Passing the Torch of Mormonism’s Historical Racisim

[In honor of Black History Month 2014, each Monday in February Mormon Coffee’s blog post has addressed a topic related to racism in Mormon history. Today is the final post in the series.]

Institutionalized racism in the Mormon Church spanned nearly 150 years. It began with the religion’s founding prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. Smith’s prophet-successor Brigham Young carried the torch for a few more decades and then passed it off to the next prophet, John Taylor. Taylor passed it to Wilford Woodruff, who gave it to Lorenzo Olympic_TorchSnow, who passed it to Joseph F. Smith, and on through the years, each successive prophet/president of the Mormon Church continuing the discrimination against Blacks throughout their tenure until Spencer W. Kimball put a stop to it in 1978.

Recently the Mormon Church published a statement on Race and the Priesthood on its website, in an effort to clarify where the church stands today in regards to its past institutionalized racism. The statement is undated and unsigned, which leaves some readers skeptical about the level of authority behind the statement, especially since it contradicts official Church statements of the past.

The First Presidency of the Mormon Church is the Church’s highest governing body, endowed with the greatest authority within the organization. It has, over the years, made declarations regarding the church’s official position on race issues. For example, in 1947 the First Presidency (George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and David O. McKay) wrote in part:

“Indeed, some of God’s children were assigned to superior positions before the world was formed. We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does.

“Your position [that all God’s children stand equal in positions before Him in all things] seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the preexistence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a relationship in the life heretofore.

“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.” (Letter to Dr. Lowry Nelson, July 17, 1947)

Twenty-two years after this declaration by the First Presidency, and just nine years before the institutionalized Mormon discrimination against Blacks was lifted, the First Presidency again clarified the Church’s position in relation to race. This 1969 Statement restated “the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church” as a unified voice, including the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Following is the statement in its entirety.

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency
By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

How do these two official statements of the First Presidency correspond to the most recent Mormon website proclamation that “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life”? The contradictions between the current statement and First Presidency proclamations of the past may lead to manifold conclusions, but one thing is certain: the actual history of institutionalized racism in the Mormon Church is being mendaciously rewritten.

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.

This entry was posted in LDS Church, Mormon History, Mormon Leaders and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Passing the Torch of Mormonism’s Historical Racisim

  1. falcon says:

    Sharon,
    In answer to the questions you pose in the final paragraph, what it means is that the LDS church specifically today and in the past has been and is led by false prophets.
    That’s the only conclusion a person can come to. It wasn’t just idle thinking that established the position of the “negro” in the LDS church. Dark skinned people, according to Mormon prophets, sealed their faith by making a very bad choice in the “pre-existence”. I suppose that the only thing we can conclude is that the Mormon god changed his mind. But what we do know is that this was doctrine; it was taught, preached, written about, practiced and institutionalized in the LDS church.
    The real problem here is the implications that all of this has for the faithful Mormon. These folks are left to come up with some plausible deniability with which to prop-up the sagging and falling faith that they have invested so much in.
    When Mormons come here with their lame explanations regarding this, about the only people who accept such nonsense are other Mormons. Anything to keep the myth alive and emotional disequilibrium at bay.
    Once Mormons can see their way clear to question their prophets, it’s game over, turn the lights off, walk away.

  2. MJP says:

    How do they correspond? They sweep them under the rug. They act as if they held no importance. I went back and read the current LDS statement, and it is really interesting. They toss away their god’s previous admonitions that blacks could not hold the priesthood. This is their god they do this to, not men.

    In the earlier post, they suggest they must follow the laws of god, and beg outsiders to allow them that freedom as the deny the priesthood to a very specific group. In this, they disavow it.

    I could say so many things, but the gaul they have to do this is astounding.

