Still no formal repudiation. Let June 8th be a day of shame.

In honor of the 35th anniversary of Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball’s announcement of the end of the priesthood ban against black Mormons (D&C Declaration 2), we are reposting Aaron Shafovaloff’s 30th anniversary article, “Shame, Shame, Shame: Thirty Years Later And Still No Apology.”

Still Repairing Brigham’s Messchurch_of_unrepudiated_racism

Mormon apologist Blake Ostler once said, “I personally believe that [Brigham Young’s] theology was a disaster for the most part” (>>). We have multiple reasons to concur with Blake (more than he would agree with), as Mormonism has spent much of its post-Brigham history picking up the pieces from the catastrophic mess of theology he left behind. The 1916 First Presidency statement on divine investiture and Elohim/Jehovah identities was largely driven by an effort to repair Brigham Young’s damaging Adam-God teaching. Contrary to the notion that it died with Brigham, it had carried well on into the 20th century. Some Mormons today are deeply embarrassed over Young’s teaching that Jesus was physically conceived by a natural union between Mary and the Father (who, for Brigham, of course, was Adam). Many Mormons have tragically settled for an “I don’t know” answer to the question of whether sexual intercourse was involved in the conception of Christ. Along with Adam-God, Brigham’s teaching that God still progresses in knowledge and power was condemned as a deadly, damning heresy by apostle Bruce McConkie. Then there’s individual blood atonementmen living on the Sun, participation in polygamy being absolutely necessary for Celestial exaltation, and on, and on. Many Mormons quietly write off Brigham Young as a crazy old uncle who has said very stupid, very irresponsible, very embarrassing, very damaging things. The problem is that he happened to say most of these things from the Tabernacle pulpit in a position of influential leadership and self-claimed prophetic authority. Mormons today try to laugh it off. Stephen Robinson even suggested that Adam-God might have been a joke. But at the end of the day Christians aren’t laughing. We have a higher standard for prophets than Mormonism allows. For us, becoming a Mormon would mean drastically lowering the bar for men who claim to be God’s living spokesmen on earth.

Reversing a “Direct Commandment of the Lord” Based Upon a “Doctrine of the Church”

On June 8, 1978, Mormonism attempted to reverse yet another one of Brigham’s embarrassing doctrines, the ban on blacks from holding the Mormon priesthood. The dominant historical explanation given for the ban was an appeal to pre-mortal decisions or indecisions. Negros were not as valiant in the pre-existence, and were cursed with the mark of Cain, black skin. This explanation was taught and expressed by LDS prophets and apostles, from Conference pulpits to a First Presidency statement:

“The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a 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 father’s 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 receive all the blessings we 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.’ 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 pre-mortal 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 principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained 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.” (Official First Presidency statement, August 17, 1951 [some sources date this to 1949], cf. John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, p.89).

Mere Folklore or Institutionalized Racism?

In spite of this, Mormon leaders today continue to say things like,

“When you think about it, that’s just what it is — folklore. It’s never really been official doctrine… We have to keep in mind that it’s folklore and not doctrine… It’s never been recorded as such” (LDS General Authority Sheldon F. Child, quoted in “LDS marking 30-year milestone”, by Carrie A. Moore, Deseret News, June 7, 2008).

This folklore is not part of and never was taught as doctrine by the church” (LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle, quoted in “Mormon and Black”, by Peggy Fletcher Stack, Salt Lake Tribune, June 7, 2008)

This gives the impression that the teaching and belief had a mere bottom-dwelling existence, only kept alive by the culture in a way not initiated by or acquiesced to by the overarching institution. In the dictionary, “folklore” is defined as unwritten lore that is passed down through tradition or anecdote. Calling the “curse of Cain” teaching mere folklore obscures the fact that it was institutionally promoted and institutionally perpetuated—publicly and explicitly and in writing. It was rooted in the teachings of men considered to be prophets and apostles, the conduits of prophetic counsel and the stream of continuing revelation.

No One Needs the Mormon Priesthood Anyway

As a Christian I find the reversal on one level insignificant. The Aaronic priesthood is, according to Hebrews, “useless”, “weak”, and “obsolete”, a shadow of the Messiah to come who would serve as our sufficient sacrifice and priest. The “Aaronic priesthood” of Mormonism today doesn’t remotely follow the functions of the priesthood as described by the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Melchizedek is held up as an analogy for Christ’s unique priestly role and identity, but there is never described an ordained Melchizedek priesthood that flows from Christ to male followers. Mormonism simply reads Joseph Smith’s imaginary priesthood structure into the Bible. And I am not at all interested in obeying Satan when he tells people, “See, you are naked. Take some fig leaves and make you aprons. Father will see your nakedness.” Christians don’t feel like any non-Mormon Christian is missing out from Mormon temples. In Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). Our intensified experiences with God and his people come through, among other things, reading his word, serving, singing, loving,suffering, praying, communing with our brotherhood in Christ, being swallowed up in the bigness of God’s creation. We don’t have to step inside a building to experience the Holy Spirit in a deeper way. Christians have the permanently indwelling Holy Spirit, immediately accessible, received at conversion in the same way we received justification and the forgiveness of sins: by grace through faith apart from personal works or merit or earning or worthiness. It is Mormons, white and black, who are missing out by being led astray from having a two-way personal relationship with Jesus Christ, based on the foundation of freely received eternal life.

Prevented From Being Complete Followers and Servants of Jesus?

In his book In the Lord’s Due Time, the first black to receive the Mormon priesthood after the 1978 reversal, Joseph Freeman, tells of hearing about the priesthood announcement. He writes,

“As I hung up the phone, little beads of perspiration broke out on my forehead, and my knees began to shake uncontrollably. It was true! It was really true! I could hold the priesthood! My lifetime dream of becoming a complete follower and servant of Jesus had come true.”

Did you catch that? Mormonism had deceived Freeman into thinking that, because he was black and because he couldn’t enter into a man-made temple, he could not yet be a complete follower and servant of Christ. Let that sink in.

Withholding blessings of the New Testament church (whatever one deems those blessings to be) from people based on skin-color or ethnicity reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel. The promise and assurance of the fullness of eternal life is not for the religious elite, but for the brokenhearted, coffee-drinking, cigarette-smoking, nose-pierced, foul-mouthed, rough-edged, self-despairing, barely spiritual, unworthy moral failures who come to Christ with the empty hand of faith, trusting him for the free promise of eternal life and the heart-changing indwelling of the Spirit. Scripture doesn’t take this lightly. Come to Christ with empty hands and you will have eternal joy. Put up the divisive, unscriptural barriers of moralism or ethnicity or skin-color or quasi-masonic or distinctively Jewish ordinances, and you incite what John Piper calls the “compassionate rage” of true apostles like Paul, who start calling down anathema (Galatians 1:6-9).

Institutional Integrity Demands an Apology and a Repudiation

Mormon apostle Jeffrey Holland seems to have at least a partial understanding of the institutional responsibility Mormonism has to make right the wrongs. In an interview associated with the PBS special, “The Mormons”, he said the following regarding actions the Mormon Church could take to make sure that the curse of Cain teaching isn’t perpetuated:

“I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we’re absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that’s not perpetuated in the present. That’s the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic.” (>>)

The problem for Holland is that he has bought into a shallow, inadequate, and irresponsible way of dealing with false teachings and false beliefs once promoted by Mormon prophets and apostles. In a noteworthy Mormon blog post called, “How does Mormon doctrine die?“, Margaret Young is quoted as saying,

“Card-carrying Mormons do often believe that Blacks were fence sitters in the pre-existence and that polygamy is essential to eternal progression. Neither position has been formally repudiated by the powers that be. We have merely distanced ourselves from them.”

Kaimi Wenger, the author of the post, goes on to write:

“To the extent that they are not repeated and reinforced, unrepudiated ideas slowly fade from the community’s consciousness. This is in large degree because of the structure of Mormon belief. Mormon theology is unusually informal, vague and undefined. Because the church does not issue encyclicals or Summa Theologica, our theology is largely of the what-the-prophets-say-today variety… Our belief structure being what it is, [old ideas] cannot truly be killed — but neither are they really alive. “

Mormon leaders depend on this. Formal repudiation is avoided by Mormon leaders, as it would highlight the fallibility of church leaders (particularly prophets and apostles) and potentially bring a sensitive, embarrassing issue to light, prompting many to investigate material from earlier Church leaders which isn’t faith-promoting. Explicit, formal repudiation of past teaching that names names and quotes quotes would set a dangerous precedent in a religion which fosters so much dependency on the reliability of the institution’s succession of leaders. To save face, Mormon leaders opt for a quiet way of distancing old ideas, allowing them to continue amongst the culture in part, but betting on the forgetfulness and historical ignorance of future generations.

Authentic repentance, integrity, and love for people would demand not only a distancing by a lack of repetition, but also a formal, official, explicit apology for and repudiation of the priesthood ban and the teachings historically used to theologically justify it. Mormonism’s institution arrogantly sees itself as above having to give an apology for things like this. In fact, Mormonism has fallen short of even admitting the priesthood ban was wrong or racist. Gordon B. Hinckley had the audacity to say of the ban, “I don’t think it was wrong.” Marcus Martins, a black Mormon and the chair of the department of religious education at BYU-Hawaii, has been warped into thinking “The [priesthood] ban itself was not racist“.

Aspects and echos of the principles behind the curse of Cain teaching continue still today. At a recent BYU devotional the dean of Religious Education, Terry Ball, said,

“Have you ever wondered why you were born where and when you were born? Why were you not born 500 years ago in some primitive aboriginal culture in some isolated corner of the world? Is the timing and placing of our birth capricious? For Latter-day Saints, the answer is no. Fundamental to our faith is the understanding that before we came to this earth we lived in a premortal existence with a loving Heavenly Father. We further understand that in that premortal state we had agency and that we grew and developed as we used that agency. Some, as Abraham learned, became noble and great ones. We believe that when it came time for us to experience mortality, a loving Heavenly Father, who knows each of us well, sent us to earth at the time and in the place and in circumstances that would best help us reach our divine potential and help Him maximize His harvest of redeemed souls” (“To Confirm and Inform: A Blessing of Higher Education,” March 11, 2008, BYU Devotional).

