The Church of Unrepudiated Racism

Click for larger image

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

90 Responses to The Church of Unrepudiated Racism

  1. grindael says:

    These were not spokesman for God, they were evil thinking men, caught up in the self-aggrandizement teachings of Smith, going so far as to even twist those heretical teachings into further obscene depths. The fact that succeeding ‘prophets’ would not change this view, even in the light of evidence to the contrary, until forced to do so or be the laughingstocks of the world, shows how little the revelations of their own prophets meant to them.

    God favored people not because of works, but because of FAITH IN HIM. It has always been that way, and Jesus healing of the woman’s daughter shows this is true.

    The white boy club of SLC is ending, not because of anything revealed by God, but because of pressure from the world. It ended Smith’s phony claims to King of the World-ship with his death that he brought on himself, it ended their twisted practice of polygamy and the degradation of women, and it ended their racist doctrine against people of only a different skin color than they were, who dared to put that racist doctrine on God Himself.

    These men were too stupid to realize that all men are equal in intelligence and have the same potential to lead, govern, love, and excel. I was in California during the race riots of the 60’s. I saw young black men beat to death by whites. I saw firsthand what these racist hate-filled men do to those who they feel threatened by, but your ‘prophets’ took that prejudice to a whole new level, ascribing it to God himself. What arrogance.

    These so called ‘prophets’ are not excused by the lame argument ‘well they were only a product of their times’, because the teachings of God transcend time, as shown by God Himself when he came down to teach us, something these men never grasped and are still denying by their silent acclimation of the racist, hate-filled diatribes of Brigham Young and ilk like him who had the nerve to say they spoke, and still speak for God.

  2. grindael says:

    came across a Mormon Fair Wiki Article that tried to explain why, even though in the BOM it says Lehi was a descendent of Manasseh, (Alma 10:3) that the Stick of EPHRIAM mentioned in Ezekial 37 still could be the Book of Mormon. If Lehi was not a descendent of EPHRIAM, I wondered how can it be a record of Ephriam’s descendents, when it is actually a record of Manasseh’s descendents? Their answer:

    “So what does the Book of Mormon have to do with the reunification of Israel and how does Lehi, descendant of Manasseh, fit into a prophecy of a “stick of Ephraim”?

    “Since the Book of Mormon makes clear that Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, brother of Ephraim (Alma 10:3), it is less than straight forward to identify it as the “stick of Ephraim”. Nevertheless some LDS general authorities have made such an attempt. Orson Pratt claimed another ancestor of the Book of Mormon peoples, Ishmael, was an Ephraimite in 1850. The late reminiscences of Franklin D. Richards and Erastus Snow attributed this teaching to Joseph Smith and the missing 116 pages. Joseph Fielding Smith additionally emphasized that Joseph Smith was a descendant of Ephraim and noted that this fits well with the alternative phrasing found in v. 19 of “the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim.”

    “For Latter-day Saints this is an example of “likening the scriptures unto ourselves,” as Nephi suggested (1 Nephi 19:23). The Book of Mormon is the restoration scripture for modern-day Ephraim—the people of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—and a message that they take to the world so that Israel may be gathered a final time in preparation for the second coming of the Lord.

    Although Ezekiel was speaking directly of reunification, Latter-day Saints have applied their own modern application of this passage as it relates to the Book of Mormon’s role in the restoration of the gospel and the gathering of Israel.”…ick_of_Ephraim

    Now this from the Book of Abraham:

    “Now Pharaoh, being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood, notwithstanding … would fain claim it from Noah through Ham … [Noah] blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and … wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the priesthood.” -Pearl of Great Price, Abr. 1:26-27

  3. grindael says:

    The Bible says that Ephriam and Manasseh were both descended from the line of Pharaohs that could not hold the Priesthood:

    “ASENATH [AS ih nath] the Egyptian wife of Joseph and the mother of Manasseh and Ephraim (Genesis 41:45; 46:20). Asenath was the daughter of Poti-Pherah, priest of On. Pharaoh himself may have arranged the marriage between Joseph and Asenath to help Joseph adjust to life in Egypt” (Nelsons Bible Dictionary – Asenath)

    How could the Nephites then hold the Priesthood when the BOA says anyone from that lineage is disqualified by commandment from God?

    So, is the BOM correct, that they descended from Manasseh, or are the GA’s opinions true, which are not supported in LDS scripture? How does this sit with the many opinions regarding the LGT? If the same GA’s were wrong about that, how can the claims about Ephraim be correct? Fair discounts Pratt’s claims on HGT, but use his ‘opinions’ to help support the claims about Ephraim. Seems a double-standard to me.

    Also, if Lehi was a descendent of Manasseh, then how could he hold the Priesthood, since he would have the tainted blood of the Pharaohs?

    For that matter, how could Smith himself not be disqualified under the same terms since he was a descendant of Ephraim?


    “…No one known to have in his veins negro blood, (it matters not how remote a degree) can either have the priesthood in any degree or the blessings of the temple of God; no matter how otherwise worthy he may be” (“Extract from George F. Richards’ Record of Decisions by the Council of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles,” in the GAS papers).

    You see how ridiculous all of this is? There is no mythical Priesthood, we have one High Priest: Jesus Christ, and through Him we all are saved.

