In the recently released statement on lds.org on Race and the Priesthood, the modern Mormon Church disavows “that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else…” This unequivocal truth, that no race or ethnicity is superior to another, is something that Spain (1542), Quakers (1600s), Pennsylvania (1790), England (1807), Abraham Lincoln (1865), and Christians of any era who believe the Bible, know. According to the Bible, God shows no favoritism—never by skin color—and commands his people to do the same.
Lincoln, who often quoted the biblical God, was displeased with the Utah Territory for its stance as a slave territory (and for its polygamy). Finally in 1978, 113 years after Lincoln and 24 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, the Mormon Church gave black members of African ancestry (why not restrict Native Americans—they were the unrighteous dark-skinned Lamanites of the Book of Mormon?) equal access to the priesthood, ergo its Celestial kingdom, eternal life, and the potential for godhood.
As a professor at Brigham Young University (1999-2008), I taught, among other things—multiculturalism. In class, some of my generational LDS students proposed that those with black skin were blighted with something they called “the curse of Cain.” Alarmed by this belief, I began to investigate LDS scriptures on the topic and discovered scriptural support in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price corroborating students’ beliefs.
Because these scriptures still exist, are read, and revered, the lingering conundrum for the Mormon Church is this: How to explain the 20-some passages of LDS scripture that can be considered racist. So, this new attempt to state a non-biased position on race, which falls short of an apology, ignores the challenge of present-day scriptures.
As well intended as the latest words on the official church website are, they can affect no real change in policy or teachings because these scriptures remain. Why call these scriptures racist? The definition of racist is the belief that some races of people are better than others because of their race, their skin color. This is precisely what the LDS scriptures STILL teach. Here are few examples just from the Book of Mormon:
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…”
3 Nephi 2:15 “And their curse was taken from them, and their skin becamewhite like unto the Nephites;”
3 Nephi 19:30 “And when Jesus had spoken these words he came again unto his disciples; and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they werewhite, even as Jesus.”
As these passages explain, the Lamanites (forerunners of the dark-skinned Native Americans descended from the Jews according to the Book of Mormon) were given a mark of dark skin as a curse for their transgression, not toward God, by the way, but toward their brethren, the “righteous” Nephites. Later when some Lamanites became righteous, the curse was removed and their skin became white.
This repulsion for the LDS racist scriptures I had discovered began to soften my heart toward the biblical God who, according to the Bible, is no respecter of persons and who shows no favoritism. When I read the Bible, its teachings were unmistakably clear because they were repeated over and over. One of these undeniable themes is that God is no respecter of persons and shows no favoritism, no bias.
What to do with the racist scriptures? If the LDS Church moves to remove them, then that calls into question all other things Joseph Smith wrote as scripture and said came from God. Can the Mormon Church say they’re an allegory that means something other than what they say literally? As of today, the church is still defending the four standard works on their official website as “utterly reliable” and “pure truth.”
Part 2 of Lynn’s article can be found here.
Are you really resting your argument on the supposed racism in the Bible? Do you really want to go there and discuss this? You’ve been answered several times here on how God does not care about ethnicity. He never has. Sure, He has ordered the destruction of peoples who were entirely unclean, but notice the unclean part: a) they are unclean and b) they are not unclean because of the color of their skin but rather because of their complete disobedience to God’s laws. Further, we have multiple examples of peoples coming from these “bad” groups who choose to follow God’s law and are thus saved. Jesus made it abundantly clear that ethnicity has nothing to do with anything. Surely, you know what I am talking about. So, do you still want to go down that line of argumentation concerning the Bible’s take on race/ethnicity?
Now, stop for a second and consider how and why the gross inconsistency I have talked about, and you say you don’t know enough about, is problematic to us. I am not asking you to agree. I am asking you to see why we find it troubling. And the answer is not simply that we find your church “evil” (your word, not mine). When considering the answer, consider that A) your church is supposed to be perfect B) that your leaders are supposed to transmit the perfect will of God, even if they are not perfect, C) the will of your church in matters such as who gets what position and title, comes from God, including who goes where on missions, D) God himself is perfect.
