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. Mike R says:


    It’s good to be reminded of just how false the
    claims of the “modern day prophets” of Mormonism
    are, and this doctrine (Blacks denied the priest-
    hood) is an example of that.

    I can still remember reading how shocked many
    LDS were in June of 1978 when one Mormon prophet
    contradicted the teaching of those who had just
    preceeded him.

    Mormons are told to “follow the prophet” for he
    will NEVER lead them astray. The scriptures are
    shoved to the back in favor of a “living” prophet
    who will guide in dispensing “pure” doctrine. After all, the scriptures are from dead prophets:

    2 Nephi 26:33. Gal. 3:27-28

    May those sincere Mormons who have a desire to
    serve God dismiss the authority of their prophets/
    apostles as teachers over them, and follow THE
    Prophet– Jesus.

  2. falcon says:

    Mormonism has a built in fail-safe system called progressive revelation. This allows even the most fundamental doctrines of the LDS church to be changed, altered or ignored. Polygamy was suppose to be the ticket to gain a male member the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom where his godhood would be confirmed. The curse of the black man was also fundamental to the whole LDS program. The sacred Temple rituals, handed down from antiquity, secret and spiritually deep, were changed to accommodate the sensibilities of female members and because the (rituals) were made well known. Even the most perfect book ever written has significant numbers of changes but even the intro to the book was recently changed because of DNA evidence regarding the false American Indian/Jewish connection.
    So that’s the bottom line for Mormons. There individual faith is protected because change is seen as a positive thing.
    One question for the LDS faithful, why do you follow these flawed prophets and their doctrines, rules and regulations if they’re going to change any way?
    Find real freedom in Jesus Christ and eternal life through Him……not some religion….a false one at that!

  3. Olsen Jim says:

    I don’t expect you understand this, but there was no doctrine that changed with the announcement on the Priesthood in 1978.

    Using your criteria, the religion of ancient Israel was false as was the Gospel of Jesus Christ which He taught during his ministry.

    Both of these sets of doctrines and practices precluded huge groups of people from participating.

    But knee-jerk feel-goodism and easy-believism never seems to consider these realities.

  4. Olsen Jim,

    Why did Mormonism need a revelation from God to change a mere policy?

    Why hasn’t the theological rationale once used to justify this, ahem, policy, been explicitly and openly repudiated?

    Take care,


  5. Olsen Jim says:


    Which theological rationale exactly do you refer to?

    Any response to my thoughts?

  6. iamse7en says:


    Why did Christianity need divine intervention to convince the Apostle Peter that Gentiles could receive the blessings and ordinances of the Gospel?

    Take care,


  7. falcon says:

    I love this. It is so typical Mormon. Same old tactics. Go on the offensive and try to find something, anything that could be seen as an equivalent in the history of Christianity. I’m not taking the bait and I hope the other Christian posters avoid it also.

    The topic here is the inherent racism of Mormonism as seen in its theology, doctrine and practice. These Mormon prophets are either racists due to their “opinions” or they are false prophets as see by the need to change the policies of the LDS church. The priesthood is one of the steps up the ladder to becoming a god. Blacks were denied the priesthood and thus godhood. If that’s not a theological position I don’t know what is.
    Our Mormon posters can’t stay on topic because they know what the obvious conclusion is here. The Mormon church is false at every turn. This is just one more example.

  8. Olsen Jim, I’m not going to play your game. You know what theological rationale I am referring to, and it has to do with correlating skin color with pre-mortality and the curse of Cain. Again:

    Why did Mormonism need a revelation from God to change a mere policy?

    Why hasn’t the theological rationale once used to justify this, ahem, policy, been explicitly and openly repudiated?

    iamse7en, Peter didn’t need new revelation to get rebuked for rejecting what God had already revealed.

  9. falcon says:

    I wonder if it’s important what Joseph Smith said. I found this on a website and it’s source is The Latter-Day Saints Millennial Star, vol. 14, p. 418.

    “For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent, obey the Gospel, and do right from this day forward….Cain and his posterity must wear the mark, which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller’s soap every day, they cannot wash away God’s mark; The Lamanites, through transgression, became a loathsome, ignorant and filthy people, and were cursed with a skin of darkness….yet, they have the promise, if they will believe, and work righteousness, that not many generations shall pass away before they shall become a white and delightsome people; but it will take some time to accomplish this at best.”
    So I guess folks cursed with black skin can turn white through works of righteousness. Now my understanding is that Joseph Smith is like the grand pooh bah of Mormon prophets. So his words must count for something.

    Let’s see Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, pp. 66-67.
    “There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less….There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.”

    These Mormon leaders are a gift that just keeps on giving when it comes to proving the Mormon church false.

  10. Mike R says:

    O.J. ; iamse7en,

    Pres. Taylor’s personal revelation concerning
    the curse of Cain and the black race is evident
    for all to read.He is teaching you this aspect
    of the “gospel”. Gospel Principles informs us
    that, ” A prophet teaches truth and interprets
    the word of God.” [1997, p.47].
    Can we rely on this interpretation of his?

  11. Olsen Jim says:

    When Jesus of Nazareth was alive on earth, He would not allow His apostles who represented Him to share the gospel of salvation with those who were considered gentiles- those not of the “chosen race.”

    If a person categorically rejects the restored gospel of Jesus Christ on the grounds that the church did not extend Priesthood blessings for a period of time to people of all races, one must also reject the gospel taught by Christ and His apostles.

    To make exception is dishonest, intellectual sloppy, and/or hypocritical.

    Aaron- you have a history of taking specific statements from sources that do not represent authoritative church positions and extrapolating to places that are ridiculous. That is why I ask you this simple question.

    Do you refer to the idea that those with black skin were less valiant in the pre-mortal life?

    Or some other concept?

    It is hypocrisy at its greatest height for evangelicals to point the condescending finger at mormons for supposed favoritism. Your whole gospel is based on it- election, pre-destination, salvation. Your doctrine at its core says that God is a respecter of persons based on absolutely no criteria that is understandable.