  4. iamse7en says:


    I will say your supposed contradiction doesn’t exist. First, BY said “When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood” – not when they all receive the priesthood. So that makes your string of arguments quite invalid. Secondly, concerning the supposed “pickle.” According to LDS “mythology,” everyone gets resurrection or salvation from physical death, but not all get salvation from spiritual death, due to agency. Then, BY wasn’t the first to make those decrees – in his mind, he was merely re-stating the doctrine as taught in the LDS Book of Moses – that Cain was cursed (or separated from God), and therefore his posterity would also be separated from God, or cursed, and that Ham continues that lineage with his wife, Egyptus. This curse was “active” long before BY decreed it. A prophet doesn’t curse people. The Lord does. BY denied the Atonement? Such faulty and incoherent logic.

    Also, we can’t possibly know what BY really means by his statements of when the curse would be removed – the point is that he said the curse WOULD be removed, contrary to your argument that LDS prophets said it never would – and for certain, at least, we can say that all others would have the privilege of receiving the gospel and priesthood blessings BEFORE the lineage of Cain/Ham. In other words, they would be the last group to finally be given the privilege. And that seems to be the case.

    And Olsen Jim makes the excellent point here. You guys are all bent out of shape for Mormons limiting who they extend the blessings of their gospel to. Jesus Christ also limited the blessings of the Gospel. “Go not into the way of the Gentiles” and “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Yes there were exceptions – daughter of the Gentile or Elijah Abel – but the point is, if Mormons are racists for excluding their gospel blessings to a group of people, then Christ is also a racist for doing the same to Gentiles.

  5. grindael says:

    Mormons calling Jesus a racist to justify their own racist doctrines. Now I’ve heard it all.

  6. iamse7en says:

    “Mormons calling Jesus a racist to justify their own racist doctrines. Now I’ve heard it all.”

    I’m not sure why I even bother. I’m not calling Jesus a racist – my point is effectively, YOU ARE! Why did Jesus say ““Go not into the way of the Gentiles” and “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel?” Why did it take the a vision and a voice from heaven to tell Peter he should start teaching Gentiles? IF you say Mormons are racist for excluding gospel privileges for a period of time, then you must say Jesus is a racist because he did the SAME THING.

  7. grindael says:

    Jesus did not do the same thing. That is the point. Mormons even making the inference is revolting. Jesus, when presented with the womans FAITH, waived the requirement, because SHE HAD FAITH. The Mormon Church, even with the pleading of Jane Manning to let her go to the temple, even with believing in Mormonism with all her her life, was still banned, and a proxy stood in for her while she was sealed to Smith as a SERVANT FOR ETERNITY. Her Faith to Mormons amounted to NOTHING. All they saw was the color of her skin. Jesus saw into peoples hearts. You know the answer why Peter needed the boost, but I won’t try to explain it to those that it will fall on deaf ears. Prophets that don’t prophecy, seers that don’t see, and revelators that reveal …nothing.

  8. falcon says:

    Man these Mormons really must want to believe Mormonism! To deny the obvious? To rationalize the overt racism, in words and deeds, of their leaders? And finally, to try and pin racism on Jesus? Of course if you believe you are receiving revelation from God, then Jesus has to be made into a racist to reinforce the teachings of the false Mormon prophets. I don’t get it! What a spiritual hook the prince of darkness must have in these people. Have they no integrity what-so-ever?
    Mormonism really does have the effect of making some of these people totally goofy. Yea, I know, this is really deep spiritual stuff that only the truly enlightened and hyper-spiritual person can grasp; to the point that even racism is justified.
    There are so many points along the way that a person can see the total spiritual and moral bankruptcy and falseness of the Mormon revelation, yet these folks fight like a drowning man who cannot swim, to stay afloat.
    It’s time Mormons to give it up and admit your revelation is a false one and seek God, His mercy, forgiveness and love.

  9. Olsen Jim says:

    Grindael said: “God made a covenant with Abraham and honored it. He did not ‘exclude’ the Gentiles, only delayed the preaching of the Gospel to them, to fulfill his promise to his chosen people, who he made the promise to not because of some phony works explanation but because of their FAITH IN GOD.”

    Amen, brother.

    In this argument, it doesn’t matter if it was a result of faith, works, or because a particular group sharing the same lineage wore boots with red stripes, there was a “delay” in the time when they could have the blessings of the gospel. God knows all the whys and hows.

    Bottom line- God has in the past “delayed” when groups of people with a particular ancestry could receive what other people were favored with up front.

    Like so many reasons you all have for not accepting modern prophets, you insist on understanding the whys yourself- even while accepting ancient prophets who could be rejected for the very same reasons you reject modern prophets.

    You cannot refute that non-Levites were not given the priesthood duties associated with the temple.

    You cannot refute that Christ was preferentially sent to those who descended from Jacob/Israel, not gentiles.

    You have not attempted to address the favoritism I pointed out before that is so fundamental to your theology- that God sends some people to hell while saving others for absolutely no obvious reason that we can determine. Some people are simply created on this earth in a position that will never allow them to be converted to Christ. If that is not favoritism, I really do not know what is.