Now that you have considered that information, ask why would your leaders prohibit a specific group of people from obtaining a very important position and title, if God supposedly leads your church in such matters. Ask how that is consistent with Jesus’ interaction with the woman by the well or in the parable of the good neighbor. Ask how Ruth came to be in Jesus’ lineage, a Moabitess, from a not-favored group. Consider the other examples of non-Jews finding favor in God’s eyes.
Consider these things as you put together an answer.
Now, you ask me whether I think it is worse to be killed or to have children with darker skin after marrying a person of color. This question is first of all offensive, because having a child with darker skin is irrelevant to anything regarding salvation in my faith and the suggestion is quite scary. But to answer it further: to die apart from God is what is worse. Dying in and of itself is neither positive nor negative. It can be both, as those who die apart from God go to hell, whereas those who die with him find themselves in God’s eternal presence. One’s a negative, the other is a positive. So, death– no matter the source– can be a blessing in that we leave this life to spend all of eternity with God. Death has nothing to do with bearing a child of color, which is a neutral action, but death apart from God is far worse than anything you can imagine.
Does God bless all who follow Him? Not necessarily in the way you mean “bless”. Of course his favor is on all who take Him into their hearts, but that does not mean those people will see earthly favor. Earthly good does not automatically come to those who accept Christ in their lives. Many will be, and have been, killed for even mentioning the name Jesus.
I urge you to really consider why it is we find your position problematic. Again, I emphasize I am not urging you to agree.
FoF said: “You guys are loving this opportunity to jump on the bandwagon and claim that those people were racist who believed that certain individuals were given a station here in this life that reflected their faith or performance in the pre-earth life”
No, we don’t call those people racist who believed that certain individuals were given a station here in this life that reflected their faith or performance in the pre-earth life. We call your bluff on the perfection of your church. You have said yourself in this very thread that modern peoples are not included in the “curse” so the pre-earth life would be irrelevant. Its the non-compatible positions of your church on the issue of race that is problematic, not simply that your forefathers were racist.
Look, a lot of Christians were, and probably still are, racist. They are wrong. It is what it is. Many people did use the Bible to justify slavery and Jim Crow, and that’s just here in the States. They were wrong, and are wrong. I have no problem saying so. You, however, cannot come to criticize those who believed something that is racist by definition. You say you don’t know why and therefore cannot criticize them. Fair enough, but you must see why this is problematic, even if you are OK with it.
FoF is back! How exciting to have the apologist back here to defend the fastest shrinking Christian heresy.
You said, “I can take a narrow view and pick a passage to make the God of the Bible look like a racist. But doing so requires me to take a superficial, short-sighted approach. And that is precisely what you guys are doing with the Book of Mormon.” By all means, please feel free to do so so that we can correct you. But the thing is we are not twisting the BoM to make it racist, but you would have to do that to the Bible.
You said, “You guys are loving this opportunity to jump on the bandwagon and claim that those people were racist who believed that certain individuals were given a station here in this life that reflected their faith or performance in the pre-earth life. For the sake of argument, let’s just assume that is true.” Yes, there is no bandwagon here. It is simply *racist* to believe that certain individuals were given a station here in this life that reflected their faith or performance in the pre-earth life, as taught by the LDS leaders. Take a person, drop him on an island and give him all the material said by the LDS leaders and they will say one thing: racist. Now you may say that it is not racist for ethnicity to be a factor based on our pre mortal life, but it is simply that: racist.
You said, “Because that is precisely what a significant percentage of non-LDS Christians believe- that God picks some people for salvation and others for damnation, all on criteria that remain completely unknown.” First of all there is no such thing as an LDS Christian. Who is talking about Calvinism here but you? I might as well say a significant percentage of Mormons believe that gay marriage is sanctioned by the church, but what in the world does the CofC have to do with the subject at hand?
faithoffathers ,I have sat back and read your posts, and have sincerely read them over and over , its sad you sound like many Stake presidents and Bishops I have known in my 36 years in the church.
It comes down to this either the Mormon Prophets where wrong which we all know that, since it was never prophecy,doctrine or policy that make the changes, but discovery like channel theories that now the Mormon scientists can disavow there 120 plus years of theories they advanced in the past and will continue to have continued theories , not relevation, that would require a true prophet.
