Posted on 12/16/2007 1:01:26 PM PST by greyfoxx39
Kathryn – It seems to me that the race issue is where religion and politics most clearly intersect in Romney's case. Like it or not, if Romney becomes the Republican nominee, Democrats will bring up the "Mormon racism" charge again. You can just bet on it. But more immediately, it will be interesting to see what role, if any, it will play in voters' decisions in the primaries. The fact is, it has become a staple of political campaigns for candidates to be asked about their association with institutions that discriminate. There was a huge uproar in the 2000 campaign, for example, about George W. Bush and Bob Jones University. (Although my favorite, if trivial, example was the time Bill Clinton was asked about playing golf at an all-white country club, and he responded, with a completely straight face, that he had only played nine holes.) In any event, it's common practice to ask about country clubs, social groups, schools, etc.
The issue now is whether that kind of question also applies to Romney's church. And the problem, for Romney, is that, to my knowledge at least, he has not said simply that the LDS church was wrong to exclude blacks from the priesthood and top leadership positions before 1978. Voters don't mind it – they even like it – when a candidate says something in the past was wrong but that now it is right. But today, on "Meet the Press," Romney wouldn't say that.
-SNIP-
i asked about the revelation several weeks ago, when a few of us in the NR Washington bureau met with Mormon Elders M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook, who had come to Washington to meet with staffers of several publications. (They were concerned about the image of the church; they did not discuss Romney or his candidacy and offered no opinion on it.) When I asked why the church changed position in 1978, the answer was, if I recall correctly, that they did not know. It wasn't a flip answer; they were saying that they could not know why God had given that revelation to Kimball at that particular moment. They were not inclined to say that the church had been wrong before. That's a built-in dilemma of the system; if a church says it is led by revelation, and then says it was wrong, it's kind of like saying God was wrong.
MORE AT
What makes you think the blacks will actually listen to Romney? He has a high mountain to climb there.
We certainly don't look for common courtesy from the apologists and mittbots in their name-calling posts. This is kind of like hiding behind Mommie's skirts and hollering "nyah, nyah, nyah" because they are afraid someone will confront them.
Frankly, "democrat" is probably the most benign of their ad hominems.
Certainly racism is embedded in the BOM, just as racism is embedded in the Bible. "Gods chosen People" is extremely racist. In fact, racism is the point of the Old Testament. How else could the Jews justify killing every man, women and child of conquered lands?
But you are purposely avoiding the central issue of whether there was a revelation denying Blacks the priesthood. You and I both know that there wasn't, or at least I think you should be very cautious in trying to challenge me: )
This issue is a very good example of why Mormons are supposed to rely on revelation and not tradition and or rare practices. For example, there was a period of time when Temple Recommends were not being issued by some Bishops and Stake presidents if the person drank Pepsi or didn't have a 2 year food supply, etc. Were there any revelations backing the Bishops decisions? No, but they did it anyway, because they were trying to be diligent. So the Church leadership had to issue guidelines and directives stopping this practice before it got out of hand.
This is the grey area where I notice that you anti's get so confused, (obviously intentionally). Taking the exception and trying to make it the rule, grossly distorts Mormonism turning it into something unrecognizable and odd. You are simply lying when you take selected odd practices and claim that they are what Mormons believe. Do you think that what you have been doing is very "Christian"?
The “fruits” of Mormonism:
1. Salt Lake City is America’s Leader in Plastic Surgery:
As the number of cosmetic procedures nationwide continues to surge, we looked at which cities have most embraced market demand for taut faces, lush lips and flat abs. Most shocking of all was the town that ranked first: Salt Lake City.
http://www.forbes.com/health/2007/11/29/plastic-health-surgery-forbeslife-cx_rr_1129health.html
2. Utah is America’s Most Depressed State:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7580838
3. Utah has the most bankruptcy filings in America:
Despite Utah’s falling bankruptcy numbers, the state ranked first nationally in households per filing, with one of every 36.5 households in the state filing for bankruptcy for the 12 months ended March 31, 2004, according to the ABI.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600103927,00.html
4. Utah has the most anti-depressant use, especially in women: Study Finds Utah Leads Nation in Antidepressant Use. Some point to the pressures of Mormonism, especially for women, to explain the surprising findings.
http://www.usu.edu/psycho101/lectures/chp2methods/study.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/eveningnews/main510918.shtml
5. Utah leads the nation in suicides among men aged 15 to 24:
Could it be that they can’t admit they don’t want to go on missions, or assume other church “leadership” positions?