Settling for Less than Full Dignity

In the DVD set, “Blacks in the Scriptures“, Marvin Perkins was asked if the Church should make a kind of “mea culpa”, an admission of guilt and an apology for past wrongdoings. He responded by saying that his mother has always taught him to eat his dinner before he could have his dessert, that he should be content with what is already available. With all due respect to my black brother in humanity who is equally created (not begotten) in the image of God, it seems Mr. Perkins is still saying, “Yes, master”, to the human institutional powers above him. Instead of appropriately demanding the full dignity that is due, and publicly heralding a call for an explicit repentance and apology and confession from Mormonism’s top leadership for the Mormon institution’s past wrongdoings, he has settled in some significant ways for a continued second-class treatment. That simply bewilders me. I write this to let people like him know that we haven’t forgotten the apology that is due to him. We take note that the Mormon Church decided to publicly schedule a general authority, not an apostle or prophet, to speak at the Sunday, June 8th commemorative event held at the Tabernacle. We take note that, as of this writing, the Mormon institution has no black general authorities. We take note that, as of this writing, the Mormon Church largely (but not absolutely) squelches what could be entirely appropriate black cultural expressions of spirituality in aspects of the Sunday-morning church experience, choosing instead to significantly force culturally homogenous liturgy and hymnody and homiletics.

June 8 is a Day of Shame

As an evangelical, I cannot celebrate the half-baked, unfinished reversal of policy and doctrine that happened in 1978. It serves as a reminder of institutional arrogance, of unrepentance, and of a false gospel that puts undue power in man-controlled ordinances. Saving faith instead looks alone to the person of Jesus Christ, who offers the assurance of the full and complete benefits of the gospel to anyone who would receive them by faith as a gift.

As long as you arrogantly refuse to issue an apology and an explicit renunciation, shame, shame, shame on you, Mormon leaders. Let June 8th be a day of shame.

See Also

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in LDS Church, Mormon Culture, Mormon History, Priesthood and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Still no formal repudiation. Let June 8th be a day of shame.

  1. Mike R says:

    Here we are living in what some call the ” last inning” of the game , what has been called the
    latter days , 2000 years after Jesus set up His church and picked men ( apostles) to teach the
    important spiritual truths associated with His church and which if embraced can give a person
    a right relationship with God here and now as well as receiving eternal life in heaven with Him and
    the New Testament records these wonderful truths . Fortunately for us today the scriptures also
    contain information on how to detect those who would arise and resort to teaching for doctrine
    the commandments of men . Such was Brigham Young and other Mormon apostles . Though he
    reassured his flock of his duty to prevent false doctrine from being taught or condoned by
    him as their shepherd , this thread reveals that he failed in his promise . He was a false prophet.
    It matters little if a man is a decent neighbor or if he is polite , dresses well and is intelligent , if
    he introduces false teachings then he cannot be trusted . Mormon leaders have promised to
    never teach false doctrine , that their counsel if followed would never lead someone into false
    doctrine because their teachings are a anchor of eternal truth compared to the teachings from
    other “christian ” leaders and the world .
    Despite these claims of being reliable guides in important spiritual truths Mormon apostles
    like Brigham Young , by their doctrinal revealments , have only made it conclusive that they
    are in fact those of whom Jesus forewarned long ago would come in this last inning : Mark 13:22
    23 .
    May the Mormon people realize the danger of giving allegiance to false prophets .

  2. shematwater says:

    Just a few comments

    First, there will never be an apology, as God has no need to apologize for his methods or commands. I know people don’t agree with our doctrine, but the curse of Cain was and is doctrine, inspired by God as part of his economy, and no amount of bitterness or contention will ever cause him to apologize for it, or allow his appointed servants to do so.

    Second, it was not Brigham Young that introduced this doctrine, despite what people want to claim. Joseph Smith was the first to reference this ban and the curse of Cain, as it is mentioned more than once in the JST and in the Book of Abraham, both translated by him through the inspiration of the spirit. So, let us all get this right.

    Thirdly, I don’t know who wrote this article, but they are very ignorant as to our doctrine, though their accusations are of the most common verity.

  3. grindael says:

    “In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the Negroes, or sons of Cain. (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 501)

    The “curse of Cain” was a skin of blackness. That is what Jo taught above, and what Brigham Young carried on with. Thanks for letting everyone know Shem, that it is a Mormon doctrine. That is what we have been saying all along and what your own church denies. How can we be “ignorant” of the doctrine, when you yourself admit it? Typical Bubble Talk. Sorry Shem, but Brigham Young was the first to enforce it. This was done because Black men were marrying and having children by the white Mormon women. It was totally racist and still is, and so are you for defending it, and trying to say that this came from God. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but that will never happen in the Mormon Bubble of Denial.

  4. jaxi says:

    I am willing to agree with Shem as long as we get something else straight. When he says God, he is talking about “the Mormon god” So all those that accept that Mormon god are freeto believe in that doctrine. I love that Shem says that the curse of Cain is doctrine. Keep on defending your racist god’s doctrine. No need to apologize, it reflects the nature of your god. Anyone with any sense of who the true God is will know that that doctrine doesn’t come from him. The Christian God loves all skins and races. He created our diversity out of love of beauty and not to seperate physically the valient and not so valient. My beautiful black and brown brothers and sisters were made beautiful and in the image of the true God. They don’t need to have their skins turned white to reflect that image.

  5. falcon says:

    Hay wait just a minute. Mormonism is the restoration of authentic NT, first century Christianity, right?
    OK then the NT should be absolutely filled with Mormon doctrine including the curse of black skin and not allowing those with black skin to receive the priesthood so that they can reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom after they practice polygamy of course…..WHEW! I’m all tired out just typing this.
    Mormon doctrine is absolute GARBAGE. It’s not even fit to be put into a false doctrine land fill it’s that outrageous, nasty and it stinks.
    I don’t care that Mormons might be offended by what I just wrote. They ought to be offended by what their “prophets” and “apostles” have believed, taught and institutionalized by this true and perfect church.
    These things are not folk doctrine or opinion. They were part of the LDS church. No, it’s not something that happened a long time ago and should therefore simply be ignored. It was occurring in my life time. I remember it.
    If Shem wants to accept this then all I can say is shame on him. This goes beyond decency and can’t be explained away.

  6. Rick B says:

    Shem It really is hard to take you guys seriously.
    You claim the black skin curse is LDS doctrine. I cannot tell you how many LDS I have meet that deny that. So the ones that deny it, where did they learn that?

    Also have you not read your Bible? King Solomon on the song of Solomon, His wife says she has dark skin, it could be black. Moses had a black women for a wife. Job in the Book of Job says his skin is black. Were these people cursed? You claim black skin is a curse, then why did they not turn white? As the BoM claimed would happen, Funny how when that failed, it was changed to say pure, yet you get around that by saying, the language was updated.

    So if the BoM was around for less than 200 years and the word white changing to pure is simply an updated language, then why did God allow for over 5000 years of written History in the Bible From Genesis till when JS wrote the BoM did we have zero mention of Blacks being cursed? And dont try saying, the Bible mentions the curse of Cain. Because in the Bible when it mentions the curse of Cain, no place does it clearly say, the curse is Black skin for people who were less valiant.

    Also you can say, god will do as he pleases, yet why would He claim Black skin is a curse and it will always be that Blacks can never attain the priesthood and this will always be and is a law of God. But then less than 100 years later change it. I feel sorry for you, but even more sorry for your family that is being lead to eternal Damnation because you willing teach them lies.

  7. Mike R says:

    At least Shem admitted this ban was church doctrine , that’s a step in the right direction towards
    knowing the truth about this issue with Blacks . What Brigham Young and other Mormon
    leaders did was to utilize their authority to introduce further “light” from God on this issue
    from what his mentor had taught in the church . Brigham could then teach that it was against
    Jesus’ gospel law on marriage if a Mormon male married a black woman .
    Mormon leaders also defended their teachings and actions toward Blacks by introducing more
    ” gospel truth ” which was that Blacks as spirits were not valiant in heaven before coming to
    earth . Sadly , but all B.Y. did was borrow some of the egregious teachings of other churches
    of his day and repackage it as “restored truth ” from God , and then feed it to his flock.
    Unfortunately it appears he never accepted advise from others that his teaching was wrong ,
    and so he refused to admit that he taught false doctrine to his flock . This is proof that he
    drifted away from the Lord’s will to His original apostles whom He had sent out to preach
    the liberating good news that all people could receive the fullest blessings of eternal
    life . Like his ” new light ” about Adam , B.Y’s doctrinal revealments about Blacks were not
    really from God , they were merely his own ideas which caused him and those he led to drift
    away from Jesus’ truth for His church into unsound doctrine . He was a false prophet .
    The Mormon people need to demand their leadership offically apologize for their colleages
    doctrine on Blacks , then maybe we all can move on . Until that happens we will only be listening
    to some new rationalizing by Mormon apologists attempting to defend their leaders .

  8. johnnyboy says:

    I think we should make a new category for Mormons like Shem. “Bubble” trolls.

  9. Brewed says:

    Shem,
    This doctrine is simply racism. Shallow, evil, man made, straight up racism.
    When JS and BY were alive, racism was rampant and very much a part of American culture. This wasn’t divinely inspired because it was new. Before BY and JS it was never scriptural. It was never part of the early history of the Bible, NT or OT. Most of the individuals in the bible were more than likely dark skinned, it’s the middle east! Hello! Think of all the individuals from Africa mentioned and blessed within the Bible. The man that helped Jesus carry the cross was from Africa and likely had dark skin.
    The curse of cain was something used by racist white men to make themselves feel justified for their racism. It is not found anywhere in God’s word.
    You say we misinterpret and misunderstand the Bible, maybe you should take a look in a mirror.
    Your so busy trying to defend your prophets that you can’t even distinguish between good and evil.
    Maybe you like your prophets feel somewhat justified in your own personal racism with the whole “curse of cain = black skin” nonsense.

  10. grindael says:

    Fred,

    Everyone here is aware that the Southern Christians after the Civil War had problems with racism. So what? It was a sin then, it’s a sin now. They were not following the Bible, but some man’s interpretation of it. The fact that OTHER CHRISTIANS did not have these problems and worked against racism, slavery, etc. since before the founding of our country tells us that there were those who saw the sin and condemned those that kept it alive. This proves nothing, only that there are those that sin. The Mormons, on the other hand, claimed it was a “revelation” from God, and they were supposed to be the “only true and living church on the face of the earth” by their own admission. The fact that there are still Christian racists shows that sin is still alive and well in the world. But many of those denominations apologized and have worked to change it. Mormons have never apologized for their racist doctrines that were given by “living prophets” that said they talked directly to God and that God directly commanded them to be racist. They only changed the doctrine because they were FORCED to, (The Justice Department got involved in the 70’s) as they were with polygamy. Read this report in the May 1978 edition of the Ensign Magazine (all of the way at the bottom of the page):

    “The Justice Department says it’s a matter of legality and BYU says it’s a matter of morality. What’s in question is a threatened U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit claiming that BYU’s housing regulations violate the Fair Housing Act.