    At least LDS doctrine has a logical rationale for why God could favor a certain group of people based on personal behavior. And we at least believe that “favoritism” is temporary. (The early church leaders believed all the blessings would eventually be offered to all people and looked forward to that day). You insist God’s favoritism is eternal.

    Many of you would condemn a soul to hell who never had a real chance to accept the gospel. And you comfort yourself by saying, well, God has some reason for electing some for salvation and others for damnation- and this without believing in any pre-mortal existence or any personal control in where a person is born.

  12. Olsen Jim says:

    You folks look down your modern noses at a snap-shot in time and think you see eternity clearly. You see millions of people who live as closely to their consciences as they can but have not yet accepted Christ and you envision, almost with glee, their burning in hell. This thought brings joy to you because you believe such suffering will justify your doctrine and position- the whole world will know that you were right.

    Talk about “unrepudiated” favoritism.

  13. iamse7en says:


    “Peter didn’t need new revelation” to be told to take the Gospel to the gentiles? Have you not read Acts 10?

    Peter “saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth,”
    wherein he heard a voice from heaven which spoke to him, “what God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” and “the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee… go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them,” one of which was the gentile Cornelius, who was also sent to Peter by the hand of God. Peter says to him, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Peter teaches the Gospel to Cornelius and other Gentiles, the Spirit falls on them and they are baptized. These were the first real (not converts to Judaism) Gentiles to be baptized. Then the very first verse in the next chapter: “And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.”

    How can you not say that Peter wasn’t guided by NEW revelation to extend the blessings of the Gospel to the Gentiles? A vision, a voice from heaven, and an admittance from Peter that God showed him that gentiles were no longer to be excluded from the blessings of the Gospel – a change in policy from what the Lord declared years earlier: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” and “Go not into the way of the Gentiles.

    Your statement isn’t even a misinterpretation, it’s a lie. You state it that way, because it fits your narrative that an Apostle of the Lord doesn’t need new revelation stop excluding certain groups of people from the blessings of the Gospel.

  14. iamse7en says:

    And Olsen Jim,

    Your observation is a brilliant one. The belief and teaching that those who die without hearing of Jesus Christ and being saved in Him go to hell is much more cruel than saying “blacks may not hold the Priesthood at this time.” They still could join the Church and were told if faithful, they would receive the blessings of Celestial glory. The Mormons’ teaching and belief in salvation for the dead is the most inclusive doctrine of any Christian sect.

  15. liv4jc says:

    My, my, you boys are pretty confident of your merits aren’t you? Have you read the Ten Commandments lately? The criteria of salvation belongs to God alone. If you want to mock Him because you believe you are worthy of anything but Hell then may He grant you mercy by saving you before you stand in judgment. The bible is very clear about why God chooses to save some and not others. God didn’t extend priesthood blessings to all of Israel, only to the line of Levi and a special priesthood to one of his sons Aaron. He first chose Abram, and through him he chose Israel out of the mass of all of the world. He did not love the world like he loved Israel, his chosen covenant people, just like He doesn’t love the world in the way he loves those He sovereignly chooses for salvation. All men are worthy of hell. God in His sovereign will and to the praise of His glorious grace chooses to save some based upon his own purposes and for His glory alone. Period. Try reading John 6, Romans 8-11, and especially Ephesians 1 and 2, etc. In the end everyone will either glorify God by displaying His unmerited grace in salvation or glorify Him by displaying His righteousness by being condemned by His wrath against sin.

    The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those of us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18)

    . If you want to call God wicked for what His word clearly states then that’s on you. Have fun eating your bread and water and wearing your bakers hats and green aprons while it lasts boys. I’ll trust in Christ alone for my salvation. I pray that I’m kept in Him until the end by His power alone, because otherwise I don’t have a chance. Nobody sends me to the repentance corner like OJ.

  16. The way I read Genesis 4 (particularly Gen 4:15) is the “Mark of Cain” is a sign of protection, not a stigma.

    (What a pity that Joseph Smith didn’t have it when he faced the mob at Carthage jail).

    If Cain does have a stigma, its because he was driven from the presence of God (Gen 4:14). This is God’s judgment on him for his sin (note the theological aspect).

    The modern (OK, 19th Century) associations of the phrase link it with black skin to enforce an agenda of white supremacy.

    Genesis 4 does nothing to affirm the view that it is related to skin color. It tells us what the ‘mark’ does, but it does not tell us what it looks like.

    It’s time to reclaim the phrase from the White Supremacists and restore it to its proper context in Genesis 4.

    I think you can only do that by aggressively prosecuting the false ideologies and misinformation promoted by the White Supremacists, past and present, which means confronting the doctrines of John Taylor and the like.

    Where do you start? Perhaps by starting in Gen 1:27 by affirming that all human beings, male and female, are made in the image of God. (But, before doing so, you’d have to untangle the train-wreck that Mormonism has made out of the whole ‘Son of God’, ‘image of God’ thing).

  17. falcon says:

    Ah yes, the wonderful world of Mormonism. Every time our Mormon friends post we see illuminated clearly why Mormonism is not Christianity. In fact it isn’t even a distant cousin. Christianity is based on God’s revealed Word, the Holy Bible. Mormonism is based on revelations by false prophets, some of whom, thought every idle thought that flowed through their imagination was the oracle of God. So it is with their pronouncements about the origin of the black race and the curse they were to bear until their works of righteousness turned them white.
    I don’t blame Mormons for going on the attack and trying to change the subject because this topic is just one more example of why Mormonism and the Mormon church are false. So what’s a devout Mormon to do? Well, come up with any excuse no matter how daffy or ridiculous to keep their LDS faith afloat. Unfortunately for Mormons there’s more water coming into their sinking LDS boat than they can possible bail out with their little tin cans of excuses. Most people, when their boat is sinking will grab a life vest and abandon ship. Most Mormons do this by one means or another. However the hardcore just can’t seem to get the message.