  3. Mike R says:

    So this recent unsigned declaration about Blacks and the priesthood by Mormon hierarchy
    is supposed to be the answer ? Are’nt these the same men who would teach their flock that
    when a person recommends , condones , something that turns out to be inaccurate and
    misleading that they should do what is right and be accountable for their words /actions
    by flat out admitting their error ?
    Mormon leaders have again had another chance to do the right thing and accept responsibilty
    for teaching and condoning false information about Black skin /curse , but sadly these men
    still refuse to do so . The way they have chosen to deal with this issue looks more like the way
    seasoned politicians deal with their errors , they fear they might be replaced by their
    followers and so resort to clever ways to downplay or even deny accountability for
    what they had once promised .

    The Mormon people have successfully been conditioned by their leaders to accept any of their
    teachings as trustworthy spiritual guidance .
    It hurts to see sincere people being fooled .
    Mormons : please WAKE UP —- Jesus was thinking of people like you in the latter days and so
    took the time to pre warn to watch out for certain men : Matt 24:11

  4. falcon says:

    What is the Mormon testimony?
    It is that all of these things are “true”.
    Joseph Smith is a prophet. True.
    The BoM is an actual history of an actual people. True.
    The LDS church is the one true church. True.
    The LDS prophet is a living prophet who gets direct messages from the Mormon god. True.
    …………..Add to this that Mormons believe that their leadership cannot lead them astray and that when the leaders speak, the thinking is done, well what are these devoted Mormons to do?

    It’s very simple. We’ve most recently seen it demonstrated by FOF and Ralph, true blue believing Mormons. They have to come up with an explanation that only works in the parallel universe known as Mormonism. It’s been demonstrated by them that they don’t even understand a basic declarative sentence made by their own leaders past and present. Basically, they just fill it all up with their own meaning so as to protect their testimony. To consider anything else and, well, the whole testimony falls apart.
    Take, for example, this from the article:
    “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.” (Letter to Dr. Lowry Nelson, July 17, 1947)

    How can these TBMs spin this and maintain any integrity at all. It’s plain what the LDS church was all about when it came to Negroes. But a TBM has to think something that will support what they believe is true.
    It’s the Mormon mind meld that allows them to distort reality.

  5. Ironman1995 says:

    “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.” (Letter to Dr. Lowry Nelson, July 17, 1947)

    When i read this paragraph and the word jumps right out at me is Doctrine, not theory, at that point the dominoes and house of cards fall fast .

    Doctrine by way of prophecy or policy by way of pressure to simply change, then sugar coat it and package it and sell it to there followers , walking dead .

  6. grindael says:

    I notice that in that long speech by the 1969 First Presidency, that they have nothing at all to say about how badly the blacks were being treated civilly, either. But this sentence caught my attention:

    Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

    “Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.” (Ellipses in the original)

    Did you get this? They claim to know nothing, but here they say that “REVELATION ASSURES US” that the discrimination against blacks goes back to the pre-existence. (Which other “prophets” said it didn’t). So right here we have a dilemma. Believe McKay and his First Presidency, which state that the Ban did go back to Jo Smith and the pre-existence, or believe Brigham Young that it didn’t go back to the Pre-existence, or believe the “prophets” of today, that it was all just folklore and they were making it all up.

    All three scenarios are full of problems. The easy solution here, is for Monson to ask God, and get an answer as to why those men didn’t get it right, and then TELL US what the real deal is. But you know what? That will never happen, because it is obvious, that none of these men ever spoke for God.

    The Proof they say, is in the pudding. Something we have never seen from these men. But we CAN believe Jesus, who states that all are equal to God and that the FULL BLESSINGS of the Gospel have always been available to EVERY MAN.

  7. MJP says:

    I really do not know how LDS can gloss over this. Perhaps its not a big deal to them, but the logic to get to where the LDS leadership now is astoundingly incoherent.

    As we were earlier shown, some are satisfied with this statement from leadership. They are willing to chock it all up as “We don’t know, so let’s move on. There’s nothing to see here.”

    However, there is something here. What was once very much doctrine and espoused by leadership is now disavowed as if the previous stance meant nothing. The previous stance, though, was declared to be of god and to be doctrine. It was not a theory devised by men of its time. It was plead that the rest of society turn a blind eye to its religious freedom! Religious freedom here was meant that their continued ban on blacks was a religious issue, not a civil rights issue. So, they now wish to wave their hands and have everyone forget about the past.