    As a result of an April 5 meeting of University and Justice Department officials, both parties are optimistic that further discussions will result in a mutually satisfactory resolution. The Department of Justice has indicated its intention not to take any legal action pending the outcome of further talks.”

    The Church negotiated with the Justice Department and indicated that change was coming. The “revelation” by Spencer Kimball was an elaborate ruse. Those that say that the church didn’t “cave” because of social pressure are simply wrong. They did. They were going to be dragged into court by the Justice Department. They couldn’t have that, so they changed the doctrine.

    http://mormonitemusings.com/2012/04/19/a-f-a-i-r-apologist-defends-racist-prophets/

  11. jaxi says:

    Fred,

    Your comment is interesting. You seem to stereotype all protestant boys as being taught to be racist and all Mormon boys as being taught to be respectful of races. You are not talking about religious doctrine you are stereotyping people. As a white BIC, now ex Mormon, who grew up right outside DC and in a school where I was the racial minority, I heard lots of racist statements inside of my home and outside of my home. I was also forbidden to date anyone of a different race and I was told by family that they might not be able to love a child that looked different from me. So statements like protestants are all racists or all not, or Mormons are all racist or all not, holds no water. People are people and are all capable of the same sins. However, Mormon DOCTRINE is racist.

    In my experience growing up Mormon, I knew its doctrine was racist as soon as I was taught it. I just knew these policies could not have come from God. The way I worked it out in my mind so I felt better about my faith all my years being Mormon was that Joseph Smith never taught it, Brigham Young was just mistaken as he was mistaken about so many other things that the LDS Church has deviated away from, and that the LDS Church leaders were just following a false tradition. Oh, the mental gymnastics I had to go through to believe the LDS Church. I wonder why I never asked myself why those “prophets” couldn’t receive revelation to correct their false practices.

    I remember now, I did ask that. But some LDS member told me the world wasn’t ready for it and the LDS Church wouldn’t survive if it allowed blacks to have the priesthood. (I actually heard this argument from someone three days ago). Read your early Christian history people. The early Christians stood up for moral behaviors that conflicted with the Roman Empire all the time. You stand up for truth, period.

    But as Shem said, “the curse of Cain was and is doctrine, inspired by [the Mormon] God as part of his economy, and no amount of bitterness or contention will ever cause him to apologize for it, or allow his appointed servants to do so.” So all my mental efforts of trying to persuade myself that it was a mistake, was a waste of time. Because it was doctrine to begin with. If I had known that I would have left the LDS Church a long time ago like my sister, who left because of this very reason. She has dated guys from different races, I guess if she marries one of them, she doesn’t want to explain to her kids that they are dark because they come from the cursed seed of Cain or have a skin curse from their Lamanite ancestors. “It’s okay kids, one day when God perfects you, you will be white like me!” I honestly don’t know how Mormon’s that are not white explain this to their children, “We are dark skinned because….” Oh boy.

  12. Rick B says:

    Fred,
    Lets be real, Simply put, you are a liar and a hyporicte.
    First off, you cry that you have a post or two held in Mods Jail. Many christians on this blog have posted we have posts that are being held up, Me, Falcon, Oldman and others have said so many times. You LDS act like it only happens to you.

    Old man complained that it happended to him so much, he felt he should simply leave.

    Then you act like since some Christians said and did things that are rasist, then every Christian is like that. But you ignore the facts that, It is YOUR CHURCH and it’s PROPHETS that claimed God spoke to them and said, Blacks are cursed.

    Yes we might have many Christians that claim or teach rasim, but as others have said, That is sin and they are wrong. We dont teach God said this, But LDS do.

    Then you sit here and complain, Christians are rasist since you claim to have seen it and lived around it, yet you ignore the fact that Shem, a TBM came here and said, It is Doctrine, Our church taught it, it was taught by our prophets, JS and BY, and our god said so.

    Funny how you dont say anything to one of your own. So this makes you a liar and a hyprocite, and Jesus said, Your of your father the devil since you speak His lagunage.

  13. jaxi says:

    Fred,

    Again, you are talking about people’s actions. Not about racist doctrine, such as Mormonism stating that the reason people are born black is because they were “on the fence” whether they chose God’s plan or not. What about all the blacks that could be sealed in the temple and have temple marriages. One poor woman appealed to the first presidency on multiple occasions to be sealed as part of Joseph Smith’s family and all she could get was them to seal her as a servant. She was to be Joseph’s servant for all eternity.

    The “seed of Cain” theory was an interpretation of scripture the crept into Protestantism. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young just piggy banked off the idea. But because they clearly stated this as scripture, the LDS Church is stuck in a position where they can not apologize for the mistake (as other churches have done) because they would be calling their prophets into question.

    I know all about Uncle Tom’s cabin. I’m actually not a Protestant. Just because some people once had an incorrect scriptural interpretation to promote racism doesn’t really affect how the traditional Christiantiy has always interpreted scripture.

  14. grindael says:

    Mormon writer Mary Frost Adams tells us what happened…

    This is a late account with no contemporary evidence to back it up. I doubt it really happened. If he was so magnanimous, why in January, 1844, did “Mayor” Jo Smith fine two black men “for attempting to marry white women”? (DHC, 6:210). Because it was against the law in the Nauvoo Charter, that’s why. And this is what Jo wanted to do with the Blacks in 1844:

    Governor Houston of Texas, says—”if you refuse to receive us into the United States, we must go to the British Government for protection.” This would certainly be bad policy for this nation; the British are now throughout that whole country, trying to bribe all they can; and the first thing they would do, if they got possession, would be to set the negroes and the Indians to fight, and they would use us up. British officers are now running all over Texas to establish British influence in that country.It will be more honorable for us to receive Texas and set the negroes [p.244] free, and use the negroes and Indians against our foes. Don’t let Texas go, lest our mothers and the daughters of the land should laugh us in the teeth; and if these things are not so, God never spoke by any Prophet since the world began. How much better it is for the nation to bear a little expense than to have the Indians and British upon us and destroy us all. We should grasp all the territory we can. I know much that I do not tell. I have had bribes offered me, but I have rejected them. The government will not receive any advice or counsel from me: they are self-sufficient. But they must go to hell and work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. The South holds the balance of power. By annexing Texas, I can do away with this evil. As soon as Texas was annexed, I would liberate the slaves in two or three States, indemnifying their owners, and send the negroes to Texas, and from Texas to Mexico, where all colors are alike. And if that was not sufficient, I would call upon Canada, and annex it. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p.244, Meeting, March 7, 1844)

    Cannon fodder against the British! Jo condemns the British for wanting to do it, but then says that the U.S. should jump on that idea first. Wow, what a generous guy he was. And the South NEVER held the “balance of power” as was proved in the Civil War. Texas actually joined the Confederacy and that didn’t help the south. (They actually deposed Sam Houston who was against secession). Such is the shortsightedness of Jo Smith. (He was no prophet, that’s for sure) Jo wanted to get rid of all the blacks because he was against intermarriage. Send them all to Mexico, where “ALL COLORS ARE ALIKE”, meaning DARK SKIN.

    This, because of the Mormon “priesthood”. If Elijah Able had tried to marry a white woman, he never would have kept his church standing. He would have been out on his ear. He was their “token Negro” Jo was a racist. Brigham Young was a racist. Blacks weren’t good enough to intermarry with whites. This was the direct reason for Young’s instigation of the Priesthood and Temple “ban” against all with a dark skin that had “negroid” features. That Mormon “prophets” said was a COMMANDMENT of God, and a direct “revelation”. This prejudice may have also been prevalent in America, (not totally to be sure) but he (Jo) was supposed to be America’s prophet. This proves he was just a man who was preaching sin, (like all the others who did) because as the Bible teaches,

    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

  15. falcon says:

    Right on time is the Mormon tactic of trying to find something, anything that they can point to in Christianity for what reason?
    Well it’s maybe “Christians did the same thing”, “Christians did something worse”, or perhaps “It’s all ‘tied/even’ so therefore you can’t point at us so let’s just forget about it all”.
    People can see the difference. How about Billy Graham and his move to integrate seating in his Crusades in the South.

    “Christians are uniquely qualified to promote racial equality, said Stephen Carter, in his column following the fiftieth anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education. The Brown decision changed America forever, Carter wrote, when it declared that separate schools for blacks and white were unconstitutional. Over the next decade, busing programs integrated public schools, and American life began its slow road to racial equality, which was hastened by the Civil Rights Act in the following decade. Yet even before the landmark decision, America’s leading evangelist began integrating his crusades.

    According to Edward Gilbreath, it was Billy Graham who wrote, “Eleven o’clock Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America,” in a 1950s Reader’s Digest article on racism. They are well-known words, but less known is the man who said them. Martin Luther King Jr. borrowed the line from his friend Billy Graham.
    ‘No scriptural basis for segregation’

    Two years before Graham pledged to integrate his crusades, he told an audience in Jackson, Mississippi, in 1952, “There is no scriptural basis for segregation.” His stance horrified many in the churches sponsoring the crusade, and when pressed, he softened his stance. “I came to Jackson to preach only the Bible and not to enter into local issues,” he later said.

    However, strong cultural feelings regarding the race issue combined with Graham’s celebrity status did not allow him to waffle for long, and in 1953, Graham took a stand. At the committee of his Chattanooga, Tennessee, crusade, he voiced his strong opposition to the customary practice of segregated seating. Then, before one of the crusade meetings, onlookers were astonished when Graham personally removed the ropes separating black and white sections of the audience.”

    http://www.ctlibrary.com/newsletter/newsletterarchives/2004-07-09.html

    The problem with the LDS church is their denial of even knowing where their racist doctrine came from. They look left and right and say, “Well how did that get in here?” I’m ashamed for the Mormons who come here and defend their racist doctrine.

  16. grindael says:

    What other Christian churches had mixed congregations during that time? I remember going to some Catholic functions with mixed congregations, but as for the Protestants both in the south and on the east coast, where I had family, the only blacks I saw were servers.

    Lots. The record isn’t great, and really isn’t today. (What is the percentage of blacks in the Mormon Church? A 2007 study by the Pew Research Center found that only 3% of American Mormons were black. So they are not much different than the PROTEST ants you keep denigrating) This article (thanks Falcon for bringing this to my mind) may be enlightening to you:

    The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., once said “it is appalling that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o’clock on Sunday morning.” How much have things changed?