  18. Olsen Jim,

    God didn’t choose Israel because its people had performed valiantly in pre-mortality or in mortality. He didn’t choose Israel because of skin color. And he certainly didn’t curse or bless people with a color of dark or light skin, as though either was a blessing or a curse in contradistinction to another. So the analogy with Israel doesn’t really work. God’s favor over Israel was unconditional love. The historic Mormon view of skin color was linked to pre-mortal merit or demerit. Big difference.

    iamse7en, I can see your point, namely that God sometimes in the Bible uses another new revelation to reinforce what he has already taught via past revelation. I was erroneouly thinking of Peter’s rebuke of Paul. I’m glad you corrected me.

    But the 1978 LDS revelation was not touted as a reinforcement of a longstanding position, but rather as a change of position. Still today Mormons are divided amongst themselves over whether the pre-1978 priesthood ban was of God or not.

    The Church has yet to come out repudiating the past theologically racist rationale used to justify the priesthood ban. Neither has it come out with clarity over with the priesthood ban and its rationale was of God or not. So the problem remains.

    So my questions remain:

    Why did Mormonism need a revelation from God to change a mere “policy”?

    Why hasn’t the theological rationale once used to justify this, ahem, policy, been explicitly and openly repudiated?

    Take care,


  19. liv4jc says:

    The LDS false prophets stated that the blacks would never hold the priesthood, that is the issue with the policy change in 1978. This supposed command from God is found nowhere outside of LDS fantasy literature, culture, and tradition. The bible never denotes skin color as a mark of obedience verses disobedience to God. This is a wholly LDS concept borne out by the racism present in the BoM against native Americans who are descendants of the evil dark skinned Lamanites who killed off all of the good white Nephites. Own it fellas, unless you’re willing to admit that your former prophets’ statements have failed the test of time. As for Peter and Cornelius, this is dealing with the gospel of salvation, not the priesthood. They are not the same thing. God did deny the Mosaic Covenant priesthood to those who were outside of Levi/Aaron, but He never denied salvation to gentiles as can be seen in the story of Rahab, who is named in James, Naaman, who is recorded in 2 Kings 5, and the prophecies of Jeremiah 31:33 (reconfirmed in Hebrews 8:8-12), and Hosea 2:23 (reconfirmed in Romans 9:25-26 and 1 Peter 2:10). It was revealed to Peter and Paul especially that they were to deliver the new covenant message to the gentiles, which is something that was foreign to them as Jews, believing the Gentiles unclean and outside of God’s grace (Ephesians 2:11-13). They saw the foretold promises in OT prophecy, though. There is absolutely no link between your false Aaronic priesthood, which you cannot hold (and according to the book of Hebrews has passed away), and the new priesthood of believers spoken of by Peter in 1 Peter 2:9 that was pronounced to Cornelius in Acts 11. Peter did not bestow the LDS priesthood on Cornelius. Incidentally, notice the doctrine of reprobation present in 1 Peter 2:8. Those who are disobedient to the gospel do so because they were appointed by God to do so (your argument is with God’s word, not me. I just read it for what it says.) Repent. Now.

  20. jackg says:


    I’m glad you said what you said regarding the mark put on Cain. You referred to it as a sign of protection, with which I wholeheartedly agree. Whenever I teach that passage, I like to point out that God’s grace is evident right from the get-go. Giving Cain protection when it was undeserved is grace. We see grace in God’s response to the unfaithfulness and disobedience of Adam and Eve. The important foundational truth to glean from these events is that God’s grace is right there when we sin against Him. It’s His grace that offers us the opportunity to confess our sins and repent. I often wonder what would have happened if Adam and Eve had confessed their sin, or if Cain had. John teaches us this: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

    The fact that Mormonism makes this an issue of race is ridiculous and unfounded. This same racism runs through the BOM.


  21. falcon says:

    I think I can see this issue of the mark of Cain and polygamy for that matter within the concept of progression in Mormonism. The Mormon god is progressing, right? He’s getting smarter and more wise as time passes. So he progressed when it became evident that the LDS church was going to lose its tax free status based on their discrimination of people of color. Basically the same thing happened with that great manifesto ending polygamy. The LDS leadership was staring in the face of some sanctions by the US government so the Mormon god progressed and told the Mormon prophet to drop the practice. The same can be said of the changes in the sacred Mormon Temple rituals and the BoM. The Mormon god progressed.
    It’s amazing how the Mormon god progresses in light of pressure coming to bear on the LDS church. We know, in the case of refusal of the priesthood to people of color, that Mormon leaders don’t disagree with the Mormon god(s)’ previous view towards blacks. They’ve never repudiated the practice.
    See Mormons are in a real tough spot here. The Mormon prophet has got to always be right. He can’t be wrong. He can’t even be mis-hearing the Mormon god. The only out is to play the “opinion” card which is a very convenient card to hold.
    Even Joseph Smith’s son had enough courage to say that if his father practiced polygamy it was wrong. Modern day Mormons are like the character Fonzie on Happy Days who could never say the word “wrong”. On the sitcom it was funny. Not so with Mormonism.

  22. grindael says:

    This was not a policy, and I get sick of Mormons saying so. Perhaps a statement by a Mormon First Presidency will put that lie to rest:

    August 17, 1949

    The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. IT IS NOT THE MATTER OF A DECLARATION OF POLICY but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded THE DOCTRINE of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

    President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.” (continued)

  23. grindael says:

    The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another DOCTRINE of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

    The First Presidency

  24. grindael says:

    While you are at it, chew on this, oh ye that love lies and believing in them:

    “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 [p.224] 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.”