    Any objective thinker can see the double standard EVs on this thread are attempting to apply to this topic. You can quote what you think are racist statements and stories all you want to distract from the logical conclusion that the modern “delay” was no different in principle than that practiced in ancient times.

    It has always been so much easier to accept a dead prophet than a living prophet.

  10. iamse7en says:

    Well said, Olsen Jim.

  11. mobaby says:


    I will ask again – given your defense of Brigham Young’s racist sermons, I take it you would have no problem arriving at the local Ward to hear the speaker expounding on Young’s “Scriptural” doctrines? Do you think the non-anglo members would be just as enthused as you?

    To prove your analogy a complete falsehood, I would have no problem arriving at Church to hear a sermon relative to the Aaronic/Levitical and how Christ is our final prophet and high priest, and serves in that role to this day.

    Furthermore, I guess Mormons believe the prohibition of black folks becoming full participants in “Christianity” actually dates from the first century, was restored by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young for a few years, and then revoked? So when Peter appeared to the Ethiopian Eunuch, I suppose he went on to tell him how he was not worthy to go to the temple and do the proper temple works to go to God the Father because he was rebellious in his pre-mortal existence and under a curse (as can plainly be seen)? And exactly how does this not explicitly contradict the commandment to share the gospel with everyone everywhere? I will tell you how – I know and you know that did not happen. This is a Mormon prophet farce.

  12. falcon says:

    Whoa there boy!
    Who says we don’t accept modern prophets? I accept them, but I don’t accept false prophets. I stand by Ephesians 4:11-12 and First Corinthians 12:7-12 and First Corinthians 12:28 as the Biblical standard. First Corinthians 14:27-32 gives specific instruction on the utilization of the gift of prophesy.
    The problem is that Mormonism breeds not only false prophets but full fledged weirdos. It doesn’t take too much discernment to determine that these Mormon prophets were totally off the wall. Not only do their prophecies, as in foretelling, not come to fruition but what they proclaim in the form of exhortation, is in total opposition to the Biblical standard. Starting with Smith right on to today, Mormons accept what these phonies say based on feelings and desire mistaking emotionalism for truth.
    As we see with our discussion here, Mormons are incapable of seeing what is so clear and apparent. There prophets, modern and alive and/or dead are all spiritually dead.

  13. falcon says:

    In Christianity God, through the Holy Spirit, distributes his gifts as to His sovereign will; First Corinthians 12:4-7. In the false religious system of Mormonism, prophets become prophets through church politics. These guys work their way up through the system until they make it to the top of the pile. It really doesn’t matter how they get there because it’s all a man-made system and the hierarchy is based on some form of earned merit.
    In the old days it also helped to have a fruitful imagination and a lot of confidence. These Mormon prophets didn’t let the Bible get in the way of their creativity. In fact, the stage for deception was set in Mormonism when Smith declared the Bible to be unreliable. From then on it was Katty bar the door because Smith and the rest of the false prophets didn’t have to submit themselves to any form of standard. They’d just declare something “new” and the faithful ate it up.
    Man what a free ticket these dudes had and have. They can flip and flop and change course in mid-step and the TBMs just jump up and declare a holiday. In order to be a good Mormon, a person just accepts whatever comes flowing out of the sewer pipe in LDS headquarters in Salt Lake City and repeat the well worn phrases; “When the prophet speaks, the thinking is over.” and “Follow the leaders, they’ll never lead you astray.
    Blind leading the blind!

  14. iamse7en says:

    In Christianity God, through the Holy Spirit, distributes his gifts as to His sovereign will; First Corinthians 12:4-7. In the false religious system of Mormonism, prophets become prophets through church politics.

    And casting lots is done by the Spirit to assure God is the one making the call?

    And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

    In the LDS Church, leaders are instructed to pray and seek revelation to receive guidance on who to call to a position. You may say it’s all politics, but then you’d deny that any Mormon can receive revelation or light from God. Would you prefer we cast lots?

  15. Mike R says:

    I think Grindael has shown that we cannot take
    Mormon leaders as trust worthy guides when it
    comes to important scriptural truths. To take
    the simple words of Jesus in Mark 16:15, and make
    such a mess at what He wants His followers to do
    is so unfortunate. To hear a Mormon Gen.Authority
    say that ” the Gospel message of salvation is not
    carried affirmatively to them…” is such an
    afront to what the New Testament churchs’ mission
    is about.

    O.J. has attempted to find a parallel with what
    Mormon leaders have taught about the denial of
    negroes from the Mormon priesthood and with
    some things that Jesus said in the New testament.
    In using the word “favor” and “delay” to describe
    God’s dealings certain people(s), I think a read-
    ing of the new testament does’nt agree in context
    with Mormon history. It’s not a delay on God’s
    part that is the point, it’s the reason for any
    delay. When I look at Mormon history and compare
    the Mormon doctrine of priesthood denial to negroes it is’nt a “delay” that’s the point to
    consider, rather, it’s the confusion.That’s the
    point to be considered. A brief example:

    No negroe held the priesthood in the original
    Christian church. [ N.Eldon Tanner,interview in
    Seattle Mag.12-1967,p.60 ]

    1830 – 1849 ? Negroes permitted the priesthood.
    1849 – 1978 Negroes denied the priesthood.
    1978- present Negroes permitted the priesthood.

