavy burden of guilt. No doubt divine justice will impose appropriate punishment.”

(link: http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/hundreds-gather-to-honor-mountain-meadows-victims)

The Church published a review of the Massacre in the 9/2007 "Ensign," its official magazine, that includes this statement, "nothing that any of the emigrants [victims] purportedly did or said, even if all of it were true, came close to justifying their deaths. [emphasis in original]"

This article also traces the Council's instruction to let the emmigrants pass in peace and the local member's actions *contrary to the Council's instructions*.

It also retells Brigham Young's express instructions. Here's an excerpt,

"President Young’s express message of reply to Haight, dated September 10, arrived in Cedar City two days after the massacre. His letter reported recent news that no U.S. troops would be able to reach the territory before winter. 'So you see that the Lord has answered our prayers and again averted the blow designed for our heads,' he wrote.

“ 'In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements,' Young continued, 'we must not interfere with them untill they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of[.] [I]f those who are there will leave let them go in peace. While we should be on the alert, on hand and always ready we should also possess ourselves in patience, preserving ourselves and property ever remembering that God rules.' "

"When Haight read Young’s words, he sobbed like a child and could manage only the words, 'Too late, too late.' "

Here's the link: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1c234dc029133110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&locale=0

Posted by manaen | December 16, 2007 7:24 PM

WHY WOULD A WOMAN BECOME A MORMON?

I believe it's not about intelligence, as humans understand it, nor about deception, as anit-LDS claim.

My fiancee (we're in our 50's), who graduated from USC with honors, joined the LDS Church in June, 2007. As I was discussing with her some of the anti-LDS issues raised in the Romney-related blogs, she cut me off with, "God told me to be here, so all that doesn't matter."

This would be the same answer my g-g-g-grandmother would give. She died near the Green River in 1859 as a Mormon pioneer and lays in an unmarked grave where they had to leave her.

Posted by manaen | December 16, 2007 7:42 PM

Wow, that's quite an essay full of a whole lotta nothing, Billy.

From page 2 of the generic radical play book: "when you come across a particularly pesky individual who calls you out for your efforts to deceive (see page 1), DO NOT ADDRESS THE REAL ISSUE; rather, your response should be verbose in the extreme and should touch on inconsequential issues, preferably taken from the individuals own words, to further shroud the real issue in tangents that few reasonable people will be interested in or even capable of following. REMEMBER: REASON IS YOUR ENEMY! You must never engage in conversation or debate about the truth. You will lose! Truth is your enemy!"

See, most of you won't bothered to read the article that mr. genius has linked to, at least that's what he's banking on. He's trusting that you won't discover that there's nothing in that article except a single reference to BYU that has zero connection to the LDS church (other than BYU's affiliation with the church). The article doesn't even hint at a suggestion that black athletes had anything do with the church's 1978 revelation on the priesthood. Great research, dude.

Incidentally, note the die-hard commitment to the old tricks, this time where Billy says, "here is a link, one of many..." again suggesting that there is a wealth of evidence to support his claim, but he somehow manages to link to only one article, one which does nothing to support his claim at all. See? Even when he's been called on it, he's still trying to stick to the play book.

Finally, as they say, truth will out. Mr. genius references Media Matters--a decidedly and unapologetically liberal propaganda machine--in all seriousness to try to somehow discredit me. In so doing, he only succeeds in betraying his own commitment to the radical liberal agenda...just as I predicted. In response, let me use the page 1 tactic against him, as an illustration:

The Media Matters article tries to paint the Yankees issue as a "myth," and refers to a photo of Hillary donning a Yankees cap in 1992, eight years before her run for Senate; however, what was the source of that photo? Hillary's own book, Living History (a more self-congratulatory title there never was), which was published in 2004, long after she was in the Senate and long after she already took the black eye for opportunistically claiming to be a Yankees fan. Hillary's people published that photo intentionally without any context so that you wouldn't know where it was really taken. That way you'd never know that it was taken at a presidential fund raiser for Bill Clinton in (wait for it...) New York.

Think I'm making it up? Do a bit of research on your own.

Posted by Ryan | December 16, 2007 9:46 PM

http://www.blacklds.org/

Posted by black lds | December 17, 2007 6:18 PM

An accurate discussion on the race issue:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_LDS_Church_and_the_Race_Issue.html

Posted by John Doe | December 17, 2007 8:56 PM

While Mormons do not as actively preach the skin color as punishment doctrine it has not been jettisoned, just as polygamy has not been renounced. Both these beliefs remain part of Mormon doctrine and if Romney believes Mormon doctrine, he believes these parts too.

Posted by Actualy | December 18, 2007 12:44 PM

Some people just don't seem to get this: other than common knowledge (i.e. the earth is round), you can't present "facts" without some kind of evidence to back you up.

So where exactly do you get the idea that either of "these beliefs remain part of Mormon doctrine?" Are you Mormon?

Incidentally, I'm Mormon and I don't believe that skin color has anything to do with punishment, nor that polygamy has any long-term place in Mormon doctrine, only inasmuch as it was necessary for a certain period of time for a specific purpose. Does that mean I'm not really Mormon?

You people need to stop talking as if you have any authority on such matters.

Posted by Ryan | December 18, 2007 5:11 PM

Brother Ryan,
.
I admire your vigor in standing for truth -- I hope you keep in mind, however, 3 Nephi 11:28-30,
.
"28 [...] And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
"29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
"30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away."
.
Peace!

Posted by manaen | December 19, 2007 3:50 AM

Point well taken, Manaen.

In my own defense, however, you're assuming I'm being contentious. I guess that's the trouble with blogs and email and text messages and all these technological advancements that, though intended to bring us closer, actually serve to further isolate us in many cases: it's difficult to discern tone from written words.

I have gotten a little derogatory in this conversation, I'll admit, but for the most part, as direct and unrelenting as my words have been, my emotion has not been very hot. I'm not saying anything out of hate or even anger; more out of frustration and unwillingness to tolerate laziness or deceit in discussion of such weighty matters.

My goal is either to drive them to think or drive them away. I could be nicer, definitely. In my experience, it just seems that some people only speak the language of combat.

I'm probably too eager to engage.

Posted by Ryan | December 19, 2007 5:17 AM

Brother Ryan,
.
Thanks for your gracious response.
.
Likewise, I hope that I did not sound condemnatory: I intended only a gentle reminder to keep in mind both counsels from the Lord:

1) to answer clearly
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Rom 10:17)
.
2) Christ's second great commandment, to love others
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes [quickly] with sharpness [clarity, not harshness], when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. (Docrine & Covenants 121:41-44)

Posted by manaen | December 19, 2007 1:16 PM