  25. grindael says:

    The above is part of a First Presidency Statement given December 15th, 1969. Here is a letter to a Mormon who tried to get them to change their minds:

    Lowry Nelson, a professor at what was called the Utah State Agricultural College in Logan, Utah, sent a letter on June 16, 1947, to the LDS First Presidency challenging the position of the LDS Church on people of African descent. On 17 July of the same year, the First Presidency replied:

    Dear Brother Nelson:

    As you have been advised, your letter of June 16 was received in due course . . . We have carefully considered [its] content; and are glad to advise you as follows:

    We make this initial remark: the social side of the Restored Gospel is only an incident of it; it is not the end thereof.

    The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God’s children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God’s dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham’s seed and their position vis-a-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God’s children were assinged 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 seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence 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 Smith even until now, it is 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. (continued)

  26. grindael says:

    Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning ‘marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit’]. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

    We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church AND IS CONTRARY TO CHURCH DOCTRINE.

    Faithfully yours,

    George Albert Smith
    J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
    David O. McKay
    The First Presidency

    Information on Lowry Nelson is available here:

    “… No special effort has ever been made to proselyte among the Negro race, and social intercourse between the Whites and the Negroes should certainly not be encouraged because of leading to intermarriage, which the Lord has forbidden… This move which has now received some popular approval of trying to break down social barriers between the Whites and the Blacks is one that should not be encouraged because inevitably it means the mixing of the races if carried to its logical conclusion” (Letter from the First Presidency [Smith, Clark, McKay], 5 May 1947, to Virgil H. Sponberg, in Bennion papers).

  27. grindael says:

    And lastly, in contrast to this:

    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.

    Read this:

    “It seems to us that it ought to be possible to work this situation out without causing any feelings on the part of anybody. If the white sisters feel that they may not sit with them or near them, we feel sure that if the colored sisters were discretely approached, they would be happy to sit at one side in the rear or somewhere where they would not wound the sensibilities of the complaining sisters” (First Presidency letter [from Presidents Smith, Clark, and McKay] to Ezra T. Benson, 23 June 1942, in Bennion papers).

    About those ‘prophets’ who claim to speak for God: nothing could be further from the truth.

  28. jackg says:

    Great job, Grindael! Let’s see how the Mormons attempt to refute what you say.


  29. iamse7en says:

    Grindael sure likes to hijack these threads. 🙂 No offense – it’s great that you share so many of your thoughts so freely.

    My question is for liv4jc. You said:

    The LDS false prophets stated that the blacks would never hold the priesthood.

    I have heard this many times before, usually attributed to Bruce McConkie. I cannot find such a statement. I cannot find any statement, anywhere, where an LDS prophet said the blacks would never hold the priesthood. If anything, this contradicts many LDS prophets who have said that blacks can still get to the Celestial KIngdom. And according to Mormonism, a male must receive the Priesthood (and all other ordinances) to receive Celestial blessings. Most of Brigham Young’s statements about the curse includes phrases like, “until God removes the curse,” or “until the curse is removed.”

    The best quotes I can find regarding WHEN blacks would receive the priesthood are from Brigham. There are several of them, and they essentially say the same thing, but here is one:

    When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood…it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity.

    Now, who knows what Brigham exactly means by “When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood” or “until the residue of the posterity of Michael…receive the blessings.” The point is, Brigham Young taught quite clearly, that at some point in the future, the blacks WOULD receive the priesthood, that the curse WOULD be removed. I’m not sure where you got the idea that LDS prophets taught “the blacks would never hold the priesthood.” Please share that quote(s) with me. Because from who many people call the originator of the policy, Brigham Young repeatedly taught the curse would eventually be removed – that blacks would eventually hold the priesthood.

  30. mobaby says:

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed, iamse7en, but the “curse” as Brigham calls it, is still very apparent. From the quotes that Grindael posted it is clear that this lifting of the non-existent “curse” was to supposedly happen some time after death.

  31. iamse7en says:


    You are confused between the mark of the curse, and the curse. The Book of Mormons makes that distinction clear. The curse is separation from God. The mark of the curse is changes in physical appearance. Brigham Young understood this well.

  32. falcon says:

    Please continue to hijack these threads. I enjoy your hijacking very much first of all because of the historical context of the quotes and secondly because it drives the Mormons bonkers!
    It’s the old “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!” (From the movie “A Few Good Men”)It seems that over the years there have been a few good men in the LDS church that were willing to confront the First Presidency on the subject but to no avail. There doesn’t seem to be a few good men around today who will stand-up and call this sordid episode in the history of the LDS church what it is. It’s that loose thread that if tugged on will make the whole sacred undergarment unravel.
    So we have the Mormon posters spinning themselves into the ground trying to defend prophets that were totally clueless on the one hand, and dedicated racist on the other. These guys are the scary racists because they wrap their racism up in a religious context.

  33. mobaby says:

    Joseph Smith: “and were cursed with a skin of darkness”

    Sounds like the false idea of a “curse” propagated by these false prophets includes skin color.

    Actually, apart from Christ’s atonement on the cross, we’re all under the curse of the law. According to Scripture (read through Galatians), if you base your righteousness on the law rather than the free gift of salvation, you are under the curse of the law and must fulfill it completely without flaw. The good news of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is open to all people every where of every race and nationality and always has been. All who trust in the finished work of Christ will be with God the Father in eternity.

  34. Rae says:

    iamse7en’s comment to Aaron–
    ‘“Peter didn’t need new revelation” to be told to take the Gospel to the gentiles? Have you not read Acts 10?’

    My comment to iamse7en–
    Have you not read Acts 1:8? “…and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

    Acts 10 wasn’t a new revelation, but a reminder to Peter that the Gospel was (and is) for all people. We as human beings, tend to fall into patterns that are comfortable for us, and we occasionally need to be gently reminded to get out there and spread the word.

  35. Olsen Jim says:


    You have provided supporting documentation for the LDS position that are appreciated and helpful.

    I read through them and couldn’t disagree with them. Where have I or other LDS here contradicted what you posted? I haven’t.

    My points above were that there is very clearly past precedent for God “favoring” a certain race over another and precluding people of certain lineage from holding the priesthood.