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635201873,00.html
6. Utah has the most per-capita fraud in America:
Salt Lake City, with a mere 170,000 residents, is by far the country’s smallest city where the scam-fighting U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission has an office. It has been there since the early 1950s. Why? “There is a lot of fraud here per capita,” says local SEC boss Kenneth Israel. “There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of work for us.”
http://www.lds-mormon.com/6303056a.shtml
7. Utah is #1 in mortgage fraud in America:
In 2001, the FBI listed Utah as No. 1 in the country for the amount of mortgage fraud cases reported.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600151169,00.html
8. Since 1991, Utah’s rape rate has consistently inched higher than the national rate. By 2002, Utah ranked 14th in the nation for rapes.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600125585,00.html
In the past few days, because I questioned the LDS faith, I was called unkind, evil, mean, stupid, bigoted, insensitive and a consumer of "viper food." The latter has me especially upset.
Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black” (The Way to Perfection, p.107).
Smith also stated that “there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. 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” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).
For these reasons, Bruce McConkie would write, “The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom…” (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.).
Joseph Fielding Smith stated, “Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race” (The Way to Perfection, p.101). This comment is especially interesting since it was this same Joseph Fielding Smith who also said, “The Latter-day Saints have no animosity towards the Negro. Neither have they described him as belonging to an `inferior race’” (Answers to Gospel Questions 4:170).
The mark of a black skin would be of great importance to the LDS member for it would be the telltale sign as to who was and who was not qualified for celestial exaltation. In his book The Church and the Negro, Assistant church historian John Lund wrote, “It marked Cain as the father of the Negroid race. It also acted as a sign of protection for Cain and set his seed apart from the rest of Adam’s children so there would be no intermarriage.”
In a speech entitled Race Problems as they Affect the Church, LDS Apostle Mark E. Petersen asked, and answered, the following hypothetical question: “If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn’t any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there?” (p.21.)
Brigham Young taught a much greater extreme. In a sermon given on March 8, 1863, Young stated, “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so” (Journal of Discourses, 10:110).
On two separate occasions, third LDS President John Taylor stated that it was God’s plan to allow the seed of Cain to remain on the earth in order for the devil to be properly represented. On August 28, 1881, he declared, “And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God” (Journal of Discourses 22:304).
The following year, Taylor reiterated his former comment when he said, “Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil? Why did the Lord not kill him long ago? Because he could not do without him. He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence on God, and trust in Him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments. When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth” (Journal of Discourses 23:336).
It isn’t difficult to understand why many would look upon the LDS Church as a racist organization. However, Latter-day Saints would reject such a notion since, in their minds, the leaders were merely reflecting what they erroneously thought was the will of God. Mormons laid the responsibility for this doctrine on God Himself, not the personal bigotry, either real or imagined, of any particular Latter-day Saint. For instance, Mark Peterson said, “When He [God] placed the mark on Cain, He engaged in segregation. When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation” (Race Problems, p.15).
Mormons were taught that even though Blacks could never be exalted and become Gods, they could enter the celestial kingdom. In his Race Problems as they Affect the Church speech (p.17), Peterson said, “If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection.” Slavery revisited?
The majority probably won't. But it's the best possible response he could have. If the truth gets repeated enough, maybe a few will listen.
Oh, so that's why Solomon married so many foreign wives...'cause he was a "racist"! (Thanks for clearing that up for us, L). Next you'll tell us that Americans fighting against the Japanese in WWII was an act of "racism" because often when the Americans cleared an island, every Japanese man, woman & child was dead at the end of those campaigns.
As for the notion that the Book of Mormon is racist, if so, it is a strange type of racism.[TheDon]
According to the BoM, Alma 3:6,9 says that skin color is a curse from God due to moral inferiority and spiritual unrighteousness? (see also 2 Nephi 5:21-22; Mormon 5:15; Moses 7:8,22).
It was passages like these and the doctrine that blacks were "less valiant" in the "pre-existence" that led to 1947 LDS church stances like the following:
"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the gospel." (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17, 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro pp.46-47)
Another current doctrine that still stands (based upon LDS "revelation") is Doctrine & Covenants 134:12:
We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.
What gall! To even reinforce the notion of legitimized "masters."
D&C 134:12 "settles" the issue for the Mormon: Are slaves & trafficking victims worthy of the "gospel?" LDS Answer? Nope! "neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them..." says LDS "Scripture."
I can see it now. Moses comes to the Hebrews as their deliverer. His main obstacle is not Pharaoh. No, it's a certain sect of the Hebrews who serve as "middle managers" on behalf of the Egyptians.
As soon as they hear of Moses trying to free the Hebrew slaves, this group posts the following "Middle East Bulletin":
We believe it just that Moses desire to free the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right for Moses to interfere with Hebrew bond-servants, neither preach a proclamation of freedom to, nor circumcize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of the Egyptian government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.
Signed: The God's People of Delivery of Former-Day Chosen Ones -- the Moremen-as-Slaves Restoration Club.
That "few" is nowhere near enough to win the general election. Did you read my post at This Link?
Just WHERE do you Romney supporters think the votes are going to come from to win the general election if he is the nominee? I REALLY would like for someone to explain this.