    As for God’s “favoritism”, as seen in the life
    of the New Testament Church, does O.J.’s inter-
    pretation of this term fit the picture? Perhaps
    a quick review of Mormon teachings from God thru
    His prophet will clear this up:

    Brigham Young did his people a “favor” by telling
    them the law of God respecting the African race:
    i.e. death on the spot for marrying a Negroe !
    Also God’s prophet did his people another “favor”
    by warning them of some class of the human race
    that are “uncouth”, low in their habits”, and
    “deprived of nearly all the blessings

  16. falcon says:

    The falcon will be out of town for a week so I won’t be posting.
    Blessings to all.

  17. iamse7en says:

    Mike R:

    Concerning the “death on the spot” for mixing seed with that of Cain/Canaan/Ham/etc – you do realize that that law was first pronounced by God in the Old Testament, right? Brigham Young was only re-stating the law that he believed was an eternal one (like, say, Sabbath day worship – not a temporary one as part of the Law of Moses which would later be fulfilled/replaced, like animal sacrifice). And Brigham Young didn’t actually live by that law – he did not order the killings of anybody that did intermarry with the seed of Cain – but Moses did. Israelites killed entire legions of people at the command of God.

    Get to the basics. You can’t possibly void Mormonism by saying Brigham Young was racist. There is favoritism for and against races/lineages all throughout the Bible, even practiced by Jesus himself (as OJ has already so eloquently explained concerning the Gentiles). Critics of mormonism in Moses’ day could have said that Moses was a murderer, therefore he’s not a prophet. But you would say that it’s not true – because he was commanded by God. You can say that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young is not a prophet because of their racism or preferential treatment, but we would say they were guided by God. There are much better ways to try and void our Leaders’ prophetic legitimacy – the Racism card is just so ludicrous and trivial compared to the “awful” things God commanded leaders like Moses to do. At least you would deem them awful if you didn’t believe Moses was a prophet. My point is, all our doctrines are backed up by scripture – even the practices you deem so awful and evil (polygamy, or exclusion of priesthood to certain groups) were practiced by our faithful, ancient prophets in the Bible.

    Get real.

  18. Mike R says:


    of the intelligence that is generally bestowed
    upon mankind”. He was referring to, “You see
    some classes of the human family who are black…”

    Speaking of God showing “favors” in the New Test-
    ament time, we read where Mormon leaders taught
    that He even did His spriit Son, Jesus, a “favor”.

    “When the time came that His first-born, the Savior should comeinto the world and take a
    tabernacle, the Father came Himself and FAVORED
    that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting
    any other man do it.” [ B.Y. Jof D v.4 p.218 ]

    We don’t need to hear from non-LDS on what this
    doctrine of Mormon prophets is concerning the
    black race, we can hear from Mormons themselves.
    Prof.Armand Mauss has rightly put this doctrine
    in perspective when he called it a “dubious
    doctrine” which was “contrived” to try and explain
    a Church policy.

    Lastly, since the Mormon prophet is said to…
    “teach truth and interprets the word of God.”
    [Gospel Principles,1997, p.47 ] an example of
    this in connection with this doctrine will be
    useful. Notice the use of Genesis 1 and Heb.1

    ” Some, however, will argue that a black skin is
    not a curse, nor a white skin a blessing. In fact,
    some have been so foolish as to believe and say
    that a black skin is a blessing and that the negroe is the finest type of a perfect man that
    exists on the earth, but to us such teachings are
    foolishness. We understand that when God made man
    in his own image and pronounced him very good, that He made him white.We have no record of any
    of God’s favored servants being of a black race,\.
    All His prophets and apostles belonged to the most
    handsome race on the face of the earth — Israel
    …..In this race was born Jesus who we are told
    was very lovely and,’ in the express image of His
    Father’s person’, and every angel who ever brought
    a message of God’s mercy to man was beautiful to
    look upon, clad in the purest white…”
    [Juvenile Instructor,Oct 1868 ]

  19. liv4jc says:

    Im7, I think you’re wrong. Having the privilege of receiving the priesthood is not the same as having the privilege of the opportunity to receive the priesthood. It depends how you read that statement, and either way, not all of Abel’s seed have had the privilege of receiving the priesthood any way you cut it. What we’re doing here is typical Mormon rabbit trail chasing. As usual, it’s impossible for you to defend your prophets, and as usual the most offensive prophet is Brigham Young. So you deflect the issue somewhere else to take the spotlight off of your false prophet and his statements that I hope are shocking to any Christian. Brigham Young was a racist ruled by his hatred of those he felt were inferior, and that racism is still present in the parents of the LDS people I know today. Any former or current Mormon raised in the church can testify that church doctrine teaches that blacks are inferior based upon their performance in the pre-existence. It’s part of LDS culture. There was nothing saintly about BY. Stand on the street corner and declare that any white man who marries a black woman should have his head cut off. Can you do that? Then why would you ever defend such horrible statements made by one of your prophets? I think it’s disgusting the way you ignore the plain meaning of the words of a bigot and then compare them to God’s command to Israel to separate from the pagan nations surrounding them. There is a huge difference. Blacks in America were not part of a pagan nation at odds with God’s holiness. And for your information the Book of Abraham is a hoax. Don’t rely on it for your spiritual edification.