    Christ was very clear that the Gospel was to be taught to those of Israel before the gentiles. Claiming otherwise only discredits a person. Christ even called the gentiles “dogs.” That makes any of the statements from LDS prophets seem mild.

    It was also very clearly a revelation to Peter regarding preaching the gospel to gentiles. Yes- it came through the power and administration of the Holy Ghost- as revelations always do.

    If LDS are racists, then ancient Israel and Christ Himself was racist. You are offering no deeper explanation or rationale that would explain why this is not true.

    According to LDS doctrine, certain blessings are based upon merit, either in this life or in pre-mortal life. That is a very understandable, rational, and fair concept.

    According to that same doctrine, every son or daughter of God will have a real and fair opportunity to clearly understand the gospel and choose fully for themselves the degree to which they will follow. It honestly does not get any fairer than that.

  36. falcon says:

    This is one of those very troublesome areas in which the faithful Mormon has to depend on his testimony to overcome the obvious, the Mormon church isn’t true. There are several other areas of course where the faithful Mormon has to create an illusion in order to keep their faith in Mormonism afloat, but this particular topic is a real faith buster.
    It’s just too difficult to resolve without doing a big time mind bending exercise. It all gets to the mother-father god paradigm, the premortal existence of human beings and the valiant white people vs. the non-valiant dark skin people. This is a fundamental doctrine of Mormonism along with polygamy, men becoming gods, temple rituals, and the Mormon priesthood.
    I have noticed, however, that there is a particular form of thinking in Mormonism that allows the believer to rationalize the whole program. I would tend to agree with Walter Martin when he said that the Mormon is able to think rationally in all other parts of their lives but not when it comes to their religion.

  37. grindael says:

    I’m sorry Olsen, perhaps I misinterpreted this:

    “I don’t expect you understand this, but there was no doctrine that changed with the announcement on the Priesthood in 1978.”

    A DOCTRINE DID CHANGE. Period. Mormons have been recently calling this a ‘policy’ and it is completely wrong.

    Your analogy about the ‘little dog’ that Jesus called the women who wanted her daughter healed once again is distorted in the light of Young’s racism. Jesus came to the House of Israel First, (for only HIS 3 Year Ministry) and then sent his Apostles out to the Gentiles. It was not discrimination, it was an order. Jesus STILL HEALED THE WOMANS DAUGHTER because of her FAITH. This shows it was not ‘racist’. Compare that to one woman who was a member of Smith’s household, Jane Manning. She was offered (by Smith) to be sealed to Smith’s household in his lifetime, but declined. Later, when she went to Utah, she had a change of heart. She went to the racist brethern in SLC to have this done, and they would not let her in the temple. They did it by proxy, but did not seal her as an equal member of the household, but as a SLAVE to Smith FOR ETERNITY.

    The Saviour saw a woman’s faith, and rewarded her accordingly, even when it was at variance to his plan because ultimately we are all equal. The ‘brethern’ in SLC kept to their racism, using worldly views to do something totally at odds with what the Saviour taught, that ALL were equal in the eyes of God.

    They embodied the thinking of men, and they still do. There was no ‘revelation’ there, just desperate men who used the Old Testament’s arcane laws to try and justify a doctrine that cannot be justified. As for a ‘real and fair’ opportunity for the Negro’s, not according to Young.

  38. grindael says:

    June 29, 1851: Sermon of Brigham Young at SLC, in part, “Give us the Kingdom of God instead of the glories of the world. There has been a great stir to exalt the Negro and make him equal to the white man, but there is a curse upon the seed of Cain and all hell cannot wipe it out and it cannot be taken off until God takes it off. When a person unlawfully seeks for power and exaltation by taking the blessings which belong to another, he will sink far below the other. As Lucifer, the Son of the Morning, sought the glory that belonged to Christ, the First Born. He was thrust to Hell. So Cain sought Abel’s blessing and took the life of his brother, the consequence was Cain was cursed and his seed and this curse will remain until Abel’s posterity will get all the blessing there its for him; then the curse may be taken from Cain or his posterity, but his posterity will be below Abel’s. All are slaves. -Woodruff Journals

    Just like Jane Manning. Slaves for eternity.

    The First Presidency Statement of 1949 uses Young as a source for the doctrine, and quote him, but they sure did not use ALL his Doctrine on this. Has ALL of Abel’s posterity gotten all their ‘blessings’? Has the Church stopped proselyting to “Abel’s posterity?” No. The Mormon Church is inconsistent, directed by the thinking of men who are shoved into corners and forced to change doctrines according to the dictates of the world. They pick and choose what portions of their prophets statements to believe, discarding as ‘opinion’ statements claimed by those who gave them as ‘direct revelation’. This is not God directed Church, it is a Church run by men without a clue.

  39. jackg says:


    As normal, your reasoning is faulty. Let’s define race and ethnicity. I don’t think Jewishness is a race, is it? If I’m wrong, then please correct me. Again, the Mormon thinking wants to make God’s evidence of grace on Cain as a curse of dark skin. That’s racism. Trying to bring in Jesus’ comments about idol worshipers to defend a racist view is rather pathetic.

    I’m of Hispanic descent, what race do you think I am? I’m curious as to your answer.

    I think you once tried to say that I didn’t understand your view of grace and works. Is that the best you can do is make an accusation? Here’s what you believe: “According to LDS doctrine, certain blessings are based upon merit, either in this life or in pre-mortal life. That is a very understandable, rational, and fair concept.” What I said about your view is correct, which is that it is backward. You believe your works earn you something. They don’t. If you got what you deserved based on your works, you are doomed to hell. We all are. Here’s the radical teaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ: GOD ISN’T FAIR. If He were fair, you and I would have no hope, because His holiness is so unfathomably awesome that we could not stand in His presence. Just take a walk through Genesis and see how God protects the Israelites from being destroyed by His mere Holy Presence. You want everything to fit into the reasoning of man, but it doesn’t and it won’t. This is why there will always be mystery where God is concerned.