    The Multiracial Congregations Project http://hirr.hartsem.edu/org/faith_congregations_research_multiracl.html, led by Michael Emerson, a Rice University sociologist, defines a multiracial congregation as one where no one racial group is more than 80% of the congregation. Using that standard, Emerson has found that only 8% of all Christian congregations in the U.S. are racially mixed to a significant degree: 2-3% of mainline Protestant congregations, 8% of other Protestant congregations, and 20% of Catholic parishes. [Why these differences?] This seems especially surprising since Jesus made an effort to cross cultural boundaries in his ministry, and Paul made Christianity the first voluntary multi-ethnic organization by insisting that Gentiles as well as Jews should be part of the growing Christian churches.

    The pattern seems no different in the New River Valley. There is less diversity in the NRV (9% non-white) compared to the nation as a whole (25% non-white), but even if we loosen the definition of a multiracial congregation to one in which no one group is more than 90%, such congregations still seem rare.

    After the Civil War there were several Black churches established in this area, including St. Paul’s AME Church in Blacksburg, and Schaeffer Memorial Baptist Church, in Christiansburg. In 1881 the (white) Blacksburg Presbyterian Church decided to offer outreach preaching services for the local Black population once a month at night. The attendance was good at first, but soon dropped off. The church admitted “the colored preachers thought we were infringing on their rights,” so the services were suspended. But perhaps the Black folks were beginning to realize what was recently expressed by Paige Patterson, a leader in the predominantly white Southern Baptist Convention: “When it comes to rhetoric, the best Anglo preachers on their best days don’t preach as well as a good black preacher on his worst day.”

    Integration in church worship did not come to Blacksburg until 1961. The minister at Blacksburg Presbyterian Church, Rev. Ellison Smyth, was asked by his Ushers Guild what to do if Black folks came to a service wanting to attend. “What should you do? They are people, sit them anywhere they want to sit.” Soon the church governing body approved a statement endorsing integration of seating, membership, and use of facilities. The lone dissenting vote against the statement was V.P.I.’s President Walter Newman, who then left the church. Thirty years later in an interview http://spec.lib.vt.edu/archives/blackhistory/timeline/smyth.htm, Rev. Smyth (for whose father Smyth Hall was named) reflected on the long-term effects of that statement: “our doors are open, but there are very few blacks that come. …I don’t think there’s any drive because of the reluctance to do anything that might weaken the existing black churches. I don’t know what the answer to that is.” Though few Blacks go to traditionally white churches, even fewer whites go to traditionally Black churches.

    It is possible to think of lots of reasons why people worship with people of the same race. [Brainstorm here.] People tend to want a multi-racial church only if others conform to their own culture-sing their songs, adopt their style, follow their minister. So an “open door” is not usually enough to gain diversity. People rarely think about leaving their own comfort zone to experience the religious culture of another race.

    A recent book by Beverly Tatum, Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? And Other Conversations About Race, seems relevant to this issue. Tatum claims that people need significant places and times to develop their own sense of identity, including racial identity. For whites, these opportunities are pervasive, since racial sameness is the norm of experience for whites. But for Blacks, she claims, these opportunities need to be established and protected, since racial otherness is the norm of experience for Blacks in America. Perhaps Black churches play a valuable role for Black life, one for which there is no comparable need in white life.

    Some multiracial churches are in transition and are unstable. Few multiracial churches are successful. One example is Oakhurst Presbyterian Church, in Decatur, Georgia-described in the book O, Lord, Hold Our Hands: How a Church Thrives in a Multi-cultural World, 2003. In the New River Valley, one church that I know of qualifies as multiracial-the Christian Growth Center http://www.cgcchurch.org/ -an evangelical church in Christiansburg which has roughly 65% white, 30% Black, and 5% Hispanic members. It was founded some 20 years ago and grew as a diverse congregation. Another local church that comes close to being multiracial is Dublin United Methodist Church. This church was created in the late 1960’s by intentionally joining two previously segregated congregations. Currently they have more than 50 non-white members in a congregation over 700. If readers of this article go to churches where the majority membership is less than 90%, please share this with me at [email protected] .

    People whose interest in integrated worship goes beyond a simple “open door” policy may wish to consider these churches or think about more active ways of creating diversity. There is a list of over two dozen predominantly Black congregations in this area at: http://www.diversity.vt.edu/churches.html.

    It remains an open question whether American Christians will achieve the diverse community of which Dr. King dreamed in which God’s children-black and white-will join hands and sing together in church.

    James C. Klagge
    Klagge is a Multi-Cultural Fellow and Professor of Philosophy at Virginia Tech. He and his son Nick are members of Asbury United Methodist Church, in Christiansburg.

  17. jaxi says:

    Fred,

    <"What other Christian churches had mixed congregations during that time?"

    You are starting to sound like a broken record. For every good thing you say Mormons did, I can come back with something bad. For every good thing I say another Church of that time did you could come back with something awful. But you are missing the entire point. We are not talking about the action's of people. We are talking about DOCTRINE.

    "Mormon scripture: God curses bad races with black skin

    2 Nephi 5:21
    mormon-racism"And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

    Alma 3: 6
    "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."

    3 Nephi 2:14-15
    " And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."

    Moses 7:22
    mormon-scriptures" And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them."

    Abraham 1:21-24,27
    "Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land."

    "The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden; When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land."

    "Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry"

    Official LDS Church Publications Explain Racist LDS Scriptures

    lds-scriptures"The Book of Abraham is rich both in doctrine and in historical incidents. Of the latter the fact of the large influence (if not identity) of Egyptian religious ideas in Chaldea in the days of Abraham is established; the descent of the black race, Negro, from Cain, the first murderer; the preservation of that race through the flood by the wife of Ham–"Egyptus," which in the Chaldean signifies "Egypt," "which signifies that which is forbidden"–the descendants of "Egyptus" were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood–that is, they were barred from holding that divine power; the origin also of the Egyptians–these things, together with the account of Abraham migrating from Chaldea to Egypt, constitute the chief historical items that are contained in the book."
    – Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.47, Pg.128

    “From this it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, it has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom His blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extent as to excite the comments of all who have known them.”
    – Official LDS Church manual, The Juvenile Instructor, vol. 26, page 635

    "We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind. 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 negro 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….every angel who ever brought a message of God's mercy to man was beautiful to look upon, clad in the purest white and with a countenance bright as the noonday sun.”
    – Official LDS Church manual, The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157

    “For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent,… 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;…”
    – LDS Publication, The Millennial Star, vol. 14, page 418

    "Their skin is quite black, their hair woolly and black, their intelligence stunted, and they appear never to have arisen from the most savage state of barbarism.”
    – Official LDS Church manual, The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157

    "Is or is it not apparent from reason and analogy as drawn from a careful reading of the Scriptures, that God causes the saints, or people that fall away from his church to be cursed in time, with a black skin? Was or was not Cain, being marked, obliged to inherit the curse, he and his children, forever? And if so, as Ham, like other sons of God, might break the rule of God, by marrying out of the church, did or did he not, have a Canaanite wife, whereby some of the black seed was preserved through the flood, and his son, Canaan, after he laughed at his grandfather's nakedness, heired three curses: one from Cain for killing Abel; one from Ham for marrying a black wife, and one from Noah for ridiculing what God had respect for? Are or are not the Indians a sample of marking with blackness for rebellion against God's holy word and holy order? And can or can we not observe in the countenances of almost all nations, except the Gentile, a dark, sallow hue, which tells the sons of God, without a line of history, that they have fallen or changed from the original beauty and grace of father Adam?"
    – Official LDS Publication, The Messenger and Advocate (Mar 1835), Pg.82

    "History and common observation show that these predictions have been fulfilled to the letter. The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom."
    – Official LDS Publication, The Times and Seasons, Vol.6, Pg.857

    The LDS Church's racism isn't just from some isolated quote from one or two church leaders. The racist teaching from the Mormon pulpit is prolific and consistent over time. If God didn't agree with his prophets teaching these things in His church, then why did they continue over generations?

    There's a big difference between folklore and Mormon scripture. When the president and prophet of the church stands at the pulpit and teaches the laws of God, that isn't folklore.

    The list of "inspired" LDS Prophets that have taught racist doctrine from the pulpit is too large to cite here. But here's a sampling:

    http://www.realmormonhistory.com/god&skin.htm

    Some church members make the mistake of dismissing the racist statements of 19th-century Mormon leaders as "their own opinion," "not official doctrine," "products of their times," etc.

    Those same church members assert that the only "official doctrine" is the Standard Works and official statements of the First Presidency, and that if some leaders said something that didn't come from those sources, it isn't "binding on the membership," and it isn't "canon" or "official doctrine."

    However, an official statement of the LDS Church First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:

    "The position of the LDS 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 pre-mortal 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 principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained 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….."

    "Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or alloted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world."
    – William E. Berrett's "The Church and the Negroid People," pp. 16-17

    Since it's obvious from this official First Presidency statement that church leaders taught and believed that people are born as Negroes because of their behavior in the pre-existence—

    —as well as being from the lineage of the "accursed" Cain—

    —and the "sign" of Cain's curse was the black skin and flat nose, according to church leaders—

    —then the fact that Negroes are still being born by the tens of thousands every day tells us that the God of Mormonism has never lifted the "curse of Cain," despite having the priesthood ban rescinded.

    Church members are terribly mistaken when they say that the "curse of Cain" teachings were "folklore" and "not official doctrine."

    If the people of Jamaica can recognize the LDS Church's racism, why can't church members?"

    taken from http://i4m.com/think/history/mormon_racism.htm

  18. Rick B says:

    Parkman said

    I pick these years because that is when I have been on this earth.
    In the 50’s, 60’s, and early 70’s blacks could join the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints, knowing that they could not partake in priesthood activities.
    What other Christian churches had mixed congregations during that time?

    Here we go again, Dodge the question at hand. I dont care if Christians did stupid things, we all do, get over it fred. The Differance is and you cannot and will not answer the question, Why did your god claim the Blacks were curesed, Not My God, but your god. Then you keep pointing to Christians Churchs that made mistakes, but you ignore the issue of, Your church claimed it was an everlasting doctrine. And your prophets said and taught it was from your god. AS Jesus said, Your father the devil was a liar from the beginging and only wants to kill, destroy and do things of this nature. This same nature is what brought forth the Doctrine of Blacks being cursed.