  20. Okie says:

    I am reading a book “Twelve Ordinary Men” by John MacArthur. It gives a description of who the 12 were and their station in Jewish life. In today’s standard they would be considered lower class,uneducated,political radicals. In other words the lowest of the low. But Jesus chose such men to establish his Church,the body of Christ.One betrayed him and one one was ‘born out of time’ (Paul). The day Jesus died they all ran and Peter denied him. But the Host Spirit on the day of Pentecost changed everyone of them when the Holy Spirit came and took up residence in them. And as far as we know only John died a natural death, the others were martyred for the Gospel. So compare the Apostles of Jesus and the apostles of the Mormon church. Not many fishermen or carpenters in the LDS apostles.
    Grace and Peace

  21. iamse7en says:

    liv4j. said:

    There was nothing saintly about BY. Stand on the street corner and declare that any white man who marries a black woman should have his head cut off. Can you do that!
    Then why would you ever defend such horrible statements made by one of your prophets?

    But you’re ignoring a larger issue here. What is worse? Standing on the street corner and repeating the same law revealed to the Israelites in the OT – that is, any person mixing with seed with of Cain/Canaan/etc should sutter death – then not doing anything about it, that is, not enforcing it – never ordering it – never killing anyone.

    VERSUS… Moses, who preached that same principle, and actually practiced it. The Israelites practiced it… They murdered
    people who married those of the seed of Canaan. Murdered entire legions of people for it. How can you defend Moses? How How can you say BY is no saintly man for preaching, but not
    practicing, this law, then say Moses is saintly for preaching and practicing this law.

    AIe you ready to declare Moses a racist and a murderer? I’m sorry but your argument is bleeding with hypocrisy.

  22. iamse7en says:

    liv4jc said:

    There was nothing saintly about BY. Stand on the street corner and declare that any white man who marries a black woman should have his head cut off. Can you do that! Then why would you ever defend such horrible statements made by one of your prophets?

    But you’re ignoring a larger issue here. What is worse? Standing on the street corner and repeating the same law revealed to the Israelites in the OT – that is, any person mixing with seed with of Cain/Canaan/etc should suffer death – then not doing anything about it, that is, not enforcing it – never ordering it – never killing anyone.

    VERSUS… Moses, who preached that same principle, and actually practiced it. The Israelites practiced it… They murdered people who married those of the seed of Canaan. Murdered entire legions of people for it. How can you defend Moses? How How can you say BY is no saintly man for preaching, but not practicing, this law, then say Moses is saintly for preaching and practicing this law.

    Are you ready to declare Moses a racist and a murderer? I’m sorry but your argument is bleeding with hypocrisy.

    My internet cut out – please remove above comment. Thx.

  23. I keep reading the phrase “seed of Cain” in Mormon posts.

    I can’t find the phrase anywhere in the Genesis narrative. Where does it come from?

    The closest the narrative gets is in Gen 4:25, but that only refers to the provision of Seth as a “replacement” for Cain.

    The Mormonism of BY and co. attempts to interpret Gen 4 as a literal mandate for its dogma that blacks are inferior to whites (grindael did an thoro job in demonstrating that from their doctrines). On a broader note, I find this more than faintly ridiculous;

    1 There’s the Mormon escape route of “not translated correctly” (AoF8). How do we know that our versions of Gen 4 are telling the story truthfully? Why base your doctrines/opinions on something that could be completely wrong?

    2 How do you get from a curse on Cain to a curse on his descendants?

    3 How do you know that blacks are Cain’s descendants?

    4 Imposing this viewpoint on Gen 4 misses the point of what it is trying to say.

    If the purpose of Gen 4 was to pinpoint the divergence between one (genetic) race and another, then surely the story-teller should have taken more care to resolve some rather obvious paradoxes (Who were the people that Cain was protected from? How can he become a wanderer and then settle in a city? What became of his descendants during the Flood?).

    It makes far more sense to read the story in the context of “this is what happens when you murder your brother”. The dynamics of sin, judgment, exile, God’s providential protection (even to murderers), and God’s faithfulness to humanity then play their parts as they should.

    Forget the racism angle on Gen 4. It’s not about race.

  24. jackg says:


    Have a great time doing whatever you’re doing!!


    You said in reference to what OJ has been saying: “You guys are all bent out of shape for Mormons limiting who they extend the blessings of their gospel to. Jesus Christ also limited the blessings of the Gospel.”

    I think you do an excellent job here of distinguishing between Mormon gospel and Christ’s gospel. They are different, and I’m glad to see that you can acknowledge that. As usual, OJ merely shows that he does not truly grasp the biblical text, and eisegetes the biblical text to support a false doctrine of Mormonism. What I fail to understand is why Mormons defer to the Bible when it’s not truly authoritative for them. In one breath you want to relegate it to an unfaithful manuscript; in the next breath you want to use it to support an argument. You really can’t have it both ways.

    The Israelites were called to be a nation of servants, because they believed in the true and living God, while the nations around them followed after false gods. This is not a delay as OJ would want us to believe; to assert such is a ridiculous eisegetical fallacy. This is just the natural course of things. The issue with blacks and the priesthood was abolutely racial, and racism is the product of the Devil.

