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 "r