  19. jaxi says:

    Oh no, I have a comment awaiting moderation. You can’t keep me silent, Mormon Coffee! 🙂

  20. PaleRider says:

    Mike R- thank you it’s good to be here.

    I am not surprised by shematwater’s response to this doctrine that until very recently, within context of the whole history of the restoration movement, had been reversed and with a deft hand erased from the movement all together, then ignored as if the whole affair was a mere blemish on an otherwise spotless record. This continued polishing and sanitization of the narrative is what is driving the actual unraveling of Mormonism’s tapestry; people are waking up from the long night of Mormon apostasy to search and find the light of God’s truth. The doctrine has no basis in Truth, is completely contrary to sound Biblically centered theology and finds its origin in the heart of man’s depravity. The living God taught, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?” Matthew 7:16

    The answer is rhetorically- no. I used to selectively quote the …recognize them by their fruits line, (SOP for defending the narrative) from this scripture to justify the good in Mormonism; the warning could not have come any sooner for me and my family. Attached to the stink of one’s unhealthy obsession of a person’s melanin production is the unbiblical concept of tiered estates within the Mormon god’s economy.
    shematwater- Is the doctrine of premortality one of the parts plain and most precious lost from the gospel of the lamb? If yes, please provide evidence. If no, why is this teaching not found in the Bible?

  21. vikingz2000 says:

    Wow, you put a lot of work into creating this blog post. I appreciate the information, although a lot of it isn’t new for me — but it’s a reminder, as I forget more than I can ever remember!

    I suppose a lot of TBMs would say, “Yeah, lots of work went into this blog post, so I guess Satan is working overtime to try and destroy the Lord’s one, true church.” I might have thought like that at one time, as well. And I still have ‘feelings’ for the LDS church.

    It’s sad that something like this happened. The LDS church was good for me and my family in many ways, but a lot of stuff was harmful and hurtful, as well. A lot of things still perplex me. But I hear you; I couldn’t imagine being black and hearing aChristian religion spewing stuff like this about my race. What would I have thought before 1978? Hatred? I don’t know; it’s just ‘weird’.

  22. falcon says:

    The Utah LDS church didn’t change doctrine until it was forced to do so. Had society and the government not hounded and shamed them, they’d look like the FLDS today. There was no “revelation” to change polygamy or the ban on blacks in the priesthood. There was no sudden “ah-ha” moment where by the LDS church realized the error of its way.
    I remember the boycotts threatened by black football players from various universities that said they wouldn’t play against BYU because of their racist position on blacks and the Mormon priesthood.

    “In January of 1970 the Black Student Union (BSU) at the University of Washington launched a protest campaign demanding that the UW sever all athletic relations with Brigham Young University (BYU). Later, the BSU also demanded that the University make a statement condemning BYU as a racist institution. The protests were doomed to failure. The University believed that they could not legally sever relations with BYU on the grounds that doing so would infringe on the Mormon Church’s freedom of religion. For the BSU, the statement would have stood as a sign that the University was operating in good faith to end racism. But, the only compromise the administration could offer did not seem like such a gesture.

    Inspired by successful protest campaigns at other universities, the UW’s BSU launched their own campaign against BYU in the first few weeks of the 1970 winter quarter. On a chilly Saturday afternoon in January, 20 blacks entered Hec Edmundson pavilion where the UW gymnastics team was finishing their final round of warm-ups before a scheduled meet against BYU. The protesters dumped garbage, threw eggs, poured catsup and oil on the gymnastics mats and knocked over chalk trays and tables.[1] When the UW gymnastics coach yelled at the protestors to leave, they responded by throwing a pail of water in his face before departing. Meanwhile, Lynn Hall, a black gymnast, had begun circulating a petition requesting that the University cancel all future athletic competitions with BYU. The petition eventually gathered over 1,500 signatures .”

    Well I’m sure that our LDS friends will say that they were being persecuted because of their religion!

  23. falcon says:

    Here’s the link to the above quoted story. It’s quite a history of the protests against BYU sic. the LDS church’s stand on blacks and the priesthood.

    http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/BSU_BYU.htm

    From another article:

    (Fourteen black football players were suspended from the Wyoming team because of plans to boycott the BYU game.)

    “The issue of Blacks, the Mormon Church and BYU reached beyond the WAC when Stanford University announced that due to the LDS’s racial policy, it would no longer participate in any future intercollegiate events with BYU. President Kenneth S. Pitzer’s statement prompted further activism throughout the WAC to end competition with BYU despite efforts of the LDS Church and BYU apologists to defend their church and university.

    At UTEP, activists passed out leaflets condemning BYU. Police were called to quell violence in the stands during the BYU-Arizona State (ASU) game.47 At Colorado State University (CSU), the Black Student Association presented the university president with a list of demands in support of Wyoming’s Black athletes.48 In Tucson, the University of Arizona student senate voiced support for the “Wyoming fourteen.” In Tempe, the ASU Black student group attacked both Lloyd Eaton and ASU’s football coach Frank Kush. Kush had supported Eaton’s action’s, as had Paul “Bear” Bryant at the University of Alabama.49 At the University of New Mexico (UNM), the student senate demanded disassociaton from BYU. The New Mexico Civil Liberties Union suggested that UNM withdraw from the WAC and called on school officials to pressure Wyoming to reverse its action.50 Prior to the New Mexico-Wyoming game in Albuquerque, on November 15, 1969, students demonstrated outside the stadium questioning whether the Wyoming Blacks had been “Lynched Again?”51 The CSU international student group passed a resolution supporting the reinstatement of the Wyoming athletes and condemning Mormon racial policy. At Utah State University, the Black student group demanded a student censure of BYU and a demonstration at the BYU-Utah State game.

    Basketball season began with no let up in the protests. During the University of Arizona-BYU game in Tucson, on January 8, 1970, a “near riot” occurred when police fought with anti-BYU demonstrators.52 A wrestling competition was the scene of another anti-BYU protest at Colorado State College (now the University of Northern Colorado), in Greeley.

    Later in the month, the CSU student government voted to end the school’s athletic relationship with BYU. At the beginning of February, the CSU-BYU basketball game in Fort Collins was disrupted when blacks marched onto the court. Police in riot gear clashed with the activists. A photographer from The Rocky Mountain News was struck unconscious and in need of stitches. Seven people were arrested.53 Two days later, at the Wyoming-BYU basketball game in Laramie, a strong police presence insured order. ”

    http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/robertshistory/fired_by_conscience.htm

    Ah yes and then the Mormon god decided it was time to change the policy and today the LDS church can’t even remember where it came from.
    Like good members of the “one true church” our Mormon posters think this doctrine is just fine because the LDS church is perfect, it’s just the people who aren’t.
    It’s good to look back, get some perspective and see what pressure came to bear on the LDS leadership to finally get a clue. Too bad our LDS posters can’t do the same.

  24. Mike R says:

    PaleRider , it’s truly sad that sincere people can be so messmerised by prophets these days that
    they could actually believe this doctrine about why Blacks were denied all the privileges and
    blessings of Jesus’ gospel . We get to read of His apostles preach the gospel in their missionary
    travels in the N.T. , and they sure did’nt sound like Mormon apostles . We can read what these
    men taught in Jesus’ church they were officers in , and we can read what Mormon apostles taught
    in the church they are officers in . When followed the advice advocated in 1 Jn 4:1 and compared
    the teachings of officers in these two churches , I decided to stay with the original and not join
    the alleged “restored” version .
    FYI , Shem is a master of the art of squeezing the unique Mormon doctrines out of the Biblical
    scriptures . Take special note of his analogies , they are his bread and butter .

    Viking2000, still have good feelings for those in the Mormon church ? I agree . I have never
    been a Mormon but I do have a few relatives who are . I have always had good feelings for them .
    The vast majority of Mormons are good decent people . Good people can be easily misled into
    following false prophets because false prophets can be well dressed , polite , and talk much about
    living a moral lifestyle. But false prophets are men who teach incorrect doctrine , and when that
    doctrine is about God, Jesus , or how to receive eternal life , then that becomes the deciding
    factor where a person will spend eternity .
    That’s why the Mormon people are being short changed by their prophets . That hurts me .
    I rejoice that you and your family have come to see where the danger is . It’s never been the
    Mormon people , it’s MormonISM .

  25. MaM says:

    It’s very frustrating and confusing that the “official” stand of the Church is that it wasn’t doctrine, when it most definitely was/is. And even worse, racism is still very much alive in Mormonism even now. While there are some who are obviously good people who are vehemently against racism, I can’t even begin to tell you how many awful, racist jokes I’ve heard only come from LDS’ mouths. None of my other friends would ever dare say something so terrible. It’s disgusting. And it all goes back to them being raised to think that they are better than the black Mormons. I’ve heard them mention the “curse of Cain” many times in social settings, so it’s very much a doctrine that they’re familiar with. The whole “folklore” thing being put out by the Salt Lake guys is nothing but a PR move. And like jaxi said earlier, Mormons like to point fingers back at Christians and say, “Well Christians were racist back then too!” Problem is? It was never doctrine, nor was it Biblical. God shows no favoritism. Galatians 3:28

  26. Mike R says:

    MaM , you’re correct that racism is still alive and well amonst some Mormons . No telling how
    many , it’s got to be the older ones the ones who grew up listening to Mormon leaders being
    submissive to the teachings of men like Brigham Young . As long as Mormon leadership today
    refuse to officially admit that their recent predecessors taught false doctrine concerning Black
    people then there will be followers who exhibit some the bad fruit of this doctrine .
    Mormons have been promised that their prophet will NEVER teach them false doctrine .
    Brigham himself promised his flock that Mormon hierarchy would not condone false teachings
    to be passed down to future generations of LDS after them . Mormons have been told they can
    rely on their top leadership to protect and keep doctrinal purity . With these types of promises
    will Mormon leadership offically admit to teaching false doctrine ?
    As far as non Mormons holding terrible views about Blacks , it’s true . There are indeed some .
    ( Where do you think Brigham Young got some of his “gospel truth ” about Blacks from ? ) .
    There’s a story in the Salt Lake Tribune ( 6-10-2008 ) about a Black LDS lady telling of an
    experience in the Temple ( 15 years prior) with a elderly man who upon seeing her asked
    aloud , ” what a ‘ n – word ‘ was doing there .” She said that instead of reprimanding the man
    Temple workers said he did’nt know any better !
    This was very unfortunate experience for this lady . Mormons and non Mormons who keep
    this type of reasoning in their hearts need to repent and read and then head the apostles
    teachings in the New Testament .
    My wife and I are praying for your husband . Don’t give up hope.