    You keep defending the guy who left you as an orphan, OJ. Turn from JS and follow the true and living God.

    Praying for you…

  40. grindael says:

    Ponder this totally racist diatribe by Young:

    “Adam had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain was more given to evil than Abel. Adam was called to offer sacrifice also his sons. The sacrifice of Abel was more acceptable than Cain’s, and Cain took it into his heart to put Abel out of the way so he killed Abel. The Lord said I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him and it is seen in the face of every Negro on the earth, and it is the decree of God that that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain and the curse until all the seed of Abel should be redeemed and Cain will not receive the Priesthood or salvation until all the seed of Abel are redeemed. Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the Priesthood, and if no other prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true and others know it. The Negro cannot hold one part of Government. But the day will come when all the seed of Cain will be redeemed and have all the blessings we have now and a great deal more. But the seed of Abel will be ahead of the seed of Cain to all eternity. Let me consent today to mingle my seed with the seed of Cain, it would bring the same curse upon me. And it would upon any man. And if any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cain, the only way he could get rid of it or have salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off and spill his blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his children…

    There is not one of the seed of old Cain that is permitted to rule and reign over the seed of Abel and you nor I cannot help it. firstlings and best of the flock were sacrificed on the altar, and in some instances many men and almost whole nations were sacrificed or put to death because of their sins and wickedness. This was the only way they could be saved at all…. It has been urged here that many of the Jews were black. Whenever the seed of Judah mingled with the seed of Cain, they lost their Priesthood and all blessings. As an example, let the Presidency, Twelve, Seventies, High Priests, Bishops and all the authorities say now: We will all go and mingle with the seed of Cain and they may have all the privileges they want. We lift our hands to heaven in support of this, that moment we loose the Priesthood and all blessings and we would not be redeemed until Cain was. I will never admit of it for a moment. Some may think I don’t know as much as they do, but I know that I know more than they do. The Lord will watch us all; the Devil would like to rule part of the time, but I am determined he shall not rule at all, and Negroes shall not rule us. I will not admit of the Devil ruling at all. I will not consent for the seed of Cain to vote for me or my brethren. If you want to know why we did not speak of it in the Constitution, it was because it was none of their business. Any man is a citizen, black, white or red, and if the Jews come here with a part of the Canaanite blood in them, they are citizens and shall have their rights, but not to rule for me or my brethren. Those persons from the islands and foreign countries know nothing about governing the people. The Canaanite cannot have wisdom to do things as the white man has. We must guard against all evil. I am not going to let this people damn themselves as long as I can help it. – Woodruff Journal, same entry as above

  41. grindael says:

    After Smith’s death, a black Indian named William McCary, arrived in Winter Quarters during the winter of 1846-47. While church leaders initially tolerated McCary’s claims of prophetdom, by late March they were fuming. In a confrontation with Young, and Apostles Richards, O. Pratt, Benson, Woodruff, and others on 26 March, 1847, Young told McCary, “its nothing to do with the blood, for of one blood has God made all flesh, we have to repent (and) regain what we have lost-we have one of the best Elders an African in Lowell [i.e., Walker Lewis].” ( Minutes, 26 Mar. 1847, Brigham Young Papers, LDS Church Archives.)

    McCary was ejected from the Church, but took some mormons with him. What is clear from Young’s statement is that there was NO OFFICIAL POSITION at this time banning Negroes from the Priesthood & Young advocated ‘for of one blood has God made all flesh & we have to repent & regain what we have lost.” He then goes on to comment W. Lewis as ‘one of the best African Elders’.

    A month later (about 7 April) Apostle Parley Pratt returned from a mission in England. A week later, on 14 April, Brigham left Winter Quarters with the vanguard enroute for Salt Lake City. Just a few days later Pratt, who with another returned Apostle, John Taylor, had been left behind to oversee Winter Quarters, delivered his notable comments mocking any Saint unfaithful enough to follow “this Blackman [McCary] who has got the blood of Ham in him which lineage was cursed as regards the priesthood.” (William Appleby, Journal, 19 May 1847, LDS Church Archives)

    Here is the turning point that initiated the racist policies of the Church. How dare a black man from the ‘cursed lineage’ dare to oppose a white prophet of God? The nail in the coffin would come a few months later, when racist Mission President William Appleby noticed Walker Lewis had a baby with a white woman.

    Appleby encountered Walker Lewis in his Lowell branch, in May of 1847 and noted he held the priesthood and saw the the infant offspring of his interracially married son. Indignantly writing to Young on 2 June, 1847, he asked if it was “the order of God, or tolerated, to ordain negroes to the priesthood and allow amalgamation.” [mixed offspring] “If it is, I desire to know it as I have yet to learn it.” He later reiterated his racist views on blacks in an article he published on the book of Abraham. Appleby a few years earlier had copied the verses limiting the Priesthood to the lineage of Caanan in his diary. (5 May 1841)

    Young read Appleby’s letter and then had him personally report to Young along with the eight apostles who were then in Nebraska when he arrived in Utah. Young then ruled “that blacks in general were ineligible to participate in certain temple ordinances.” (see David John Buerger. “‘The Fulness of the Priesthood’: The Second Annointing in Latter-day Saint Theology and Practice,” Dialogue 16 (Spring 1983): 10-44)

    While Elijah Abel had been allowed in the Kirtland temple for the ordinance of washing and anointing in 1836, blacks who applied for temple ordinances after arrival in Utah were uniformly refused. On the evolution of Mormon thinking on these ordinances, see David John Buerger. “‘The Fulness of the Priesthood’: The Second Annointing in Latter-day Saint Theology and Practice,” Dialogue 16 (Spring 1983): 10-44.