    So, it seems that you are comfortable in championing someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, which is indeed your prerogative. I just pray that you will trust in the living God and the Word He has revealed to us, which we call the Bible.

    Praying for you…

  25. liv4jc says:

    Im7, your LDS bias in biblical interpretation is apparent. First of all, why would I call Moses a racist or a murderer? I would just as soon call my God a racist and a murderer for it was He who gave those commandments to Moses, Joshua, etc. The bible stands on its own, and while you see God as being a racist murderer for commanding the Israelites (actually He first commanded Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to not mingle with the idolotrous pagan nations that surrounded them) to separate themselves from their pagan neighbors and to utterly destroy those who were inhabiting the Promised Land, I see it as a sign from God that His people are to be holy and set apart from the world. The nations that God ordered Israel to destroy were living in a manner that was an abomination to God. Destruction at the hand of God by the Israelites was judgment by God for their pagan practices. Read Deuteronomy 7. Don’t judge me because I understand God’s word, judge God if you feel you must. If Israel did not wipe them out then their idolotrous practices would creep in and infect the nation. Read Leviticus 18-20 and Leviticus 26. Temporal blessings were given to Israel for obedience to God’s commandments and punishment was due for transgression. All of the judgments in Leviticus 26 came to pass because Israel did not obey God, just like all of us deserve punishment because we have not obeyed God. Tell me where God says that people with black skin are deserving of His punishment because they belong to a pagan, idolotrous race that will infect our holy whiteness. You have no ground to stand on. Your are throwing your LDS bias into your interpretation of the bible. Read it for what it says, not what your uneducated prophets, apostles, stake presidents, and bishops have told you. Brigham Young’s statements are modern and have no correlation to the words of God commanding Moses and Joshua regarding Israel inheriting the Promised Land, which are the commandments your previous posts referred to.

  26. Mike R says:


    Concerning Brigham Young’s(BY) teaching that the
    law of God for marrying a Negroe was to be “death
    on the spot.” You said,

    ” B.Y. was only re-stating the law that he
    believed was an eternal one,…not a tempary

    There’s the problem.B.Y. failing in his duty to
    correctly interpret the place of the O.T law in
    these times. He was confused. I’m glad you said
    that he did’nt live by that law, that he did’nt
    order the killings of anybody that did inter-marry etc.So I guess we can just dismiss his
    prophetic guidance when he taught that if some
    one did inter-marry, that then he would’nt kill
    them on the spot, God would ! (I’m sure that made
    the people relax ).

    Mormon leaders well into the 20th Century were still faithful to Moses and to Brigham in respect
    to the evil of inter-marriage with Blacks.Mormon
    males were taught that their children would be
    cursed as to the priesthood.Still stuck in the O.T

    You said, ” You can say that Joseph Smith(J.S.)
    or B.Y. is not a prophet because of their racism
    or preferential treatment, but we would say they
    are guided by God.”

    B.Y. was a false prophet/teacher on a lot more
    doctrines then just the Blacks and the priesthood
    issue. He may have been guided by God on some
    things, but not on the things that really count,
    like one’s relationship to the true God. This
    was never more evident than with his “counsel”
    concerning Blacks, since no priesthood meant no
    access to the temple endowment ceremony etc (I’m
    not so sure a Black person would have had a
    positive experience since was’nt the devil in the
    ceremony cast with black skin? )

    You said, ” Get to the basics.You can’t possibly
    void Mormonism by saying B.Y. was a

    I’m glad you used the word “MormonISM”, since it,
    and not Mormons, is the issue.Was B.Y. a racist?
    Well, what did he, and those he mentored teach
    about a black skin/race? Did they obey Matt.28:19

  27. Olsen Jim says:


    Rhetoric is great, but can you show me how I am wrong?

    1. Only Levites could hold the Priesthood under the law of Moses.

    2. Christ was sent to preach to those of Israelite descent, not to the gentiles.

    Please show me from your superior “biblical understanding” that either of these claims is wrong.

    You cannot. I am not supporting modern revelation on blacks. I am showing two ancient precedents where God similarly limited blessings extended to certain ethnic groups.

    Nothing uttered here has countered these points. It is all rhetoric and personal opinions from people who think the LDS church was/is racist.

  28. liv4jc says:

    God limited blessings to the Jews, but He never limited non-Jews from coming to Him as can be seen by the proseltizing done by the Jews. Furthermore, Jesus was sent to Israel first, but both the OT and Jesus knew that the gospel would be open to all. Jeremiah 31:33 is re-iterated in Hebrews 8, which I pointed out earlier and prophecies from Hosea concerning those that were not God’s people becoming God’s people were also used by both Peter and Paul. In John 10:16 Jesus says that He has sheep not of “this” fold that He must also bring with Him. He is not referring to the native Americans of the BoM, but to Gentiles. In John 12:20 some Greek converts who were in Jerusalem to worship at the feast wanted to see Jesus. When told this by his disciples Jesus tells them that the hour for His glorification had come. After a short discourse He says, “if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” This is looking forward to the time when the gospel would be available to all men (actually since salvation has always been by grace through faith God chose people throughout time that were not Jews. Rahab for instance, and possible Naaman, Nebuchadnezzar, etc.). Since those who are saved through the message of the true gospel become priests to God (1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6, 5:10, and 20:6) they don’t need the sham restored LDS priesthood. Since Christ died almost two thousand years before Brigham Young, I’m pretty sure that blacks who were called to salvation by God’s grace are included in that group.