  27. grindael says:

    What I can’t get over is these “apostles” just lying. Can’t they read? I mean even if they don’t want to “bother” God with asking a simple question “why”, the fact is, it’s right there in black and white and has been for years. Here is Mormon “special witness” himself, Jeffy Holland’s supposed reaction when he heard about it:

    You’re going to think all I do is cry, but this is in the same family as that missionary experience I described to you. I started to cry, and I was absolutely uncontrollable. I felt my way to a chair … and I sort of slumped from the doorway into the chair and held my head, my face in my hands and sobbed. …

    Sobbed? Really? Boo Hoo. I was just glad. Glad they finally did away with the racism. Why would one “sob” over it? Relief, perhaps? Folks, you just can’t trust a liar. But to make matters much worse, he said this in the same interview:

    One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. … I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. … They, I’m sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. …

    It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don’t know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. … At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, … we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

  28. grindael says:

    Huh? “Folklore” was perpetuated in the Mormon Church as a “revelation” of God for 130 years? No one thought to question it and go ahead and ASK GOD about it? This is why I question his supposed initial reaction. He is lying here. (And saying that they should have just kept their mouths shut like they do today). But too bad, The First Presidency of the Mormon Church in 1949 (as Sharon has pointed out above) gave an official statement on it (official doctrine folks, official doctrine or scripture):

    “The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a 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 father’s 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 receive all the blessings we 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.’ 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 pre-mortal 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 principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained 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.” (Official First Presidency statement, August 17, 1951 [some sources date this to 1949], cf. John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, p.89).

    Ok. Here we have it. It wasn’t “folklore” (lie #1 by Holland) it was a “direct commandment from the Lord” (not a policy either). We DO KNOW (lie # 2 by Holland who said “we don’t), it was because those who now have a “skin of blackness” – their “fathers” rejected the power of the Holy Priesthood and the law of God. Wha-la! So simple, but not for “special witness” Holland. He can’t seem to get the words out of his mouth. Is he just ashamed? Does the all mighty image of the Mormon church mean so much that they would lie and call this “folklore” to millions of people? Can these “special witnesses” sink any lower? And then he tops it off by saying that “there should be NO EFFORT to perpetuate the efforts to explain why that doctrine existed! (At least he called it a doctrine – although he gets confused at the end and doesn’t seem to know what to call it).

    AN OFFICIAL DOCTRINAL STATEMENT. SPEAKING AS PROPHETS. ORACLES OF GOD. HIS MOUTHPIECE ON EARTH. So. The Church institutes “folklore” for 130 years that perpetuates a racist doctrine of singling out those with a “skin of blackness” (and their skins are hardly black) what a derogatory, ugly, repulsive thing to even say (let alone to quote in a First Presidency Message) and NO ONE SHOULD EVEN TRY AND GET AN EXPLANATION FOR IT, when Jo Smith seemed to be able to explain just about anything he was asked? Even going to God about things like men spitting tobacco all over his wife’s house:

    “Often when the Prophet entered the room to give the school instructions he would find himself in a cloud of tobacco smoke. This, and the complaints of his wife at having to clean [the] floor, made the Prophet think upon the matter, and he inquired of the Lord relating to the conduct of the Elders in using tobacco.” (E.T. Benson, A Principle with a Promise)

  29. grindael says:

    Is Holland kidding us? Jo asks God about men spitting tobacco all over his wife’s house, but no Mormon “prophet” before 1978 could bother to ask God about why black people could not have the priesthood? They felt more comfortable perpetuating racism and “folklore”? Really? That’s his story? The guy who is a “prophet, seer & revelator” in his own right? C’mon folks, you’re not buying this are you. Are you buying this nonsense? Mormon Lurkers, do you see how ridiculous this is? Tobacco stains were more important to God than a racist doctrine that his own “prophets” perpetuated and later ones called “folklore”? That is what Holland is saying. Again, do you really want to buy into this? Have this guy telling you about God? About your salvation? About who Jesus is? He then makes it even worse with this,

    Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don’t know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I’ve been able to live in the period where we’re not expressing or teaching them, but I think that’s the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. … But I think that’s the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. … We just don’t know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. … That’s my principal [concern], is that we don’t perpetuate explanations about things we don’t know. …

    Gee, they don’t know. They never knew. And folks, they never will. What are these guys for anyway? A First Presidency Statement is a “suggestion”. A “suggestion”. LOL. Mormon prophets don’t speak for God, they “suggest” things, and declare “folklore” to the church. They don’t seem to really know anything. If one First Presidency can issue a doctrinal statement and then a later “apostle” can come along and say that they really DIDN’T know what the hell they were talking about… well, how can ANYTHING they say be taken seriously?

    Think about it. If they can’t even get this right then, ok, we must say positively that the 1916 statement “The Father and the Son” is also “folklore”, right? It must be “inadequate and wrong”, since the racist “folklore” that somehow turned into a “commandment from God”, was also, and they couldn’t explain how or why (according to Holland). So how can we trust any First Presidency to explain the nature of God? YOU CAN’T. In another few years, they’ll be calling that FOLKLORE too. (Like the RLDS do) Let’s just do so now and save them the trouble.

    It must ALL be folklore, right? ALL First Presidency Statements must now be categorized as “folklore”. You know why? Because NO EXPLANATION has been given why one in 1949 is folklore, (as ALL statements about the racist priesthood ban have been categorized as such,) that is why. If there is NO EXPLANATION for the 1949 statement, then we can’t trust that ANY First Presidency Statement is anything more than FOLKLORE.

    Now we know for certain, that Mormon “prophets” issue statements that are only “folklore”, and everything that Mormon “apostles” and “prophets” teach is “inadequate and wrong” since they couldn’t even give an answer about who could have the priesthood and why they could not. There you have it folks, from a Mormon “apostle”. (One of the very “oracles of God”). Remember this always folks, because that is what Jeffy Holland has told the world courtesy of PBS.

    SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, Shame on you!

  30. jaxi says:

    The problem is that when Joseph Smith canonized the Book of Mormon and all subsequent scripture, he was canonizing folklore. So folklore has always been the doctrine of the LDS Church.

  31. falcon says:

    Look, we know it’s all phoney.
    It’s a case of people buying into a system that makes them feel good and defines their lives and in most cases, have been programmed to (believe). The programming is very important within this religion because it creates a mind-set that won’t accept anything that doesn’t support the notion that the LDS church is true.
    It doesn’t matter what the issue is. The bottom line for Mormons is that the LDS church is true.
    Is, “I didn’t know”, an adequate and acceptable position for a Mormon to take? The leadership of this religious sect is shameless however they draw their power from the people who consistently and without question support, adore and venerate them as if they are gods themselves.
    I’ll cut the rank-and-file some slack but at a certain point, when God has made available to them all the pertinent information, especially dealing with His own nature, they need to decide for the Lord and against the LDS church. This is not a harmless organization, doing a lot of good, as some would claim. The LDS church keeps its members from believing in the True and Living God and shackled to a lie.

  32. shematwater says:

    I am not here to argue whether or not the doctrine was racist. Personally I really don’t care what you think on this point, and I know it will never really matter. My point is only to clarify what the doctrine was and is, and to this point I will make a few more comments.

    There in no one in the Bible among the faithful that is described as being black. In the Middle East they were of darker skin, but that is not the same thing. Despite Rick’s examples he has proven nothing. Moses, as a prince in Eqypt, once married a black woman as part of a political alliance according to Josephus. Solomon was condemned for having many foreign wives (over 800 wives total) and so his marriages also prove nothing. And Job described his skin as black as a metaphor for his pain and suffering (he also said his bones were on fire).

    Despite peoples claims of changing doctrine that has never happened. It was known from the Beginning that this ban would be lifted, and that understanding s recorded in the journals of Wilford Woodruff. This is also referenced in the declaration lifting the ban.
    “Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren,”
    It was always known that this ban would be lifted, and the time for that lifting was earntest sought by all the leaders of the church.

    Speaking of the curse of Cain and the doctrine, I think it is important to make a distinction here. The curse was on Cain and not his descendents. The Mark was placed on Cain and followed his descendents, but not the curse. It is not entirely accurate to say that the black race was cursed, but rather that they were marked as being descended from a cursed man.
    The curse of Cain and the Mark of Cain are very different. Cain was cursed to be a wanderer and vagabond, that the earth would no longer produce for him. He was also cursed that his descendents would be last to receive the gospel of all the children of the earth. When all other families had the chance to receive the gospel then his descendents received it. This occurred in 1978.
    But it is very important for all people to understand that no one born on this earth has been denied the blessings of the gospel. Those who were denied them in this life can have them performed for them by proxy in the Temples. They will all receive the chance at exaltation.

  33. falcon says:

    Shem,
    You can spin yourself into the ground like a corkscrew in trying to “explain” how this beautiful and precious restored gospel isn’t racist but it is. Your explanations just make you sound like a useful dupe of the LDS church.
    You wrote:
    “But it is very important for all people to understand that no one born on this earth has been denied the blessings of the gospel. Those who were denied them in this life can have them performed for them by proxy in the Temples. They will all receive the chance at exaltation.”

    Well that makes it all better. It will all be taken care of in the next life where the work can be done and those with black skin can then become gods. May I remind you my Mormon friend that Joseph Smith is standing out there in eternity punching people’s ticket in order to get into the big dance. Why would he let anyone in who has black skin? Has he gotten the message that this doctrine prohibiting blacks from the priesthood has been changed.
    BTW, will those who have black skin in this life have black skin in the next? Will the Mormon god assign white Mormon women who were unmarried in this life, to black men in the next and visa versa?
    I can’t figure out why anyone black, white, brown, yellow or any other color would want to mess around with Mormonism in this life any way given that you folks seems to have a built in escape clause.
    You need to clear your head Shem.

  34. jaxi says:

    Shem said, “It is not entirely accurate to say that the black race was cursed, but rather that they were marked as being descended from a cursed man.”

    “THE NEGROES ARE NOT EQUAL WITH OTHER RACES where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, …but this inequality is not of man’s origin. IT IS THE LORD’S DOING, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the LACK OF SPIRITUAL VALIANCE OF THOSE CONCERNED IN THEIR FIRST ESTATE [the Mormon pre-existence].” LDS “Apostle” Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 – 528, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

    “Cain might have been KILLED, and THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A TERMINATION TO THAT LINE OF HUMAN BEINGS. This was not to be, and the Lord put A MARK upon him, which is THE FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race — that they should be the “servants of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.” LDS “Prophet” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, emphasis added.

