Posted on 03/06/2012 5:44:27 AM PST by Colofornian
Mitt Romney, despite a seemingly lackluster appeal to the Republican base, is steadily marching toward the GOP nomination. A relatively private man, Romney has suffered for appearing awkward in public. But the businessman turned politician is learning to be transparent: he has finally released his tax returns, made attempts to clarify a myriad number of changed policy positions, and has even held his own in debates -- fine tuning well-rehearsed attacks on President Obama ahead of their likely general election fight.
Yet there is one subject Romney has consistently avoided -- for good reason -- and that is the sordid history of racial insensitivity in the Mormon Church
theGrio: Black Mormons weigh Romney-Obama match-up
The issue garnered attention this week after the Washington Post published an article, "The Genesis of a Church's Stand on Race". In the article, Randy Bott, a well-regarded religious professor at Brigham Young University, which is owned by the Church of Latter-day Saints, sought to justify the church's previous exclusion of blacks to the priesthood, as well as the disturbing teachings -- and explicitly racist texts of the Book of Mormon.
"God has always been discriminatory," Bott said.
The professor compared prejudiced policies to a young child asking for keys to a father's car and conflated this with the Mormon ban on blacks.
"What is discrimination?" Bott asked. "I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn't have been a benefit to them?" Professor Bott tried to explain that though blacks were not allowed into the priesthood before 1978, this meant that they were spared from being sent to the lower rung of hell.
It's a stretch - and a wholly insufficient answer for most reasonable minds - but Bott's comments actually reflected mainstream Mormon opinion for at least 150 years.
Founded in 1830, the Latter Day Saint (LDS) movement was started by Joseph Smith, who claimed to have received a revelation from which he penned the Book of Mormon. LDS theology claimed that people of the black African Diaspora were cursed. Today, Mormons still teach that a war in heaven took place when Jesus and Lucifer, both considered sons of God, disagreed on whether or not humans should be given free will.
According to Smith, Jesus believed that only a select few could be saved, while Lucifer believed that everyone should be given a chance at salvation. Smith's revelation purports that the spirits who sided with Lucifer ended up being born as darker-skinned people, cursed by God, and were undeserving of the priesthood.
Though Smith may have been unduly influenced by the slave-owning society in which he lived -- more than any actual spiritual awakening -- the official doctrine of the LDS Church still views his writings as divinely inspired. And despite the ban being lifted in 1978 -- more than a decade following the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- the Church has never disavowed the scripture or Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's teachings, which are fraught with racial bias.
Further complicating the matter are the dubious circumstances under which Mormon leaders eventually saw the light. In early 1978, the U.S. Department of Justice threatened to revoke the LDS tax-exempt status if it continued to discriminate on the basis of race. It was then that the Mormon "living prophet" declared his new revelation -- thereby protecting millions, if not billions, in potential tax liabilities.
In response to Ricard Bott's claims, the Church of Latter-day Saints issued an official statement yesterday condemning racism, "including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church."
This represented the most forceful statement the Church has made on the subject to date, but if the story gains more traction -- or if Bott defends his stance -- this will undoubtedly prove to be a mitigating factor for Mitt Romney, forcing him to speak about the racial politics of his faith.
Romney has claimed that he was so moved when the church finally allowed blacks into the priesthood that he broke into tears. Yet he was a full grown man in his 30s and there is no evidence whatsoever that he previously objected to or campaigned against the blatantly racist policies.
This right here will be the mantra repeated over & over & over & over again if Romney won the nomination.
A race about economics & social issues & world policies would be reduced by the MSM & Obamaites to a referendum on racism...all with the pre-approval of the GOP establishment!
Sickening!
The issue garnered attention this week after the Washington Post published an article, "The Genesis of a Church's Stand on Race". In the article, Randy Bott, a well-regarded religious professor at Brigham Young University, which is owned by the Church of Latter-day Saints, sought to justify the church's previous exclusion of blacks to the priesthood, as well as the disturbing teachings -- and explicitly racist texts of the Book of Mormon. "God has always been discriminatory," Bott said..."What is discrimination?" Bott asked. "I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn't have been a benefit to them?" Professor Bott tried to explain that though blacks were not allowed into the priesthood before 1978, this meant that they were spared from being sent to the lower rung of hell.