    The men who lead the LDS church have taken an untenable position. They are forced to abandon what was once a clear doctrine, but in so doing they either must state the perfect church was wrong or ignore it all and hope it goes away. They have chosen the latter.

  8. honz1 says:

    I have always thought some of the worst of this despicable behavior was the leaderships statements in the D & C where God is the one who is behind the racist stand and not the leaders themselves. Yeah its God’s fault – thats the ticket…

  9. falcon says:

    I think it is like in the old days when American car manufacturers would produce a model that was a lemon. They’d have to just discontinue it and move on but it wasn’t unusual for the designers to get fired and the head of the division to get reassigned.
    The LDS church has a more serious problem though than just a lemon doctrine. And that problem is that the LDS church is suppose to be perfect and the leaders are supposed to be perfect. But alas we learn that they aren’t, the LDS folks will tell us. Than in the same breath they are. They are both a desert topping and a floor wax as the old Saturday Night comedy sketch would proclaim.
    Bottom line? When people want to believe something there is no distance they won’t travel emotionally to hold on to there belief.
    To the FLDS, the LDS are in apostasy for all of their changes in doctrine. To some early break-off followers of Joseph Smith, he was a fallen prophet. To all of the various sects of Mormonism, the other sects are all apostates.
    David Whitmer said in part:
    We do not indorse [sic] the teachings of any of the so-called Mormons or Latter Day Saints, which are in conflict with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as taught in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. They have departed a great measure from the faith of the CHURCH of CHRIST as it was first established, by heeding revelations given through Joseph Smith, who, after being called of God to translate his sacred word–the Book of Mormon–drifted into many errors and gave many revelations to introduce doctrines, ordinances and offices in the church, which are in conflict with Christ’s teachings. They also changed the name of the Church…On account of God giving to Joseph Smith the gift to translate the plates on which was engraven the Nephite scriptures, the people of the Church put too much trust in him–in the man–and believed his words as if they were from God’s own mouth. They have trusted in the arm of flesh…They looked to Joseph Smith as lawgiver, we look to Christ alone, and believe only in the religion of Jesus Christ and not in the religion of any man.
    http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-david-whitmer-on-joseph-smith-and-his-legacy/

  10. johnnyboy says:

    I would also like to add that it was just a year ago that the church claimed it had no idea how the doctrine of blacks and the priesthood got started. It was just one big mystery, apparently. Then this year it suddenly changed yet again.

    Back when they claimed ignorance, I was still a bit on the fence about Mormonism, and that was one of the things that pushed me over the edge. I realized that the Mormon church will say and do anything to save it’s own arse.

    This is being confirmed again with the new seminary manuals that were just released claiming that the Book of Abraham is not “autobiographical” and Joseph never claimed it was. This gives us a preview of what the next “essay” will be.

    My parents have no idea that their church is being changed right under their noses, while the younger generation of Mormons are quietly being taught new doctrine in seminary classes.

  11. johnnyboy says:

    @falcon

    My last comment didn’t go through but I was going to say how hilarious is it that David Whitmer was making the exact same points as everyone here on Mormon coffee!!

    He even notes that Mormons don’t even follow the Book of Mormon. Davey whit is my hero of the day.

  12. johnnyboy says:

    Too bad DW never had the Internet. I think the Late War would have made him change his tune about the divinity of the BoM

  13. Mike R says:

    The statement by David Whitmer that Falcon referenced is a good means to see where this
    Mormon teaching about Black skin/ curse / Negroes took root . It was the result of Joseph
    Smith side into apostasy , and Whitmer was in a key position to witness this . The result was
    that Smith succumbed to the same thing that he said infected all the other churches , namely
    ” they teach for doctrine the commandments of men ” . A recent Mormon church manual
    describes this type of behavior exhibited by early church officers that led to a great apostasy :
    ” Without revelation and priesthood authority , people relied on human wisdom to interpret
    the scriptures …..false ideas were taught as truth . ” [ Preach My Gospel , p. 35 ] .