    Sounds like some kind of curse to me.

    Shem also said, “But it is very important for all people to understand that no one born on this earth has been denied the blessings of the gospel. Those who were denied them in this life can have them performed for them by proxy in the Temples. They will all receive the chance at exaltation.”

    Shem is accurate, however, read what type of exaltation.

    “THIS NEGRO, WHO, IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE LIVED THE TYPE OF LIFE WHICH JUSTIFIED THE LORD IN SENDING HIM TO EARTH IN THE LINEAGE OF CAIN WITH A BLACK SKIN, AND POSSIBLY BEING BORN IN DARKEST AFRICA…. IN SPITE OF ALL HE DID IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. IF THAT NEGRO IS FAITHFUL ALL HIS DAYS, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. HE WILL GO THERE AS A SERVANT, but he will get celestial glory.” LDS “Apostle” Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems – As They Affect the Church,” Address delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s book entitled “The Changing World of Mormonism,” p. 294. Note: Allegedly, even “if that Negro is faithful all his days,” he will never achieve equality with his “white and delightsome” Mormon brethren. Instead he allegedly will go to the celestial kingdom “AS A SERVANT!”

    Shem also said, ” It was known from the Beginning that this ban would be lifted, and that understanding s recorded in the journals of Wilford Woodruff.”

    “Negroes IN THIS LIFE are denied the priesthood; UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.” LDS “Apostle” Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 1966 edition, emphasis added. (See also LDS Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:20-27)

    “How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will REMAIN UPON THEM, and THEY NEVER CAN HOLD THE PRIESTHOOD or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, THE CHILDREN OF CAIN CANNOT RECEIVE THE FIRST ORDINANCES OF THE PRIESTHOOD. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.” LDS “Prophet” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, pp. 290-291, 1859, emphasis added.

    “When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and HAVE RECEIVED THEIR RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity.” LDS “Prophet” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 143, 1854, emphasis added. Note: Young taught that blacks would not receive the Mormon priesthood until AFTER the resurrection.

    “They [blacks] 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.” LDS “Prophet” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p.272, 1866, emphasis added.

    For more quotes, http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/blacks1

  35. Mike R says:

    Jaxi, excellent points , with what you cited together with the info shared by other christians
    here shows why Shem’s post was so anemic .
    I should say that when you cited McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine , you mentioned he was an
    apostle , but at the time he wrote it he was a General authority but not a apostle yet .
    Some Mormon might choose to focus on that small point rather than the rest of what you shared .
    Anyway , this whole issue concerning Black people is a good reason why the Mormon people
    should dismiss their prophets . They simply don’t need them . Heb 1:2

  36. falcon says:

    Shem is like a lot of Mormons who sort of make up a form of Mormonism they can live with. They want Mormonism, the “church”, to be true so they have to come up with all sorts of twisted logic and inventions of point-of-view that won’t hold up to reality.
    So why in the world do they even come to a site like this one?
    The posters, as of late, are mainly former Mormons. They’ve been inside, walked the walk, and talked the talk and realized the whole deal is totally bogus.
    It’s actually painful to watch Shem twist slowly in the wind as he tries to find some small crack to slip through. In-order-to maintain any faith in Mormonism the Shem’s have to suspend credulity and just stomp on repeating the same tired old Mormon mantras.

  37. SR says:

    Just wanted to toss out a reminder here that the “mark” of Cain and the “curse” of Cain aren’t curses at all according to the Bible.

    Genesis 4: 13-16
    13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

    15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

    Yes, while the mark was given because of Cain killing his brother, and yes, God did drive Cain away to wander, however, the mark was given as a sign of protection. Anyone who came across Cain would know NOT to kill him, lest they want to suffer God’s wrath. What kind of curse is it for God to show a VISIBLE and outward sign of protection against a murderer?

  38. grindael says:

    Shem has spoken:

    Speaking of the curse of Cain and the doctrine, I think it is important to make a distinction here. The curse was on Cain and not his descendents. The Mark was placed on Cain and followed his descendents, but not the curse. It is not entirely accurate to say that the black race was cursed, but rather that they were marked as being descended from a cursed man. The curse of Cain and the Mark of Cain are very different. Cain was cursed to be a wanderer and vagabond, that the earth would no longer produce for him. He was also cursed that his descendents would be last to receive the gospel of all the children of the earth. When all other families had the chance to receive the gospel then his descendents received it. This occurred in 1978.

    He says we can read all about it in Woodruff’s Journals. Problem is, Shem has never read Woodruff’s Journals, because if he had he would not be writing the rubbish above. Here is what Woodruff wrote, direct from “prophet” Brigham Young,

    Their has been a great stir to exhalt the Negro & make him equal to the white man but there is a curse upon the seed of Cain & all Hell cannot wipe it out & it cannot be taken off untill God takes if off. When A person unlawfully seeks for power & exhaltation by taking the blessings which belongs to Another He will sink far below the other. As Lucipher the son of the morning Sought the glory that belonged to Christ the first Born He was thrust down to Hell. So Cain sought Abels Blessing & took the life of his brother. The consequence was Cain was cursed & his seed & this curse will remain untill Abels posterity will get all the Blessing their is for him. Then the curse may be taken from Cain or his posterity but his posterity will be below Abels. All are slaves. Polititions are the worst slaves And if we dont do right we shall ketch the lash. We are the freest people on Earth. Queen Victoria is A slave. Had to Ask the liberty to Marry prince Albert. But we are free. We have the right God & kingdom. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 4, p.43, June 29, 1851)

    1. Cain sought Abel’s blessing and took his life.
    2. Cain was cursed AND HIS SEED
    3. This curse will REMAIN until ALL of Abel’s posterity will get ALL the blessing their is for him.
    4. Curse will be removed, but Cain’s posterity will still be BELOW Abel’s.

    Don’t believe that one? Here is another:

    Adam had two sons Kane & 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 Canes & Cane took it into his heart to put Abel out of the way so he killed Abel.

    The Lord said I will not kill Cane 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 Cane & the Curse untill all the seed of Abel should be re[deem]ed and Cane will not receive the priesthood untill or salvation untill all the seed of Abel are Redeemed. Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro cannot hold one particle of Government But the day will Come when all the seed of Cane will be Redeemed & have all the Blessings we have now & a great deal more. But the seed of Abel will be ahead of the seed of Cane to all Eternity.

    Let me consent to day to mingle my seed with the seed of Cane. It would Bring the same curse upon me And it would upon any man. And if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the ownly way he Could get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children.

    It is said if a man kills another that he takes that that He cannot give. If a mans head is cut off [p.98] his life is not destroyed or his spirit that lives. His tabernacle is destroyed But I can make as good tabernacles as I can destroy. If you do not believe it look at my Children. Much blood was shed in ancient days both of man & Beast. The firstlings & best of the flock was sacrafized on the Altar & in some instances many men & almost whole Nations were sacraficed or put to death because of their sins & wickedness. This was the ownly way they could be saved at all. If Jesus Christ had not had his Blood shed the Blood that He received from his Mother Mary the world would not have been saved.

    Their is not one of the seed of old Cane that is permitted to rule & reign over the seed of Abel And you nor I cannot Help it.

    Those that do bear rule should do it in righteousness. I am opposed to the present system of slavery. The Negro Should serve the seed of Abram but it should be done right. Dont abuse the Negro & treat him Cruel.

    It has been argued here that many of the Jews were Black. Whenever the seed of Judah mingled with the seed of Cane they lost their priesthood & all Blessings.

    As an Ensample let the Presidency, Twelve Seventies High Priest Bishops & all the Authorities say now we will all go & mingle with the seed of Cane 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 & all Blessings & we would not be redeemed untill Cane was. I will never admit of it for a moment.

    Some may think I dont know as much as they do But I know that I know more than they do. The Lord will watch us all the time. The Devil would like to rule part of the time But I am determin He shall not rule at all and Negros shall not rule us. I will not admit of the Devil ruling at all. I will not Consent for the seed of Cane 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 Citizens Black white or red and if the Jews Come here with a part of the [p.99] Canaanite Blood in them they are Citizens & shall have their rights but not to rule for me or my Brother. Those persons from the Islands & 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. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 4, p.97, February 8, 1852)

    1. Cain killed Abel
    2. God put a “mark” on Cain and it is seen in the face of every negro
    3. “Decree of God” that this “mark” “AND THE CURSE” shall remain on the seed of Cain until ALL the seed of Abel shall be redeemed
    4. Any man having “one drop” of the “seed of Cain” can’t hold the Priesthood (no method given though, for determining how anyone would know)
    5. Speaks this in the name of Jesus Christ as a PROPHET & Seed of Abel (Whites) will be ahead of “seed of Cain” FOR ALL ETERNITY.
    6. If you “mingle” with the “seed of Cain” you also are cursed. (Have sexual relations with Negros)
    7. If you “mingle” with the “seed of Cain” you must have your head cut off to atone for it
    8. It will “take the life” of any children. (they also must die by “blood atonement”)
    9. Shedding of blood is no big deal many men “sacrificed” because of their “sins”
    10. Not one of the “seed of Cain” can EVER rule over the “seed of Abel”
    11. Negro should “serve” the “seed of Abraham” but it should be “done right” (slavery)
    12. Whenever Judah mixed with the “seed of Cain” they lost the Priesthood AND ALL BLESSINGS
    13. If the Mormon Priesthood mingles with the “seed of Cain” they lose the Priesthood & BLESSINGS and will not be “redeemed” until Cain was
    14. The Negros are the Devil and they will not rule
    15. Seed of Cain cannot VOTE
    16. Canaanites (Negros) are not as smart as white folk
    17. Must guard against all EVIL (the Negros)
    18. Will not let people DAMN themselves by allowing Negros to vote, rule, marry, or hold the priesthood.

    Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff PROVE that Shem is WRONG AGAIN. Shem is always wrong. He quotes things he hasn’t read. He doesn’t understand what his “prophets” have taught. Why then, are the Mormons still preaching the Gospel to the “seed of Abel” (the whites) if they all had their chance by 1978? This makes NO SENSE AT ALL. Shem doesn’t know what he is talking about.

  39. Rick B says:

    Shem,
    I really feel sorry for you. You believe that through out the entire Bible, God never once says any place in Scripture, Black people are cursed with black skin. Yet It takes JS saying God told Him so to be first heard about this. Then it is taught Blacks will NEVER HOLD the priesthood. But less than 100 years later it was lifted. Why did God even bother saying this at all if it really was from Him? Why wait over a few thousand years to announce this doctrine, only to remove it less than a few hundred years later. Seems like it was all man made to me.

