Posted on 12/21/2007 4:20:24 AM PST by RCFlyer
...Mormonism was a defiantly apartheid faith that denied blacks full participation based on doctrinal beliefs that whites are "pure" and "delightsome," while black-skinned people are "unrighteous," "despised" and "loathsome" descendants of the biblical Cain, who was cursed for killing Abel.
The priesthood proscription, which operated under a "one-drop rule," wasn't in place simply to keep blacks out of leadership posts. Ultimately, the ban was a manifestation of a central belief that blacks are unfit to be full members of the church on Earth, or to exist alongside whites in heaven...
Mormon leaders were applauded for finally ending the prohibition. But according to Mr. Mauss, the church has never repudiated the teachings that supported the policy. In 2004, he wrote, "ironically, the doctrinal folklore that many of us thought had been discredited, or at least made moot, through the 1978 revelation, continued to appear . . . [in church literature] written well after 1978 and continues to be taught by well-meaning teachers and leaders in the church to this very day." And "Mormon America," which was just re-released, notes plainly that "Mormon teaching against race-mixing remains in force."
Throughout his current campaign for the Republican nomination, Mr. Romney has declined to distance himself from the repugnant racial teachings of his church...
In his ballyhooed speech earlier this month, Mr. Romney said he wouldn't renounce any of Mormonism's precepts. And for all his claims to the contrary, Mr. Romney has, in fact, been willing to distance himself from past teachings of the church--just not those having to do with its treatment of black people...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
"Archaic"? Did you read this part of the article?
Mormon leaders were applauded for finally ending the prohibition. But according to Mr. Mauss, the church has never repudiated the teachings that supported the policy. In 2004, he wrote, "ironically, the doctrinal folklore that many of us thought had been discredited, or at least made moot, through the 1978 revelation, continued to appear . . . [in church literature] written well after 1978 and continues to be taught by well-meaning teachers and leaders in the church to this very day." And "Mormon America," which was just re-released, notes plainly that "Mormon teaching against race-mixing remains in force."
The difference is that Southern Baptists do not have any underlying DOCTRINE behind any of their racism. Furthermore, Southern Baptists have reached out to African-Americans, as well as other ethnicities and now their seminaries are completely integrated.
Mormonism's underlying doctrine is that blacks descended from Cain and are thus still "dark and loathsome." The doctrine teaches that when a black man has truly undergone "faith, repentance and baptism," that he will become "white and delightsome." This doctrine has never been changed, in spite of the fact that the LDS Church now allows blacks to hold the priesthood.
I will vote for Romney if he is the nominee, but lets not whitewash the LDS church in order to elect him.
Strawman.
Well, not all saints are equal.
The United States hasn’t formally denounced the Founding Fathers, apologized for slavery, or paid reparations. Should we?
It shows how powerful the race card is that a candidate who has never done anything that would indicate hostility to blacks, and who comes from a family that was more liberal than the average family on civil rights issues, can be tarred with the racism charge.
If you want to oppose Mitt for being a flip-flopper, fine. But dredging this stuff up is ludicrous.
I'm on record as saying that I would never vote for Rudy or Mitt, even in the general but when crunch time comes, I will most likely fold on that position because of the prospect of another rat in the white house, whether it's Hillary, Obama or Edwards or any other rat.
In the mean time we still have 2 conservative candidates in the running (I didn't say perfect) but conservative none the less. Thompson or Hunter.
So did the Mormons own black slaves too?
SBC renounces racist past - Southern Baptist Convention
Christian Century, July 5, 1995
THE SOUTHERN Baptist Convention voted June 20 to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery. On its opening day the convention altered its planned order of business in order to consider the statement of repudiation and repentance, prior to a celebration of the SBC’s 150th anniversary the same evening. More than 20,000 Southern Baptists registered for the June 20-22 meeting at Atlanta’s Georgia Dome.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n21_v112/ai_17332136
I’m in a jolly mood, I just managed to buy a WII Machine, after trying for 3 weeks.
I agree with that. I'm supporting Hunter or Thompson as well.
But none of this is the issue. The issue is that the LDS church STILL has in its main body of doctrine the teaching that blacks descended from Cain and are "dark and loathsome." Its policy regarding blacks in the priesthood has changed, but its DOCTRINE has not.
In considering whether to vote for Romney, this is not a deal-killer. But it IS a negative, especially when the LDS church tries to deny it publicly. They would be better off to come out and say "yes, this is still our doctrine, and it needs to be changed. We are going to convene to determine the best way to go about changing our teaching that blacks descended from Cain and are dark and loathsome."
I'm asking this question in genuine ignorance of how things are done in the Mormon church but wouldn't that take another revelation?
I only paste and post, because the facts are already out there, why should I go to the trouble to re type it all.
As far as changing Dogma of the Mormon Church, the Southern Baptist Church, the Catholic Churches, I hardly see why that should be the issue of the Presidential Election in 2008, do you?
If you haven’t already seen this PING...WOW..the WSJ!
Yes, because the LDS church is out there saying "WE ARE CHRISTIANS JUST LIKE YOU!" They are not "Christians" if they deny the teachings of Christianity.
A candidate's religion is always an issue in presidential elections. Different voters treat the issue differently. To some, religion is very important, to others it is not important at all. But denying that it should be an issue does not detract from the fact that the LDS teachings are still racist, even if their policies no longer are.
Bottom line, the LDS church should not obfuscate, neither should Mitt Romney. If he wants to be our president, he should be straightforward.
YOu have mail
“As far as changing Dogma of the Mormon Church, the Southern Baptist Church, the Catholic Churches, I hardly see why that should be the issue of the Presidential Election in 2008, do you?”
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney being a powerful member in a racist RELIGION in 1978 and refusing to renounce it this week is relevant to this primary campaign for us that have to choose a candidate.
You know, you are a real jerk. You originally asked:
“What was Mitt’s Dad, the Hero of Republican Civil Rights( according to Mittbot) what did he do as a leader of the LDS vis a vis Black Americans and the Church?”
YOU are the one who asked about Mitt Romney’s father. I answered you. If you would have read the posts to which I referred, it provides evidence that George was fully involved with his brother in bringing about the change in 1978.
So when you get your questioned answered you say it doesn’t count. So why did you ask the question?
Because you thought the answer would be different. Admit it.
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.