So, let's see. The Mormons have proxy-baptized racist Hitler see Hitler Baptized as a Mormon...and this BYU prof was claiming that God wanted blacks to live on lower rungs of heaven -- like Hitler's rung -- because this might somehow pre-empt them from winding up in a worse place?
Ah...such Mormon theology from the "most popular" BYU prof on campus in 2008...the year, btw, when he wrote his first blog on a similar topic as this...and one that didn't rile the BYU campus or Mormon hierarchy...showing that BYU & the Mormon hierarchy are still racist!
Well, one would like to think that Mormonism's policy change wiped out its official sanctioning of racism.
Wrong-o, boy-o:
Here's five Book of Mormon verses below talking about how the "skin of blackness" is a "cursing" based upon their "iniquity" (2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6; Jacob 3:5) and how when the curse would be removed, they would again become "white" (3 Nephi 2:15), which the Book of Mormon says is a "delightsome" color (2 Nephi 5:21; cf. older version of 2 Nephi 30:6):
The Mormon "prophets" Nephi, Alma and the Mormon Jacob are racists!
* "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 exceeding 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." (2 Nephi 5:21)
* "...many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people." (2 Nephi 30:6, pre-1981 versions...changed from unknown reasons in 1981 to "fair and delightsome"...It's not like the Mormon church has the supposed gold plates to go back and look to interpret a word differently)
* "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against the their brethren..." (Alma 3:6)
* "Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins..." (Jacob 3:5) [Note: The "Lamanites" per Mormonism are Native Americans...so their skin color, says Mormon "scripture" is based upon a supposed curse]
* "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." (3 Nephi 2:15) [Note: So...to be "uncursed" is to have your skin turn white...per Romney's Mormonism, that is!]
The Book of Abraham verses are 1:24-27..."and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land." (v. 24)...Pharaoh was then supposedly "cursed...as pertaining to the Priesthood. Now, Pharaoh, being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood..." (v. 26-27)
Some Mormons talk as if a darker skin color as-a-supposed-curse was just ONLY some talk in the past. Uh, no! Look at the verses above -- Alma 3:6 and Jacob 3:5, for example. They also talk as if the "curse of Ham" being a darker skin color was also just some teaching that's been jettisoned. Well, then why is the Book of Abraham phrasing still there in their Mormon "scripture" -- the Pearl of Great Price?
Ah yes, here it comes.
The much-awaited and predictable attack on Mormonism.
Slimey.
It's not just the Book of Mormon & Pearl of Great Price (half of Mormonism's "scriptures") that are openly racist. Consider the following "revelation" from the Mormon god to Joseph Smith...deemed as "scripture" in "Doctrine & Covenants" -- a "sacred" doc embraced & endorsed by Mitt Romney & true-believing Mormons everywhere!
Well, it’s mid-1835. Smith is churning out new “Scripture.” Smith is taking aim at new converts. But in that time, did he believe the Mormon “gospel” to be aimed at slaves? (No, not unless express “permission” was granted by their “owners”).
Could you imagine a verse still applicable today—one similar to the Mormon scripture of Doctrine & Covenants 134:12—which would tell you in effect that yes, the gospel was for women who are sexually trafficked--but only if their Pimp-owner says "Yes?".
I mean, imagine if you will, for a moment, that you are the God of the universe; God of every planet; God of the earth; Creator of every person. Imagine for a moment you are speaking forth universal eternal truth. And then imagine that someone claims you (as God) made the following “Scriptural” statement:
”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.”
D&C 134:12 is LDS “Doctrine” that has never been removed or rescinded!!! This passages makes it quite clear – in contrast to the apostle Paul who vied for the religious freedom of Onesimus while treating him as a full Christian brother and encouraged Philemon to do the same--somehow, LDS think that "religious freedom" applies to everyone except slaves!
D&C 134:12, written in 1835 pro-slavery America, made it quite clear that instead of the Mormons having a universal god who issued eternal truth applicable to all cultures, he is instead an American-sounding god who speaks only in King James English & was beholden to the American slavery industry.
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.
And why not? Well, says D&C 134:12: We don't want ya ta meddle with the Mastuhs' business “property,” or to say it as precisely as LDS "scripture" says it: nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life...