  40. shematwater says:

    Falcon

    You siad “You can spin yourself into the ground like a corkscrew in trying to “explain” how this beautiful and precious restored gospel isn’t racist but it is.”

    Actually, I never said anything on this particular point. I actually specifically said that I am not going to argue this at all. Sometimes I get the feeling you don’t even read what I write.
    I am not concerned with whether it is or is not racist, or whether you think it is or not. I couldn’t care less about your opinion on this point. My only concern is that you get the doctrine right.

    Oh, and I don’t make up anything. I teach the doctrine that is taught by the prophets of God, and do my best to avoid anything else.

    Jaxi

    You said “Sounds like some kind of curse to me.”

    Sounds like it, but that is partly because of the cultural context as well as the author and the audience. They are cursed, in a certain sense, and because the curse originated with Cain we refer to it as the curse of Cain. However, it is not exactly accurate. It is simply the easiest and simpliest way of expressing the idea. As I pointed out, Cain was cursed in his posterity. The curse, as Grindael has so graciously shown us, was that his descendants would be the last to receive the gospel. Thus the ban on this race was not exactly a curse on them, but the fulfillment of the curse of Cain. Which is why I said what I said.

    You said “Shem is accurate, however, read what type of exaltation.”

    Again, look at cultural context. At this time the blacks could only be baptized, and it is the doctrine of the church that baptism, though the entrance to the Celestial Kingdom, is not enough to gain exaltation. It is also true that those who do not gain Exaltation will be servants to those who do. Thus we have a man speaking on the doctrine of the day, showing that given the current circumstances this would be the result. However, circumstances have changed and thus what he said, though true in part, was not looking forward to what would be true in the future.

    As to the other quotes, what are you trying to prove? I said it was known that it would be lifted, and these quotes say the same thing. the only exception is that from Mormon Doctrine. Mike does point out that Elder McConkie was only a Seventy at the time, but he fails to point out that the book was not written or approved by the church, and for some time the church even forbid it from being published. While I enjoy the book and have read it in its entirety, it is not an official publication, and thus can be overridden, so to speek, by official documents. However, even saying this I would also point out that at the time this was perfectly true. He doesn’t say this restriction will never be lifted, but that at the time there was no circumstance under which it could be given.
    So you have done nothing with these quotes but support what I have said.

    SR

    That depends on what Translation of the Bible you use. I like the Joseph Smith, or Inspired Version best.

    Grindael

    Again you show only your ignorance.
    You first quote me where I explain the difference between the curse and the mark, and then you claim “He says we can read all about it in Woodruff’s Journals.” As usual you have lied about what I said, as I never once claimed that Wilford Woodruff ever made any comment as to this distinction. I referenced his journals in regards to the knowledge the ban would eventually be lifted, and the quotes you give prove exactly that.
    As he says “Then the curse may be taken from Cain or his posterity” or “And it is the decree of God that that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cane & the Curse untill all the seed of Abel should be re[deem]ed.” Both these quotes show exactly what I said they showed, which I knew having read them before.
    Once again your dishonest attempts to discredit what I say have shown only your lack of understanding and your ability to actually hold a civil discuss.

    As to other things from this quotes, you still have no understanding. The seed of Cain will be below the seed of Abel. That is perfectly true. But then so will everyone else, because Abel held the Birthright and holds the keys of the first Dispensation under his Father Adam. It is also true that the seed of Ishmael will always be below the seed of Isaac, and the seed of Esua always below that of Jacob; and the seed of the eleven brothers always below that of Joseph, and so on as you follow the birthright. There is nothing new in this, and nothing special about the seed of Cain being lower than the seed of Abel.

    Rick

    You said “You believe that through out the entire Bible, God never once says any place in Scripture, Black people are cursed with black skin.”

    When did I say this? You are putting words in my mouth. God very clearly revealed this in the past, as is seen in the JST of the Bible and the Book of Abraham. It was well known to the prophets from the beginning, but was lost some time along the way, to be restored by Joseph Smith.

    You said “Then it is taught Blacks will NEVER HOLD the priesthood.”

    No this was not taught. This has been proven clearly by Jaxi and Grindael, if you care to read the quotes they give. It was very directly taught that at some time in the future they would receive the priesthood.

    You said “Why wait over a few thousand years to announce this doctrine, only to remove it less than a few hundred years later.”

    It was anounced the day that Cain killed Abel and was known for thousands of years. It was then lost, along with many other doctrines, to be restored close to the time in which the ban was to lifted.

  41. Kate says:

    “It was anounced the day that Cain killed Abel and was known for thousands of years. It was then lost, along with many other doctrines, to be restored close to the time in which the ban was to lifted.”

    Please provide Biblical evidence of this, thanks!

  42. jaxi says:

    Shem,

    “As to the other quotes, what are you trying to prove? I said it was known that it would be lifted, and these quotes say the same thing.”

    Except that the WHEN it is to be lifted does not coincide with the WHEN the LDS Church actually lifted it.

    Honestly Shem, I feel so sorry for you. I don’t even know what to say other than that.

  43. Rick B says:

    Shem, I said

    You said “Then it is taught Blacks will NEVER HOLD the priesthood.”

    Then you said No this was not taught. This has been proven clearly by Jaxi and Grindael, if you care to read the quotes they give. It was very directly taught that at some time in the future they would receive the priesthood.

    You say it was not taught, So I guess when you read

    “Negroes IN THIS LIFE are denied the priesthood; UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.” LDS “Apostle” Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 1966 edition, emphasis added. (See also LDS Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:20-27)

    So what part of: IN THIS LIFE are denied the priesthood; UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty

    I guess mormon speak means when something God says, will never happen, really means it will happen.

  44. MaM says:

    Thank you, Mike R! It’s amazing watching the Lord move in my husband’s life and hear his perspective on what he’s learning. He’s really enjoying the freedom found outside of the LDS Church. However, he has yet to tell his close friends and family. Only those who aren’t in that circle know. It’s probably only a matter of time before they find out, but he’s not looking forward to that day.

  45. falcon says:

    So everything was “lost”.
    The only thing that’s lost are Mormons with their Biblical conspiracy theories.
    Yea, you know what? UFOs were part of the “original” doctrines and truths but this has also been lost. Mormons can claim that anything and everything was lost. Just think, no proof is needed that what they claim was lost ever existed.
    What a great religion to be a prophet in. Just say whatever strikes your fancy, call it revelation, claim some sort of bizarre conspiracy and it’s all good.

    Shem,
    Thanks for posting here. You demonstrate on a daily basis, just exactly what the mind-set of a cultist is.

  46. grindael says:

    Again you show only your ignorance. As to other things from this quotes, you still have no understanding. The seed of Cain will be below the seed of Abel. That is perfectly true.

    I rest my case. You are schizophrenic. I have “no understanding” but “that is perfectly true”.

    Everything I quoted was true. And you COULD read about what YOU quoted in Woodruff’s Journals, it was included in the remarks I quoted. There is ALSO a lot of other things there that you did not address, which I quoted to give readers a rounded view of what Young’s totally racist doctrine is and how you totally don’t comprehend what he said. I said nothing inaccurate. I only didn’t want to repeat (ad nauseum) all of your idiotic comments. Young taught that the seed of Cain would NEVER hold the Priesthood until ALL of the seed of Able received their blessings AND the priesthood. Has that happened yet? NOPE. So you have no understanding of the issue. As usual. Who is ignorant? You are. And I thought you weren’t going to address my comments any more. Another lie by the great Shem. The only reason you do, is because you know I’m right and you are wrong. According to you, all those that now receive the Priesthood who are black, will be below the white people that come after them. What sense does that make? NONE. (If two Mormons get the Priesthood today, which one will be above the other? The White one. The White guy will always “rule over” the black man) You are off your rocker. But that is what Young taught, who was also off his. (But it’s NOT what the Morg now teaches – where are the Mormon BLACK “Apostles”? They would be “ahead” of all the whites below them today, if there was one, but there isn’t.) You simply DO NOT understand what Young said, and you don’t understand what “grafting in” is. (Neither did Young). You continually mis-apply one teaching to supplant another. That is what living in the Mormon Bubble of Denial does to you. These two verses PROVE that you have no idea what you are talking about:

    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

  47. grindael says:

    Shem,
    Thanks for posting here. You demonstrate on a daily basis, just exactly what the mind-set of a cultist is.

    Racism lives on, Falcon. Racism lives on.

  48. falcon says:

    Shem,
    Here’s a good one for you to use when someone points out that Joseph Smith married women who were already married to other men.
    Say, “These women had been given to Joseph Smith in the pre-existence.”
    I think that all here must admit that I’ve learned how Mormons think, and I use the word “think” loosely.
    This has to be some sort of institutional group think. Dr. Walter Martin said that Mormons are able to think rationally in all areas of their lives except when it comes to their religion.
    grindael nailed it all down regarding BY and racism with his extensive quotes from legitimate sources and about all we get from you is something akin to, “Is not! The church is true. That’s not racism. It’s all the Mormon god’s plan.”
    I’ll bet the former Mormons who post here shout “Halleluiah, I’m sooooo glad I’m out!” every time they read your posts.

  49. falcon says:

    Shem,
    Your defense and explanation of this doctrine is so convoluted but understandable within the bubble that is Mormonism. This all makes sense for you folks in the bubble who need reassurance that the LDS church is true and that all that the Mormon prophets from Joseph Smith on; said was also true.
    Outside the bubble and the Mormon mindset, it’s just cult thinking.
    It reminds me of a pedophile who would claim that what he is doing to children is really just making love. The clincher is that these perverts believe what they’re saying. They’re twisted.
    You folks in the Mormon bubble have given yourselves over to a spirit of deception that totally flips rational thought.
    Those who have recently left Mormonism, and for whom this type of thinking is fresh in their minds, see it clearly. They will report having thought exactly as you do now. They have been blessed to have broken free. We will pray that God opens your eyes of understanding also.

  50. jaxi says:

    falcon,

    <"I’ll bet the former Mormons who post here shout “Halleluiah, I’m sooooo glad I’m out!” every time they read your posts."

    Yep. I knew who shematwater was before I even found this site. He posts on anyone's blog who criticizes Mormonism. I remember reading his posts and being disgusted at what my Church believed. I also remember saying that exact phrase while reading his posts on other sites after I left. He is frustrating to talk to but on the other hand he helps to bring people out of Mormonism too.

Comments are closed.