So it might be better for the Mormon prophets to say it was God’s fault in giving false information to the prophets who passed it along for so long as they did to very trusting fools such as myself who was a Mormon missionary from 1977-79, who never heard of Elijah Abel or Walker Lewis, or that Abraham Lincoln said ” Brigham Young is like a old wet oak tree that i cannot cut but must go around it “.
The church i believed in i never thought of leaving it , Never, yet being on this side it is crystal clear with 20/20 vision all that i never knew and saw is because of how we are taught in the church , that is why I call it a MORMON MENTAL STEEL TRAP, it truly takes a miracle to get out.
I know God must be wrong , which means his so called Mormon prophets where and are wrong , but thank God ! we all know better.
The logic employed here is atrocious. Pure cognitive dissonance on display. Nothing racist in the Bible. The Book of Mormon is racist. Yeah. You could cut the bias with a knife.
I actually enjoy talking with atheists more than Christian critics of the Gospel. Atheists are much more consistent and logical.
That being the case, and the inability for you guys to reason without double standards, I will insist on limiting my comments to the article above. And there have not been any reasonable, informed, or effective responses to my points. The Book of Mormon is not racist. Those with dark skin in the BOM were more blessed than those with white skin. And the book explicitly states that God loves all His children, no matter what their skin color. In addition, the article confuses LDS doctrine of the Celestial Kingdom. Lynn Wilder doesn’t know our doctrine that well after all.
I can actually really relate to where FOF is coming from. When I was LDS I had trouble seeing the racism too. Mainly because at times the Lamanites in Joseph’s story become the more favored people. So even though they were cursed with dark skin, it doesn’t seem to matter to the Mormon God. And the plan in this story is that the Lamanites will be restored to full blessings. I don’t think priesthood was withheld from Native Americans. Wasn’t is just African American descent? Someone can correct me if I’m wrong abut that. This is how many Mormons view it today. They only read the Book of Mormon, they don’t study quotes from the leaders past, unless they are the quotes picked for them to read, while ignoring others. Relying on the good feeling of the Book of Mormon and a burning bossom, the answer “we don’t know why blacks and the priesthood,” is sufficient for the typical Mormon.
FoF, I do understand to some degree where you are comming from. The problem is that the Mormon God punishes people by coloring their skin. Mormon God punished Cain with black skin and punished Lamanites with black skin. Black or dark skin is seen as punishment for something someone’s ancestor did. Many people will view this alone as racist.
The next big issue doesn’t come from the Book of Mormon. It comes from the leaders actions towards those the are dark skinned. They were made to feel less than anyone of lighter skin. They were rejected by God for their appearance. Anyone who knows Christ, knows that he doesn’t reject people because of their appearance. Then the Mormon God decides to change his mind on the issue right when all this pressure is coming down on the LDS Church. The answer “I don’t know why?” seems to really mean, “we don’t have a good answer that is going to put us in a good light so “I don’t know” is all we got.”
Putting mormon scripture aside, putting all the really terrible racist quotes and TEACHINGS (not just opinion, they stated this stuff like they were teaching it) from supposed prophets of God, and just putting it aside. You still have a God that punishes via changing people by darkening their skin and then withholding blessings from their children based on that appearance. That’s the racist part. Mormons pride themselves for being different from the Roman Catholic Church and not baptizing infants to wash the sins of Adam. “Punished for their own sins and not Adam’s transgression” right?Oh but Blacks were punished for the transgression of Cain. A little hypocritical, don’t you think?
FoF, you said,
“And there have not been any reasonable, informed, or effective responses to my points. The Book of Mormon is not racist. Those with dark skin in the BOM were more blessed than those with white skin.”
2 Nephi 5.21: “And he had caused the CURSING to come upon them, yea, even a SORE CURSING, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were WHITE, and exceedingly FAIR and delightsome, that they might NOT BE ENTICING unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of BLACKNESS to come upon them.”
Jacob 3.5: “Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their FILTHINESS and the CURSING which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father — that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.”
Jacob 3.9: “Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the DARKNESS of their SKINS; neither shall ye revile against them because of their FILTHINESS; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their FILTHINESS CAME BECAUSE OF THEIR FATHERS.”