    In 1863, Young reported that he 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, vol. 10, p. 110)

    In 1849, newly ordained Apostle Lorenzo Snow asked Young the day after his ordination & prior to a leadership meeting about the “chance of redemption … for the Africans.” Young replied, in part, that “the Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.” This was, for years, the earliest known statement of priesthood denial to blacks; it remains the earliest explicit one. (Journal History, 13 Feb. 1849)

  42. grindael says:

    In 1852 Young tried to justify his racist views with this statement (trying to attribute them to the Bible):

    “In as much as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in Slavery.” (“Speech by Gov. Young in Counsel on a Bill relating to African Slavery. Jan. 23d 1852″ (LDS Church Archives) A few weeks earlier he remarked, “The seed of Canaan will inevitably carry the curse [of servitude] which was placed upon them, until the same authority which placed it there, shall see proper to have it removed.” (Governors Message, January 5, 1852)

    In an 1859 interview with Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, Brigham Young was asked:

    HG: What is the position of your church with respect to slavery?

    BY: We consider it of divine institution and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants.

    The mormon leaders were so against the United States freeing the slaves that many like Wilford Woodruff remembered with longing the prophecies of Smith concerning the Governments destruction:

    December 31, 1863: “Thus ends the year 1863. Joseph the Prophet said whoever lived to see 1860 would live to see the commencement of the downfall of the United States. The Union was dissolved in 1860 and civil war commenced which has raged ever since and the land is beginning to be bathed in blood and will continue until the words of the Prophet will be fulfilled.”

    Even Young stated that the current [Civil] war would not free the slaves. He also says that men will be responsible for how they were treated in the war. (JoD 10:250, Oct 6, 1863) Perhaps he should have thought about that when he made this statement:

    “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, vol. 10, p. 110)

  43. grindael says:

    So like the mormons to point the finger at others when they themselves advocated excluding them from the priesthood, the temple & exaltation. These racist views were so ingrained in the mormon leadership that even in 1865, with the North winning the war Heber C. Kimball was certain Smith’s prophecy would come true:

    March 6, 1865: “Spent most of the day in the office. Brother Kimball said that President Lincoln would be in the presidential chair until he had destroyed the nation. The North will never have power to crush the South. No never. The Lord will give the South power to fight the North until they will destroy each other.” (Woodruff diary)

    But the War was won by the North & Smith’s prophecy about the destruction of the U.S. government never came to pass, along with his other Missouri prophecies. In trying to justify the racist doctrine, Z. Coltrin in 1879 claimed Smith said in 1834 that “the Negro had no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.” This was refuted by Joseph F. Smith, who had seen Elijah Abel’s certification as a seventy, issued in 1841 and again in Salt Lake City, and was bolstered by Able’s correct recollection that it was Coltrin himself who had ordained him a Seventy! Abel’s status as a priesthood holder in 1836 was further verified by consulting his patriarchal blessing, given by Joseph Smith, Sr., that year. Acting president John Taylor, an apostle with Joseph Smith for five years, was unable to offer anything more than the opinion that “probably” Abel had “been ordained before the will of the Lord had been fully understood, [and] it was allowed to remain.” (Bush, “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine,” pp. 25-26)

    In 1895 Joseph F. Smith again rebuffs claims that Abel had been dropped from the priesthood. On the contrary, he makes two new claims: that Abel’s original ordination was done under the direction of Joseph Smith Jr., and that Abel was ordained a High Priest after being a Seventy.

    Then in 1908, in total contradiction to his own prior statements, Joseph F. Smith, on unspecified grounds, reverses his former position about Elijah Abel’s status and now claims that Joseph Smith himself declared Abel’s ordination “null and void.” After this time, Church leaders affirm that Smith himself originated the doctrine that Blacks could not hold the Priesthood.

    In July, 1934 Just as inexplicablely, Elijah Abel, grandson of Elijah Abel, is ordained a priest. And on 29 Sep 1935, Elijah Abel, grandson of Elijah Abel, is ordained an Elder.

    I guess these were the ‘token blacks’ of the mormon church at the time. Even with these ordinations the Church affirmed it’s racist policy towards the blacks with this First Presidency Statement that brings up the old Orson Hyde speculation that blacks were somehow ‘less valiant’ in the pre-existence. They also quote Brigham Young [NOT SCRIPTURE – IS THIS B.Y.’s OPINION?] and allude to other Prophets teaching this DOCTRINE. (See First Presidency Statement 1949 quoted above)

    These were not men who were directed by God, again all we see is confusion, contradiction and groping in the dark. But there is more: if Mormons want to use the Bible to justify this doctrine, than even Smith could not have held the Priesthood. I’ll have more on that tomorrow.

  44. falcon says:

    Your last paragraph says it all when you conclude that “these were not men who were directed by God”. That’s an apt conclusion. They were just men with no calling from God. The same is true of the leadership of the Mormon church today. They are a bunch of religious secularists with a church business to attend to. They can get up and make some smooth churchie sounding speeches at the general conference, but as with all cult leaders they are totally devoid of the Spirit of God.
    Knowing Christ and the power of His resurrection is an offer that God makes to all men. Paul tells us that it is God’s desire that none should perish. Why these Mormons continue to forsake God and His Son Jesus Christ in favor of false prophets and apostles is beyond me. But for those sheep that are familiar with the Savior’s voice, they heed His call and the invitation to follow Him.

  45. Olsen Jim says:

    Nobody is saying anything to counter my position. You just keep either throwing out statements from LDS leaders that, in effect, reflect the same concept.

    You can call it an ethnicity, race, whatever you want- but all people who descend from a particular person lumped together to the exclusion of all others is what I am speaking of. The underlying principle is obvious and consistent.

    Those who descended from Israel or Jacob were taught the gospel first. For a period of time, all others, called gentiles, were excluded. You can try to blur this reality, but the principle is absolutely no different than that seen in LDS history.

    Yes, Grindael, Christ relented and healed the daughter of the gentile- the point is that her faith was sufficient to overrule the directive of Christ Himself to His apostles- a directive that you all here should be calling racist based on the exact same criteria by which you are judging LDS “racism.”

