He is a loathsome, offensive brute,
yet I can't look away.
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 ...
That is the corner the LDS church has painted itself into. The "revelation" the prophet received in 1978 made God look to be a self-contradictory deity who previously gave teachings that could not be changed... and then changed them. But that aside, no, I don't think they need a revelation. I think that if they convened their 12 Apostles and issued a change, that the "faithful" would accept it.
All they really have to do is have their prophet say "all previous teachings that blacks are dark and loathsome are now inoperative."
Yes and they can quote useful folks like you to show that it’s the Pubbies themselves who make their case.
Stop making the Dhimmi’s case for them. Wait until you have a nominee to announce who you’ll vote for. Keep all weapons on the table.
As predicted by a number of us (who have been roundly vilified for stating the obvious), look forward to the next nine years of uproar over Mormon “quirks” should Romney become president. A minor religious war all so some people can have a pretty boy RINO for president who can fill their PC need to show tolerance.
I believe Romney is unelectable because of this.
The democrats don't need me to point anything out to them. Hillary and her minions are already researching this issue and how it can be used if Mitt is the nominee. It's not exactly something that I have "exposed".
In fact, the SBC did more than "apologize" for their past.
According to this NEWS RELEASE, the SBC passed a resolution which:
Unwaveringly denounced racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sinLamented and repudiated historic acts of evil such as slavery "from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest."
Offered an apology to all African-Americans for "condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime"
Sought repentance for "racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously."
Asked for forgiveness "from our African-American brothers and sisters."
Pledged to eradicate racism in all its forms from Southern Baptist life and ministry."
The Mormon Church has a long, well-documented history of bigotry as you can see HERE. A few of their horrible teachings include:
And it came to pass that I beheld, after [American Indians] had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 12:23).In stark contrast to the Baptists, the Mormon Church has yet to retract, let alone an apologize for, any of the above.Thirteenth — "Are the Mormons abolitionists?" No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the negroes free (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 29).
Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 217-218).
From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel (as quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, by John J. Stewart and William E. Berrett, Horizon Publishers, 1978, p. 47).
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. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).
YES as documented HERE.
Mormons brought slaves with them to Utah; both Native Americans and Blacks were bought and sold as slaves in Utah; Mormons indentured Indian children.
LOL...tentative & passive indeed. Good pick-up.
You said:
” Look , you are talking to a Southern Baptist raised in Georgia, who lived in Colorado and Massachusetts, who is now Methodist... and the reason Utah and Colorado are whiter than the South, is because Black Slavery existed in the South before the Civil war and not in Utah or Colorado..duh!”
Well, actually, there is another reason you don’t see any blacks in Utah. They weren’t invited, weren’t sought for conversion. Missionaries were sent abroad in the nineteenth century to “pure and delightsome Europe for converts to bring back to Utah.
Here is a quotation of Heber C. Kimball, from The Lion of the Lord:
“I love the Danes dearly! he bragged to Ludlow. “I’ve got a Danish wife.” Turning to a rough carpenter working nearby, Kimball asked, “you know Christiny, eh, Brother Spudge?” “Oh yes, I know her very well,” came the answer. Kimball paused then added: “The Irish are dear people My Irish wife is among the best I’ve got.” He halted again. “I love the Germans, got a Dutch wife too! Know Katrine, Bro. Spudge? Remember she couldn’t scarecely talk a word o’ English when she come — eh, Bro. Spudge?”
Well that is it, Mormons are not any better than Southern Baptist!(sarcasm)
Freedom of Choice?
I do know that George WallaceTHE LDS CHURCH tried to correct his ITS wrongs with Alabama RACISM, but it doesn’t change his whole history, now does it?
Marion Romney, who ever he was, is on a letter. What that has to do with, or is proof of Mitt and his Dad, vis a vis the Church, I have no idea.
You first told me to ‘shut up’. A usual Mormon retort.
I then said prove it.
You, lazily, sent me on a poor link chase, which to any but true believers gave no, zero, zip, nothing about George, Mitt and the Church.
I’m sure that when Mitt was going to Harvard law, there were piles of students working and writing for all sorts of corrections against ‘the man’ and ‘the establishment’. I don’t see any evidence that Mitt himself was.
But. You go ahead. You, Mitt, et al, make’m out to be veritable shields at Selma.
Of course, since the Church's change was a matter of human revelation, I suppose it could be reversed by yet another revelation.
"I am opposed to abuseing [sic] that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it." Source: 2/5/1852 in speech before a joint session of the legislature
He was therefore "pro-slavery" as a "blessing" of God but was anti-American slavery because he thought the institution was abused: I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused."
He also said at that joint session: "It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants."
Earlier in the session, he said: What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth...the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood [sic] nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood [sic], until the redemtion [sic] of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood [sic], for the curse on them was to remain upon them until the resedue [sic] of the posterity of Michal [sic] and his wife receive the blessings...until the times of the restitution shall come...Then Cain's seed will be had in remembrance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off."
In that session, Young also said:
He went to Stanford, BYU and Harvard Law.
What, what the question too tough? Or he can’t speak English? Or is he conflicted, trying to hold mutually exclusive positions at the same time? Like for instance, I’m separated and free of the Church, just don’t ask me to criticize it because I’m not my own man.<>
I guarantee you if you worked for Mitt in one of his take over companies and you gave such a weasel, stuttering, unclear answer to one of his questions...you'd be under the bus. Fair enough Mitt, now jump.
Oh, please. I work in Salt Lake and my company employs a large number of minorities and our corporate marketing manager is African-American. He grew up in North Carolina, came here for school when he was 19 and liked it so much that he stayed after graduation, got married and he and his wife are raising their 3 children here. Since my company is owned by a very prominent LDS member of the community and most of its workforce is LDS, your “not in my backyard” accusation is extremely weak, IMO. BTW, he’s not LDS either.
I already admitted Utah has some Black residents. What’s your point.
THEY wouldn't dare? When the Wall Street Journal publishes an article like this, it appears THEY will dare.
The upshot of this whole flap is that Mitt is shown for the prevaricator he is, and that "third rail" that his supporters have been flaunting is not the taboo subject they counted on. Huckabee's surge in the primary race is indicating that religion is indeed a factor.
I am not a Romney supporter. However, his church's views, past or present, on African Americans are irrelevant to his suitability as President.
That's one explanation.
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.