3 Nephi 2.14-16: “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; And their young men and their daughters BECAME EXCEEDINGLY FAIR, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.”
The skin of blackness was not only a curse, it was a *sore* curse, which made all the Lamanites filthy and unenticing to the fair and white Nephites. The only time the Lamanites are in God’s favor is when they become white and fair.
“Fair” is only used regarding white skin (1Ne 13.15; 2Ne 5.21; 3Ne 2.15-16; 4Ne 1.10; Morm 9.6), and in particular their daughters (Jac 2.32; Mos 19.13; 3Ne 8.25; 9.2; Morm 6.19) and even Mary (1Ne 11.13, 15) who just so happens to be white in the text, but never for the skin of blackness. And to make the argument that *white* is to be understood in a spiritual sense, the text simply won’t allow for it (2Ne 5.21, 3Ne 2.14-16, etc.).
Filthiness is the only adjective I see attached to the skin of blackness. And how does someone’s ethnicity make them unenticing, exactly? Socially or sexually? Contrast the blatant racism in the BoM with the Bible, Acts 17.26. Where are the attached curses and blessings of ethnicity? The only time dark skin in the BoM is blessed is when it becomes white first.
I see that FOF has come out of his hidey-hole to take a few swings at Lynn. Like many of his past efforts here, he once again doesn’t know what he is talking about. (No surprise there folks). He sanctimoniously claims that,
The only slavery that existed in the Mexican Territory that compromised basically the entire southwest was enslaving Indians (mostly children). The arrival of the Mormons and their hope to use the Indians to fight the US were why that trade was interrupted.
There was absolutely no negro slavery in what would become United States Territory (in 1848) until Brigham Young became the Governor of Utah Territory (1850) who was installed in 1851 and declared it a “divine institution”. Jo Smith did NOT strongly support abolition. That is just a Mormon fantasy.
If Mormons as a whole were “abolitionists” then how did this get into the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, which was voted on as binding to the whole church which was in force through the Nauvoo period and into the Utah period:
This is a far cry from “anti-slavery”. It was totally anti-abolitionist. It actually states that it is “unjust” (which means not morally right or fair to do) in addition to unlawful, to interfere with slaves at all. This included changing the laws to free them. Even preaching the Gospel to them, without permission from their masters. (Which apparently didn’t stop Paul from converting Onesimus, a slave of Philemon.) As for slavery and abolitionism, Jo himself said in 1838,
Jo knew that many “priests” of the day were instrumental in the abolitionist movement. Freedom for the slaves was the WHOLE PURPOSE behind the Abolitionist movement!Read how Jo denigrates those that he proclaims “profess to preach the gospel”, and are abolitionists, below. Just because one does not have slaves, (or befriends a black man) does not mean one is against slavery. In 1836 Joseph wrote this letter which reveals his true thinking about abolitionism and those “priests and their “priestcraft”:
Definitely against Abolitionists, but for slavery (A DECREE OF JEHOVAH) and the Curse of Cain doctrine. When Jo ran for President, he slightly modified his views a about slavery (but only to free them to use against US enemies and then send them to Mexico), which can absolutely be interpreted as political in nature. He still did not change his views about intermarriage:
And Jo’s “equalization” plan? It would be dearly bought by any who were lucky enough to qualify for it:
“Use the negro and indians against our foes”. Make them equal, but separate. Of course this would not really be equal if they were forced from American Society and restricted to a country of their own, would it? He even disses the Hispanics. This is ample proof that Joseph’s views about equalization were simply politics.
Texas came into the Union as a Slave State. Smith was all for it. Smith claimed that some “objected” to Texas being admitted to the union on account of slavery, but said that “THIS WAS THE VERY REASON WHY SHE SHOULD BE RECEIVED”, and was for freeing the slaves ONLY to use against a British Invasion. And how would Smith use the negroes and Indians against our foes if they did not want to fight? Make it a condition of freedom? How is that not slavery? But he was still against intermarriage, so he was still a racist.