(Nah. We can't have unhappy slaves or trafficking victims now, can we? Too disturbing to their "stations" of life, eh?)
Now what are the ultimate reasons for this again? D&C 134:12 provides the answer:
Reason #1: ...such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust... (There ya have it...wouldn't want to be "unjust" by giving slaves the gospel & baptizing them, would ya?)
Reason #2: ...and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude. (And, of course, the "closer": Wouldn't want to disturb the peace & quiet of slavery-sanctioning governments, now would ya?)
place marker
I don’t think I’ve read anywhere about Mormons being involved black lynchings. Why aren’t the Pubies constantly reminding the sheeple that the Dems were the party against civil rights.
What a crock.
Never did the Romney family do anything to stop the practice or even reevaluate, oh yea why would they, the lds gods said black people where cursed.
Seriously, if you are a mormon and your gods said blacks where cursed and valueless, why would Romney weep over this.
Curious that mormons don't seem to have a problem with their gods changing ther minds about stuff.
“Do you think the Left wing media will give him a pass on it? Any opposition to Obama is already claimed to be racist. Romney is such an ideal target for the Left, it’s hard to imagine a better one. Member of an all white racist church.”
Yes, i would expect the MSM to give Romney the same consideration and treatment as they gave BO’s attendance [maybe he was just present] at the Hate America church of the Rev Wright.
They will simply have to say, "It is not about his mormonISM, but that mormons are RACIST", see how that will work? So be it.
Well, think about it...such lynchings tended to occur where blacks lived...
How white was Utah (territory & state)? Pretty white...a few were slaves during Utah's territory days...(why would you hang your so-called 'property'?)
Mormons deliberately forged their own isolated, insulated communities thruout the 1840s & beyond...they alone were dictating social dynamics...allowing themm to continue practicing polygamy into the 20th century...
“We took from them almost all of their land—the reservations are just a tiny remnant of traditional tribal homelands. We tried to take from them their hunting rights, their fishing rights, the timber on their land. We tried to take from them their water rights. We tried to take from them their culture, their religion, their identity, and perhaps most importantly we tried to take from them their freedom. And what is so amazing about this whole story is that we failed. We failed after hundreds of years of trying to take everything from American Indians. We failed to do that. They are still here and there’s survival; that great saga of survival is one of the great stories of all mankind.” - Dr. Daniel McCool University of Utah
There is no mystery or a plethora of complex reasons why the Black Hawk War happened, it’s very simple really, the Native Ute Indians of Utah were being set-upon and victimized by the United States Government and, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints-—the Mormons. The truth regarding the history of the war has since been cloaked in brilliantly managed rhetoric by the victors who blame and demonize the Ute Nation in every conceivable way, and understanding this aspect of the accounts between the Government, Church and the Native peoples is when the story becomes woefully strange, and convoluted.
There are always two sides to any war. People say, “that’s all in the past we just need to get over it.” Like their forefathers before them, the descendents of the predominate culture of Utah refuse to acknowledge the cruel mistreatment of Utah’s American Indian peoples. That demoralization and racism have become institutionalized. Utahan’s say it’s the Indian people who are to blame, “we gave them every opportunity to succeed... it’s their own damn fault.” And so remember, racism has to be taught. Children learn racism from their families, teachers and community.
What is the Ute Indians’ side of the story? And, why has their history, their account, their interpretation, their version been purposely ignored and long omitted from school curricula and historical accounts?
When people are denied access to their own true history by educators and institutions as both American Indians and non-Indians of Utah have been, when Indian students are forced to accept solely the victors point of view, when cultural traditions and customs of the American Indian are systematically replaced by western beliefs; when they are denied their right to speak their own language and denied their religious freedom, when they are repeatedly denied equal access to justice and protection under the law, when these things happen it then becomes cultural genocide, assimilation, a fulfillment of the Doctrine of Discovery.