    This is similar to what happened with Joseph Smith . He slowly drifted into introducing aberrant
    doctrines that his flock embraced them as gospel truth , and the root of the Mormon view of
    Black skin/curse etc begin with him — it only got worse with those that succeeded him and
    who he had personally mentored like Brigham Young , John Taylor etc .

    Bottom line : Mormon leaders have been great finger pointers , they have made it a main stay in
    their attack on all other churches to accuse them of not being reliable guides in important gospel
    truths . Yet , this issue with Negroes in Mormonism serves as a good example of how when they
    point a accusing finger at others , there are 4 fingers pointing back straight at them .

    [ Preach My Gospel , p 35 ] .

  14. falcon says:

    Understand, Joseph Smith was just a seat of his pants “prophet”. He’d get an idea from something he read or heard or experienced and make it part of his church. Then he’d toss it out if it fell apart and produce a new revelation why it didn’t work. He did that when he tried to sell the copyright to the BoM and again with his bank and also the experimentation with socialism.

    http://www.mrm.org/attempt-to-sell-copyright
    http://www.mrm.org/kirtland

  15. Mike R says:

    Sharon was correct when she said that this issue is a “passing the torch ” of a Mormon doctrine
    because it certainly was’nt a passing the torch of a true gospel doctrine . Mormon leaders would
    have people believe that their church is the very exact same church Jesus established 2000
    years ago , also with apostles He has picked and personally supervises their gospel preaching—
    the Mormon church is the ” restored ” church of Jesus Christ . But the evidence says otherwise ,
    and this issue of Negroes and Mormonism serves to expose Mormon leaders claims as clever
    advertising that has fooled many sincere people.

    As has been their m.o. for a long , long time , Mormon authorities have taught that all other
    churches are false , man made organizations and in fact constitute the church of the Devil .
    They’ve used a Book of Mormon scriptures in 1 Nephi 14 ( and also Rev . 17 ) to remind their
    followers of the uniqueness of their being members of the only true church of Jesus on the
    earth. This type of claim is not unique to Mormonism , other latter days false prophets have
    made similar claims , another of which is that God supposedly restored important gospel truths
    through them His prophet .
    This series on what Mormon leaders have taught about Negroes / black skin /curse of Cain etc
    which Lynn and Sharon have posted this month has played a important part in shinning the light
    of God’s Word in the Bible on the ” restored gospel ” of the latter days prophets of Mormonism ,
    and has exposed their ” restored ” gospel as one of many counterfeit gospels Paul said would
    come —Gal 1:8 . Mormon leaders did not restore the same gospel that Paul taught , they simply
    succumbed to altering that gospel by mixing in some of their own ideas to it and the resulting
    amalgamation was not the restored gospel , but rather a substituted gospel .
    This is the verdict one arrives at when the Mormon teaching about Negroes is examined under
    the spotlight of the true gospel of Jesus Christ in the New Testament .

    Thanks Lynn and Sharon for providing valuable information . May the Mormon people take
    it and find the time to follow the godly counsel of the apostle John and test their prophets
    teachings with God’s word —1 Jn 4: 1 .

  16. falcon says:

    When I had to discipline kids in school I would always ask myself, “Is this an isolated event or is this a pattern of behavior?”
    It’s very plain that what we see in the LDS church and Mormonism generally, is a pattern of behavior. That pattern is basically to proclaim a doctrine, a belief or a practice and then when it doesn’t make the grade any more, most often because of societal pressure, to drop it.
    The problem is that these things are suppose to be coming from the Mormon god via the conduit which is the Mormon prophet. That’s a problem when the doctrine, practice or belief is tossed in the recycle bin. Was the prophet wrong? Was the church wrong? Well that assumption has to be avoided at all cost.
    In this current example, the LDS leadership stands scratching their collective heads and while looking all bewildered mutter, “Man, WE don’t know where in the world THAT came from?” Now they get away with this among their own members because these false testimony driven folks will swallow anything the leadership says despite evidence to the contrary.
    The faithful Mormon doesn’t even care about these things (after all it happened a long time ago) and they don’t want their lives and emotional equilibrium upset.
    So while these leaders bear a lot of responsibility in this scheme, the rank-and-file have a responsibility also to ferret out the truth.
    All we’re talking about here is knowing who Jesus is and what He did for us and through which we receive God’s gift to us through faith.
    It’s worth looking into!