    You are either being dishonest or intellectually lazy.

    JackG- you do not understand or represent my view of grace and works in the least. That is a different topic altogether dealing with eternal salvation. You should similarly be arguing that God never favored anybody in the Bible as a result of their works or merits- such a claim is as unfounded and easily refuted as any that exists.

    You guys keep explaining away the fact that only the Levites could hold the Priesthood or that only Israel could be taught the gospel. Words like “mystery” are used to rationalize God’s work. How about I simply say that blacks not being given the priesthood was a mystery of God that you cannot understand. How does that settle?

  46. mobaby says:


    So I take it you would have no trouble arriving at your Ward tomorrow to find the speaker expounding on the themes “from Scripture” which Brigham Young uses in his racist sermon which Grindael quotes?

    I know that’s not true and this is all terribly embarrassing to Mormons. At least I hope it is. It reveals some of the hideous false ideas that arose from this man-made religion.

  47. jackg says:


    I find it hard to see how you can say that about my view of your beliefs on faith and works. Your rudeness doesn’t make you intelligent no matter how hard you try. Like Falcon says, you are working from a foundation that is nothing but a house of cards, and we can sense your frustration at not having any substantive responses for us.

    Always praying for you…

  48. falcon says:

    As a former Mormon, you and the others who post here, have valuable insights into the mind-set of the true believer type Mormon. These folks come in all sorts of sizes and shapes and emotional dispositions. I can’t imagine you, even at the height of your true believer status, being rude and snide. In his book “Have You Witnessed to a Mormon Lately”, Jim Spencer goes to great lengths to characterize and categorize the different types of Mormons a Christian might encounter.
    The Arrogant True Believer is so deeply committed to Mormonism and its tenants that he can’t imagine anyone wouldn’t share his beliefs. As Jim states this type of Mormon is convinced that he’s a member of the Only True Church and he may have never encountered serious challenges to his faith. That may because he does not readily listen to anything. He may be brash. He is so convinced of his position that he pities those who are not Mormons. At his worst, the Arrogant True Believer disdains non-Mormons as stupid if they don’t immediately submit to Mormonism’s gospel, and he’s not above ridiculing those who disagree with him. He has never seriously considered the possibility that Mormonism is wrong. In his most deceived condition, the Arrogant True Believer has committed intellectual suicide. He has looked at reality and chosen to retreat into Mormonism. His conscience is seared. He may suffer from terminal spiritual deafness.
    When I first got into interacting with Mormons, I thought it was just a matter of pointing out the facts to them and they’d do a type of “BONK, I should have had a V8” as the commercial goes. It wasn’t until I was into this for a while that I realized the depth of the spiritual blindness and deception within Mormonism.
    The hook, in my estimation, is the conviction that Mormons have that they have received a direct message from God testifying to the truth of the BoM and by default, all of Mormonism. With that type of thinking, any information to the contrary is sublimated to the emotion masquerading as faith and truth. All of our well crafted arguments with documentation supporting what we say, just can’t break through. It’s the Holy Spirit sent by the Father that leads someone to Christ. We can only pray… the end.

  49. liv4jc says:

    Mysticism: Beliefs and ideas which are the product of personal intuition assumed to transcend ordinary understanding. In other words, sheer speculation believed to be reality. Faiths coming from of mysticism are collections of ideas arising out of emotionalism and out of self authenticated ideas apart from objective truth or evidence.-Dr. John MacArthur.

    I’m7. I may have mistaken the blacks never holding the priesthood quote with another never quote, such as the doctrine of polygamy will never pass away or that the temple ceremonies are eternal and will never be changed. Two out of three aint bad though. But let me try to let you in on our frustration and reason like a Mormon: Well, there is no contradiction in my “never” statement. BY himself said that the curse of Cain would not be lifted until all of Abel’s descendants were redeemed. Since we know that not all white men will accept the gospel (of their own free will, which is the greatest gift, you know) and be redeemed, then it is impossible for the curse of Cain on the Negro to ever be lifted. So even though there is no record of anyone saying the word “never”, they may as well have said it. TA-DA! Hold your applause please.
    Question. I thought that according to LDS mythology Jesus was the redeemer of the whole world and everyone gets a piece of the atonement pie. If that’s true, and Jesus died prior to BY’s decrees about the accursed Negroes, does that mean that BY denied the atonement? In any case, can you honestly say that all of Abel’s seed had been redeemed as of 1978? Either way, you’re still in a pickle.

  50. grindael says:


    Your conclusions turn my stomach. Christ was not racist in the least. 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.

    What you are missing here, either by dishonesty or laziness, is the fact that Christ gave a commandment to preach the Gospel to all, Jew and Gentile and that ALL ARE ALIKE UNTO GOD, something Mormons finally proclaimed in 1978 in their ‘official’ paper, while in the same issue counseling people not to intermarry, because some still could not stand the thought of it. The Negro race comes under the ‘gentile’ banner.

    Young, who is supposed to be a follower of Jesus, and proclaiming himself an ‘apostle’ and ‘prophet’ of Jesus, tried to justify his racism & jealousy of black men, based on twisting God’s promise to Abraham and the Children of Israel, just as you are doing.

    It had nothing to do with some phony pre-existent war, or the mistakes of one man: Cain. This is a doctrine invented by men, who could not see past their racist views of intermarriage and interaction between races, [even Smith wanted to send all the negroes to Texas & use them up in the war there & wanted to keep them separate from the ‘chosen’ white race] all the while thinking they were better than everyone else. God ended that kind of thinking by coming Himself to do so. He died on the cross for everyman, all alike to HIM. He gave His Chosen People their chance, they rejected Him. His goodness and grace caused him to accept the faith of a gentile, something beyond the capabilities of those men in our modern age who should have emulated Him, but instead chose to follow their own flawed thinking, whether they were so-called Christians or Mormons.

Leave a Reply