“The Time has come when Indian people need to stop being victimized. They need to tell their story and demand that it be told accurately.” - Forrest S. Cuch Former Director of Indian Affairs/Member of the Ute Tribe
A Brief Synopsis of How the Black Hawk War Began
“There was a time when our people were happy and content living in the majestic mountains and fertile green valleys of Utah. Then the Mormons came, and our people were killed—the old, the young, the children, women—and many taken to reservations where many more would die.” - Member of the Ute Tribe
Christian crusaders attempted to reason with the Indian people saying they had the right to take possession of their land because the Indians were heathens, non-Christians, who didn’t believe in the bible or Jesus, the Messiah. And this is the basis for the denial of Indian rights in federal Indian law today, based upon the metaphor that the American Indians are the Canaanites or pagans in the promised land. “Consequently, the current situation of Indigenous Peoples around the world is the result of a linear program of “legal” precedent, originating with the Doctrine of Discovery and codified in contemporary national laws and policies. The Doctrine mandated Christian European countries to attack, enslave and kill the Indigenous Peoples they encountered and to acquire all of their assets” - Steven T. Newcomb Indigenous Law Institute and author of “Pagans in the Promised Land.” Also quotes from WCC Executive Committee 14-17 February 2012 Bossey, Switzerland (see also Doctrine of Discovery)
The early settlers are portrayed by the victor’s accounts as people who were fair-minded and of good intentions when they came to Utah. And upon arriving they were confronted by Indians whom they described as “friendly toward the Mormons” but later they were inaccurately and unfairly judged as barbaric wild savages who terrorized them.
In 1853 Ute leader Walkara (Black Hawk’s uncle) told interpreter M. S. Martenas, “He (Walkara) said that he had always been opposed to the whites set[t]ling on the Indian lands, particularly that portion which he claims; and on which his band resides and on which they have resided since his childhood, and his parents before him—that the Mormons when they first commenced the settlement of Salt Lake Valley, was friendly, and promised them many comforts, and lasting friendship—that they continued friendly for a short time, until they became strong in numbers, then their conduct and treatment towards the Indians changed—they were not only treated unkindly, but many were much abused and this course has been pursued up to the present—sometimes they have been treated with much severity—they have been driven by this population from place to place—settlements have been made on all their hunting grounds in the valleys, and the graves of their fathers have been torn up by the whites.” - STATEMENT, M. S. MARTENAS, INTERPRETER Great Salt Lake City, July 6 1853 Brigham Young Papers, MS 1234, Box 58, Folder 14
LDS Archives - Will Bagley Transcription
The truth is Utah Indian people were a vibrant productive culture, and didn’t have any particular animosity toward early Mormon pioneers, only that they were trespassing on their land, whereas, according to the Book of Mormon, the church believed they had a divine right to the land and an obligation to convert Utah’s American Indians to Mormonism, according to church doctrine, and in so doing the so-called “loathsome” Indians would become a “white and delightsome people” and would be forgiven of the sins of their forefathers. (Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 5:21-23) According to church doctrine, the nature of the dark skin was a curse, the cause was the Lord, the reason was because the Lamanites “had hardened their hearts against him, (God)” and the punishment was to make them “loathsome” unto God’s people who had white skins.
“When the Ute failed to assimilate into Mormon culture, the answer was to exterminate them.” - Historian Robert Carter
“It Was Question Of Supremacy Between the White Man and the Indian”
It was in 1850 when Mormon apostle George A. Smith, cousin to Church founder Joseph Smith, declared that the Indian people “have no right to their land” and he instructed the all-Mormon legislature to “extinguish all titles” and get them out of the way and onto reservations. This set the stage for the infamous Black Hawk War that would follow. Smith was 33 years of age when making decisions affecting the lives of thousands of Native peoples.
At the age of 49 Church President Brigham Young’s victory was perhaps a hollow one for, in order to fulfill his dream, he had to destroy a civilization. He complained it was “cheaper to feed them than to fight them,” as he was spending millions in church funds equipping his private army to war against them. Brigham paid his Generals as much as $300 a month while soldiers were being paid some $16.00 a month to rid the land of it’s Indian inhabitants. Then in 1866 the United States government reimbursed Brigham some 1.5 million for military expenses. (See Memorial of the Legislative Assembly of Utah)
Brigham Young was quoted by the Denver Rocky Mountain Newspaper as saying, “You can get rid of more Indians with a sack of flour, than a keg of powder.” Just how many of the some 70,000 Indians did he get rid of? By 1909 the U.S. Census reported that the Indian population had decreased to just 2300.