  17. falcon says:

    It makes you wonder, if the LDS church can dump polygamy and ban on the priesthood for blacks, two foundational doctrines of the faith, what else would they be willing to get rid of?

    Some how, and I don’t know how they did it, they let the doctrine of Adam-God which was also foundational doctrine, sort of just slip away. That happened, I think, without a whole lot of fan fare.
    Would the LDS church be willing to revisit their doctrine on the nature of God? They could sort of let this slip away also. One of the main features of Mormonism at this point is the “forever family” concept. They could probably keep that because it’s a favorite among the women members. But they could simply say that families will be reunited with God.
    The rest of it, men gods and women goddesses, procreating spirit children to populate your own planets, could very easily be said to be folklore; a sort of LDS Grimm’s fairy tale. You know, go with the standard, “We don’t know how that got started”, “It happened long ago”, “Joseph Smith was misunderstood”; the old tried and true LDS double fake.

  18. falcon says:

    It’s difficult for me to understand why someone would ignore the NT and go with a bunch of nimrods who claim to be prophets. Trusting in God’s Word over anyone is paramount to staying on track spiritually.
    Let me offer this to our Mormon readers.
    Jesus is the temple. Jesus is the priest. Jesus is the sacrifice.
    That’s the OT fulfilled in Christ. Jesus told His detractors to “Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days”. Hebrews points to Jesus as the qualified priest of the New Covenant. Jesus death and shedding of his blood as the perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God, is the central component in the atonement.
    In OT times, on the day of atonement, a sacrifice would be made and the priest would sprinkle the blood on the people. For that one day, their sins were forgiven. But now in Jesus our sins are continually forgiven as we are cleansed by the shed blood of His cross. If we walk in the light as He is in the light we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus (continually) cleanses us from unrighteousness, the Bible tells us.
    Receiving the gift of eternal life that God is offering us through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ was never meant to be difficult. Grace was never, however, meant to be cheap. Cheap grace is expressing faith in Jesus without true repentance. This is little more than intellectual assent. But on the other hand, we don’t have to be in the position of a type of repentance that requires us to be perfect. That’s the other end of the continuum and is just as false.
    To me, repentance is recognizing our sinful condition and coming humbly to God to the throne of grace asking Him to provide for us that which we cannot provide for ourselves.
    Waiting to over come all of our sinful proclivities before we come to Christ in faith is not the way to go. I’d still be waiting and trying to be perfect. I’m very aware of my sin nature. Thankfully God isn’t looking for me to be perfect but to have an awareness of His holiness and to ask for forgiveness when I sin.
    Today is the day of your salvation!

  19. Mike R says:

    Falcon, well put ! It’s all about Jesus . The Mormon people have truly been short changed ,
    fooled , by following latter days prophets who attempt to mimic the claims of Jesus’ apostles
    but whose teachings expose them as imitators , not sent by Jesus . This issue with the Negro
    is a text book example of that .
    The Mormon people deserve better . By dismissing their leaders and exchanging them for the
    true apostles appointed by Jesus they can be free to discover the true gospel which is in
    the New Testament .

  20. Jim Stiles says:

    I think that it is important to compare and contrast the words of two blacks who are in denominations with a racist history. The writings of Marcus Martins have been discussed on the podcast. The first black president of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), Fred Luter’s views are discussed in the following article.

    http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/from-street-preacher-to-sbc-leader-an-interview-with-fred-luter

    The difference between the two is that the LDS claim that their leaders speak for God. Nobody in the SBC claims that the SBC leaders speak for God outside of what has been written in scripture. The SBC escaped its racist past with a formal apology. The LDS can only escape its racist past by rejecting priesthood authority.

Leave a Reply