To be sure, the LDS curse upon the Blacks had no biblical justification. This teaching most certainly reflects the social upbringing and bigotry of Mormonism’s early leaders rather than the will of the Christian God. The message of the New Testament proclaims that a person’s past has no bearing on what he can receive from our gracious God. The Bible declares that God will not hold past transgressions against those who come to Him by faith. (Isaiah 43:25; Jeremiah 31:34; Romans 4:5-7, 23; Hebrews. 8:12).
Re: your post #165.
The U.S. Department of Justice released reports in the Fall of 2001 that national domestic violence rates decreased 41 percent since 1993. But Utah officials reported a 31 percent increase in state domestic violence between 1997 and 2000. With those climbing numbers, Utah in 2001 had the second highest domestic violence rate in the nation.
Source: http://byumedia.com/story.cfm/34616
If he's nominated, I'm getting the feeling that Mitt Romney would be our John Kerry. He's got the flip-flopping down, and I'm betting that the "Swift Boat" ads will be about Romney's affiliation with a racist church. The Democrats deluded themselves into thinking no one would dare inquire into a veteran's war record, and I fear that people are similarly kidding themselves about Romney's religion. The fiercest attacks won't come from the right, from evangelicals who view them as heretics; they'll be launched from the left, who see the church as a relic of 19th century social doctrine.
That Romney can't bring himself to say on Meet the Press that excluding blacks from priesthood was wrong is a huge warning sign. He served as a missionary while the ban was still in effect; what do you want to bet that the Democrats will dredge up somebody who was taught by Romney that blacks were unworthy of the priesthood by dictate of God?
He was at Stanford, Brigham Young University, and Harvard in the '60s and '70s, when the ban on blacks was becoming increasingly controversial. Around a bunch of socially conscious students who'd bitch about that. What do you want to bet it came up during a students' yak-a-thon and Romney, as a faithful Mormon, defended it?
We're stepping on a landmine here. There were 10 years of Romney's adult life during which he was an active, loyal Mormon in a church explicitly racist. I don't believe for a second that the Democrats haven't found somebody who can remember Romney defending it. Once they run that ad, or more likely series of ads, we lose the independents - and the election.
I have been told countless times on FR that the left "won't DARE to attack mormonism because there will be a HUGE backlash if they do!"
WHY did the mormon leaders "meet with several publications" if they are convinced?
Romney's grand speech did not translate into increased poll numbers, and Russert's holding Mitt's feet to the fire on MTP are warning signs that the "backlash" they are counting on won't happen as they predict.
If you can’t point to that revelation then you are wrong. In your case though, you know that there is no revelation so trying to imply that there is makes you guilty of trying to pass off a lie.
I am quickly coming to the conclusion that you anti Mormon cabal members define yourselves by your hatred of Mormon belief. Isn’t that a pathetic way to be?
“They were forever to be delegated as “servants.””
I’m 80 years old and was never tought this.
“BTW the “N” word was pretty freely bandied about in private conversations by most Mormons that I knew growing up.”
We were never allowed to use the “N” word.
Through Ham (a name meaning black) "the blood of the Canaanites was preserved" through the flood, he having married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain. (Abra. 1:20-27.) Ham was cursed, apparently for marrying into the forbidden lineage, and the effects of the curse passed to his son, Canaan. (Gen. 9:25.) Ham's descendants include the Negroes, who originally were barred from holding the priesthood but have been able to do so since June, 1978 (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, Bookcraft, 1979 edition, p. 343).
Try the second link pertaining to the Curse of Cain book. Part 2 is loaded with quotations.
ps. For what it is worth, I went through the same challenge from LeGrande yesterday as you can see here. It appears he either has a short memory, or he is trying to cloud this thread with noise in lieu of seeking the truth.
There wasn’t a revelation. There was a scripture.
David O. McKay, Mormonism’s ninth president, said, “I know Book of Abraham (1:26-27).” This LDS passage reads, “Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.”
Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
In order to ascertain that the curse of Cain is indeed seen as black skin, you would need to read the other quotes I posted.
The obvious question is this: LDS Scripture supports a curse upon the Seed of Cain, didn’t lifting the curse violate LDS Scripture?
This deserves a ping to all the FIP cabal.
The church admitted blacks to the priesthood in 1978. Three years ealier, in 1975, Romney graduated from Harvard’s joint JD/MBA program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney. Romney undoubtedly knows the year he graduated; he also undoubtedly knows the year the church changed it’s policy regarding blacks. Despite that, he told Tim Russert on MTP:
“I can remember when, when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from, I think, it was law school, but I was driving home, going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I heard it on the radio, and I pulled over and, and literally wept.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/2/
Romney was clearly trying to suggest that he was just a college kid when the church’s change came about. But he was nothing of the sort. He was already in his thirties and had several years of management consulting under his belt.
I remember when JFK was shot, where I was and what I was doing. I remember where I was, and how old I was when Ronald Reagan was shot. I know what I was doing and where I was when the Space Shuttle exploded. AND I can never forget 09/11/2001 the day the ground shook beneath us as the towers fell.
Romney is lying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.