The gruesome be headings of some 40 Ute corpses in 1850, heads stacked in boxes, and hung by their long hair from the eves of buildings at Fort Utah, has long been ignored, “You didn’t see the Indians beheading the Mormons.” - Historian Robert Carter
What was the motivation behind such barbarianism? Money? You guessed it, the severed heads were shipped to Washington and sold for “scientific examination.” Some heads would fetch as much as a $100 each, a small fortune in those times.
In 1863, 593 Shoshone men women and children were brutally massacred at Bear River. “As the Indians tried desperate measures to fight off the U.S. Army *(led by Patrick Edward Connor and supported by Brigham Young), including the use of tomahawks and archery, the soldiers seemed to lose all sense of control and discipline. Hundreds of corpses were left to be eaten by animals and the bones remained uncovered for years to follow”. - Rod Miller Author of Massacre at Bear River - *Words parenthesized are of my own.
“The Bear River Massacre has been ignored. It was not in the interest of key players—the military and the Mormons—to remember..” - Salt Lake Tribune
On the night of April 21, 1866 another heinous crime was committed in Circleville, Utah, led by LDS Bishop William Jackson Allred and his son James T. S.. While being held captive in a below ground shelter, one by one , 24 in all, women, men, and children, their throats were cut . Two young boys and one girl, seven or eight years of age were told by their mother to run for their lives, and when the door was opened for the next victim to be killed the three made a break and forced their way past the guards and ran. The guards fired several shots at the three but were unable to hit them. One was shot in the side but the bullet barely grazed his rib, not enough to stop him. All of the Paiute males, five women, and two older children were murdered. The only crime that history accounts accuses these innocent victims of is that they were Indian. - (As told to me by living descendents of one of the boys who survived.)
“In those early days it was, at times, imperative that harsh measures should be used. We had to do these things, or be run over by them. It was a question of supremacy between the white man and the Indian.” - John Lowry 1894
A Few Interesting Facts To Ponder
The names “Black Hawk” and “Antonga” are they Ute Indian names? The name “Black Hawk” is not a Ute name. It was a name Brigham Young, in jest, called the Ute’s leader. So it became that Brigham Young’s supercilious term, ‘Black Hawk,’ is the name by which he is now most commonly known. In fact there were some three or more Indians the whites referred to as Black Hawk in Utah history. It was a sarcastic joke, a mockery referring to the Sauk and Fox Indian tribes (Mesquaki) under the leadership of the real Chief Black Hawk and the tragic Black Hawk War of 1832 in Illinois, where the Mormons migrated from. It was, perhaps, a sinister message to the Utes that a similar destiny awaited them.
To the Mexicans he was known as “Antonga”, also not a Ute name. Utah’s Black Hawk was born into family of legendary leaders and known to the Utes as Nuch, he was so named in honor of his people the Nuchu, a sacred name the Utes call themselves.
So, why is it called “The Black Hawk War” when there were never any black hawk Indians in Utah, or elsewhere for that matter, when none of the Indians in Utah called themselves Black Hawk? For to do so only serves to perpetuate the dark cynicism that helped to demoralize the Native peoples of Utah. You see, the story gets a lot more interesting when you talk to the Utes.
Before Chief Nuch died in 1870, deathly ill from a bullet wound he received over a year earlier at Gravelly Ford while attempting to rescue a fallen comrade, he traveled 180 miles by horse and visited every Mormon village to apologize for the pain and suffering he and his warriors had caused. He said to them, “you broken your promises, stolen our land, killed our children, men and women, and spread disease among my people.” He then asked for forgiveness and pleaded with the settlers to do the same, and end the bloodshed. “You didn’t see that happening on the part of the settlers”, said Forrest Cuch, “So it took a greater man to do such a thing. And that’s what is overlooked in the victors’ accounts.”
“It was white history that wrote it—that he surrendered. And no, a man like that don’t surrender. He’ll come to terms with reality. I’m done, we’re done, we, we did what we could, we’re done. But it gets written differently... And like any of us, I think you get to a point where it’s like any war, you get in and you do what you’ve got to do. And maybe there’s a family there, and you killed, killed their kids—you, as a human, that thing we all are, is going to at least make you say I’m sorry.” - Larry Cesspooch/Member of the Ute Tribe
Shocking Post War Relations
Was the Black Hawk war over in 1873 as scholars say? The Mormons got their Indian land and the Transcontinental Railroad had come through. Black Hawk died in 1870. Ninety percent of the Indian population had died since the Mormons arrived in 1847. Fifteen hundred Utes were forced to walk to the reservation in the Uintah Basin where they were abandoned, and 500 more died from starvation in the first year. Were the whites satisfied? No, not yet.