  29. jackg says:


    With all due respect, I am failing to see how you tie in the biblical examples you give with the teachings of false prophets that Blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood because of their skin color, which is the product of their choices in the premortal existence (according to Mormonism). Also, if we were to run your examples to the logical conclusion, how is it you think that you have the same priesthood as the Levites. Within the context of the biblical story, God chose a tribe that would be in charge of temple sacrifices. This act by God does not support what you are trying to espouse, which is that God delays blessings from one people simply because He is arbitrary and capricious. God sees us as those who believe and those who do not; trying to make Him one who prejudges and acts based on ethnicity is, again, a Mormon spin on things in order to support racial views and doctrines. BTW, trying to demean me in your sarcastic way doesn’t phase me. I am ready to admit that there are more knowledgeable people on this blog site with regard to the biblical text. I’m sure someone will jump in and say what I’m unable to say and in a more cogent manner than I. I’m just a part of the Body of Christ offering what God has gifted me to offer. BTW, you never answered me on the other thread if you actually knew my gifting. It just might be the gifting of a prophet. 🙂

    Praying for you…

  30. jackg says:


    I almost forgot. You keep refering to the priesthood the Levites held as a blessing. I see it as a role. I wonder if any non-Mormons see it the way you do. I don’t know; they just might. It would be important, I think, to establish a shared premise regarding this. It might change your perspective and enlighten you to the racism Mormonism has historically espoused. After all, if the priesthood is a blessing, then you’re talking about a god who wants to withhold blessings from one group. Your idea of delay doesn’t seem to be congruent with the biblical text. Just a thought…

    Also, regarding your comment #2: once again, it was the role of the Israelites to bless the nations around them and show them that they believed in the true and living God. This is why Jesus went to them first. It was still their calling to do that. But, they rejected Him and had him crucified. After His resurrection, the work of bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles began, and was led by a band of Israelites before it became the work of the entire nation of believers, a priesthood of believers (fulfilling the role of the Israelites), to proclaim to the world that they believed in the true and living God, and to preach repentance and discipleship. That’s why we come on this blog site and engage with Mormons. It’s the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise.


  31. iamse7en says:


    You keep refering to the priesthood the Levites held as a blessing. I see it as a role.

    Uh. Exactly. Priesthood is a role. Now there are blessings that come from Priesthood usage, but this essentially meant that blacks couldn’t bless and pass the sacrament, baptize, confirm, etc. Temples around the world, at that time, were very scarce – most couldn’t go to the Temple anyways, but priesthood is a role. But this role can translate into blessings, as I’m sure many of the Levites experienced.

    Another question – if our priesthood “power” is just a sham, something Joseph Smith just made up – then why in the world do you care whether we don’t give this false sham to certain members of our church? We discriminate on basis of sex as well – women may not hold the priesthood… yet.

    I think OJ and I have made our points – It’s quite clear God gave preferential treatment to the covenant race, and other races were not as fortunate. You can call us racists and sexists for limiting our roles on the basis of race, sex, and even religion (e.g. wedding ceremony attendance), but the Lord did the same in the Bible. And prophets of the Lord have done much “worse” than racism – as I’ve stated before with regards to Israelites killing their own who married anyone from the seed of Canaan… But it was not wrong – it was commanded of God. That is our argument here. We don’t know why exactly – some have speculated it’s pre-existent obedience – but it was commanded of God.

  32. setfree says:

    wow, no wonder you guys aren’t Christians

  33. jackg says:


    I appreciate your civility. I do find your comment, “women may not hold the priesthood… yet.” a bit procovative for a Mormon. 🙂

    I guess we could go in circles on this. We don’t agree with each other, and that’s why we’re on this blog site. I do understand why you and OJ say what you do because I used to say the same things and use the same arguments. I, too, found it hard to accept the fact that Christ set up a priesthood of believers and, therefore, we who are Christians are all priesthood holders. We have been gifted differently, and that’s because the Holy Spirit ministers through us as He pleases. The idea that the LDS Church has a “true” priesthood doesn’t stand up against the New Testament teachings regarding priesthood. Peter does a beautiful job to make this clear.


  34. setfree says:

    Personally, I believe Mormon “priesthood” would have been better named “priestcraft”.

    I’ve been looking at a sermon/lecture/paper done by Joseph Smith in the History of the Church. What is scary and odd about it is that he sees the “priesthood” as the thing that allows people to control evil spirits. In fact, he pretty much makes it clear that it takes the “spirit of God to know the things of God”, in exactly the same way as it takes the priesthood to know the things of Satan. Pretty interesting stuff.

    Plus, it fits in perfectly with Joe’s problem with the spirits that were protecting the “slippery” treasure buried all over his part of NY.