On September 20, 1919, an article appeared on the front page of the Deseret News with the headline, “Bones of Black Hawk on Exhibition L.D.S. Museum.” Within the article, the writer explains that first, the remains of Black Hawk had been on public display in the window of a hardware store in downtown Spanish Fork, Utah. Then Benjamin Guarded, the man in charge of the L.D.S. Museum, acquired the remains for public display on Temple Square. For decades, the remains of Black Hawk, and those of an Indian woman and a child, were on display in the church museum on Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City.
Just 49 years had passed since Chief Black Hawk had been laid to rest in 1870 at Spring Lake, Utah, when members of the LDS Church plotted the robbery of his grave. Accompanying the article is a photo of William E. Croff standing in the open grave, grinning ear to ear, while holding the skull of Nuch (Black Hawk). While the living descendents of Nuch were outraged, their voices fell on deaf ears. Seemingly without conscience or remorse church leaders condoned the practice, in spite of a federal law passed in 1906 called the Graves Protection Act. Descendents of Nuch had no real legal recourse until the enactment of the National American Graves Protection Reparation Act, or NAGPRA, passed in 1994.
Chief Nuch was again reburied in the year 1996. It took an act of Congress, the help of National Forest Service archeologist Charmain Thomson, and the humanitarian efforts of a boy scout Shane Armstrong to find and rebury the remains of Nuch (Black Hawk). This raises the question why a Christian religious institution and its leaders would have no compassion or respect for the family of Chief Nuch who were members of the church. Was the reason simply amusement for others? Was grave robbing for art, pleasure, punishment, a morbid fascination of death, divine obligation, or, most importantly, was it a question of supremacy between the white man and the Indian?
http://www.blackhawkproductions.com/
Lynchings were mostly about crime, not race, the racial percentages were pretty close to crime statistics today.
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.
The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.
This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants', and they will be, until that curse is removed."
Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.
Here are two examples from their 'other testament', the Book of Mormon.
2 Nephi 5: 21 '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.'
Alma 3: 6 'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'
|
August 27, 1954 in an address at Brigham Young University (BYU), Mormon Elder, Mark E Peterson, in speaking to a convention of teachers of religion at the college level, said:
(Rosa Parks would have probably told Petersen under which wheel of the bus he should go sit.)
1967, (then) Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson "The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder."
We are told that on June 8, 1978, it was 'revealed' to the then president, Spencer Kimball, that people of color could now gain entry into the priesthood. According to the church, Kimball spent many long hours petitioning God, begging him to give worthy black people the priesthood. God finally relented. |
Sometime before the 'revelation' came to chief 'Prophet' Spencer Kimball in June 1978, General Authority, Bruce R McConkie had said:
"The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.
The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin, it is the Lord's doings."
(Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).
When Mormon 'Apostle' Mark E Petersen spoke on 'Race Problems- As they affect the Church' at the BYU campus in 1954, the following was also said:
"...if the negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."
When Mormon 'Prophet' and second President of the Church, Brigham Young, spoke in 1863 the following was also said:
"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, Vo. 10, p. 110)
Yeah; Native Americans are althroughout the Book of MORMON; too.
“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl-sixteen-sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather.... These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.
One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.
(Improvement Era, December 1960, pp.922-23). (p. 209)
Why did you post that to me?
“The much-awaited and predictable attack on Mormonism.”
Wow, you are really behind the times! We’ve been exposing mormonism the cult since before 2008.
Nice to know you were still waiting...
You just got lucky I guess!
(it was supposed to be to the PICTURE of the paper with that column heading - #11)
I still don’t get it, but it was an awfully long post.
That MORMONism now is going to IGNORE all of the things it has said in the past about blacks - pretending the SCRIPTURE has somehow become invisible.
#15 MORMONs admit blacks: meaning (evidently not obviously) to confess.
That MORMONism thinks thusly about blacks, but are CHOOSING to ignore their own Scriptures.
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.
"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent.I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after."
said,