    What it DOESN’T do is fit in with the Bible idea of “priesthood”

    See, the suffix “hood” in the Biblical priesthood amounts to the same definition as “hood” works in “Fatherhood” or “Motherhood”. The “hood” is the “office of” or “responsibilities of” or “the things that go along with being” a priest. And what is a priest, but a person who represents the people to God. Biblical priesthood is not a magic-like power, not a “force”, just a job and all the requirements and expectations and rules that go with it.

    I would agree with jackg. I don’t see the Aaronic priesthood as a “blessing” bestowed on valiant/special/righteous people. I wonder how much the Levitical priests enjoyed wearing the robes, carrying the ark, doing the sacrifices, the additional pressure to be righteous, etc etc etc. Course I guess it meant free room and board, and not having to go off to war, and getting to see God’s glory…

    Obviously none of that is Mormon-Aaronic priesthood-like of course.

    And Mel. Priesthood – is there a Mormon in heaven today standing as our High Priest, having accomplished the necessary priest stuff and then having sat down? Nope, only one necessary M. Priest. So, we’re back to Joe Smith and his M. Priestcraft, bearing no resemblance to the Biblical version at all (but, of course, just to Freemasonry/witchcraft)

  35. setfree says:

    a good article on Biblical verses Mormon priesthoods is here:

  36. grindael says:

    I found this gem by Steve Benson, grandson of Ezra Taft Benson:

    Pathetically pointing out that, gosh, lots of other churches were racist, too.

    Well, so much, then, for a “latter-day living prophet of God ” who, despite a supposed pipeline to heaven, just couldn’t overcome societal bigotry here on earth to offer unconditional godly love and equality to black people.

    Mormon munchkin Ken Jennings makes this absolutely laughable “argument” in a whiny, whimpering, woe-is-me, wail of a skin pale tale:
    “It’s true that, prior to 1978, blacks could not be ordained to the Mormon priesthood. But here, too, a more nuanced view is helpful. Joseph Smith is now known to have ordained African-American men in the 1830s and 1840s. The prohibition evolved in later decades, propped up by a series of racist folk doctrines.

    “Mormons were relieved when those teachings were repudiated. (It adds context but little comfort to note that other major U.S. denominations had racist and segregationist dogma on their books until the 1970s as well.)”

    That’s one hell of a defense there, Brother Jennings: The bigots made me do it.

    Thursday, Dec 20, 2007, at 06:19 AM
    Author: Steve Benson

  37. iamse7en says:

    jackg wrote:

    I do find your comment, “women may not hold the priesthood… yet.” a bit procovative for a Mormon.

    To clarify, I did not mean that the Church would need to change based on politics, or that women would eventually receive the Priesthood as mortals. I was merely referring to a faithful woman’s future state: becoming a queen and priestess. I think any faithful, temple-attending Mormon should know that women essentially hold the Priesthood with their husbands in eternity, at least that is the assumption.

  38. jackg says:


    Thanks for the clarification. I was beginning to wonder… 🙂


  39. mobaby says:


    You’re comment “Whoa there boy!” I think was in response to my comment just above yours. I just want to make a clarification and distinction – perhaps we will still disagree, but I just want you to understand what I am saying. Jesus is our last prophet and high priest. Meaning, there are not any prophets since Jesus that the God’s chosen must follow. Some do have the gift of prophecy – speaking forth the truth of Jesus with a prophetic voice – pointing people to the cross and God’s free redemption, but we are like Israel lead by a prophet and high priest – Jesus is that prophet and high priest and He is with us still, just as He promised.

    Likewise, God has made each believer a priest before God – we have no mediator save Jesus Christ – so there is a universal priesthood of all believers. However, the Church has one High Priest – Jesus Christ who did not just offer the atoning sacrifice for our sins, but He Himself is the atoning sacrifice.

    So Jesus is our only High Priest and Prophet – we have no need for another. Our salvation does not depend on following any other modern day prophet or priest. Jesus is the only source of our salvation.

  40. setfree says:

    “The following quote is taken from “On the Lord’s Errand: Memoirs of Thomas S. Monson”, Salt Lake City 1985, p. 184, and is in the Univ. of Utah — Marriott Library, Special Collections. That is where I read it and photoed the page, which is in my files.


    In about 1956 we recognized that our neighborhood was deteriorating. We observed this one Halloween by the nature of the people who came in the guise of “Trick or Treat.” The minority elements [meaning blacks and Hispanics] were moving into the area where we lived, and many of the old-time families [meaning whites] had long since moved away. Seeking counsel, I visited with Mark E. Peterson, who for many years had been the General Manager of the Deseret News. O. Preston Robinson, my former professor of Marketing at the University of Utah, had succeeded Brother Petersen as the General Manager of the News. as I mentioned to Mark [E. Petersen] my dilemma, wondering if it would be unfair for me to move, he said simply, “Your obligation to that area [meaning low-income minorities] is concluded. Why don’t you build a house in my ward?” With his assurance that all would be well, I discussed the matter with President Fetzer and then determined to build a home on a lot we had purchased at 4125 Carter Circle [Holladay, Utah–nice suburb in the southeast part of Salt Lake valley]. At that time we bought an entire acre, which had been listed for $5,000, for a cash price of $3,500.”

Leave a Reply