What did Jo really wanted to do? Use those with a darker skin as cannon fodder for the Texas War that never happened with England. Then, he would have shipped them not to Texas, but to Mexico, where they would supposedly feel right at home with other dark skinned people. This is not an equalization, it is blatant RACISM, and, says Jo, “If these things are not so God never spoke by any prophet since the world began.” Jo didn’t change his views, he was only hiding behind political rhetoric. By 1843 (while Jo was still alive) they were already ashamed of Elijah Abel.
Jo was consistent that blacks were the seed of Cain, that they were not to be amalgamated, and that they were to basically be gotten rid of. In 1843 Elijah Abel was told not to preach to white people, because they did not want him out in public doing so. He wasn’t treated as an equal, but was just a “colored man” who said he “felt badly used” by those in authority, as the minutes of a Cincinnati Conference in June, 1843 show. Abel went along with it, and the Mormons kept their token negro in line, as they denied him the temple and everything else that went along with his useless priesthood ordination that really meant nothing.
Mormons WERE in favor of slavery. For many years. What changed with Smith? He wanted to be President. The doctrine of Cain was already in place as far back as 1836, and no matter what Jo said about Abel personally, he still viewed his RACE as the seed of Cain, and that was reinforced with his 1842 publication of the Book of Abraham, which David O. McKay once said was the sole basis for the ban.
Only eight months after Jo’s death (well before the 1847 troubles with William McCary & others) this was published in the Times and Seasons:
Where did that come from? Jo Smith. The Church was TOTALLY in favor of slavery. It “DELIGHTED” them. Did you get that, genius? The Times and Seasons article totally links BLACK SKIN with scripture. FOF has a big problem, he doesn’t read or understand Mormon History, Doctrine, Revelation, or for that matter United States History either. Saying that Lynn doesn’t is simply hilarious.
The logic employed here is atrocious. Pure cognitive dissonance on display. Nothing racist in the Bible. The Book of Mormon is racist. Yeah. You could cut the bias with a knife.
The sort of fascination with skin color we find in the BOM comes from a culture where colonialism and especially chattel slavery are endemic.
Western Europeans needed an excuse to exploit the native peoples that they encountered as they discovered new lands and decrimination based on race was born. Folks needed to come up with some sort of excuse so that they could treat natives in ways that they would not treat anyone else. They could not find that excuse in the Bible try as they might. You never hear the stories of the moabites or Jesus and the Gentile woman being used as excuses in the Antebellum south.
When racists tried to use the Bible to justify there actions they had to do things like twist the “curse of Cain” beyond all recognition.
On the other hand all a racist morman need do is point out that dark skin is a curse acourding to his god and go on his merry way
All this talk of dark skin color as a curse is completely foreign to the Bible but it was everywhere in 18th and 19th century America where it was used as a justification for slavery and genocide against native peoples. This is actually one of the best evidences that the BOM can’t be an ancient text.
This is another thing that modern Mormons have taken up to try and “explain” their blatant racism. This has now carried over into the New Doctrinal Essays posted at lds.org. They are trying to explain Mormon Doctrine as having evolved out of cultural beliefs and practices, which Mormon “authorities” have vehemently denied since the inception of the Church. Joseph always claimed to have NEVER built on anyone’s work. He claimed an “independent” revelation, directly from God. Each of his successors claim the same. The only way to account for cultural influence is to take Mormon “authorities” at their word, and that would make Mormonism a false religion (lumped in with the rest of the so called Sectarians). Though Mormon leaders have always claimed to be men with weaknesses, (of the flesh) that has never carried over into REVELATION. That is why there are no “official” explanations for anything, only “we don’t know” or essays (put on their “official” website) but written by Mormon Apologists, and labeled as “unofficial”.
As Brigham Young taught,
So claiming (for example) that the doctrine of Cain having a mark put upon him of black skin, as having been adopted by the Mormons from others, is, according to Young, simply wrong. There was no adopting of the traditions of those who lived in America, or what might be considered “orthodoxy”, or any Catholic or Protestant interpretation of Scripture. All doctrine came directly from God to Mormon “prophets”, without the taint of cultural influence. If some precepts were in agreement, that was only because of happenstance, that they were not lost like others in the “great apostasy”.
They were racists, (via Jo & all the other Mormon “prophets”) because their God was racist, who was the false Jesus of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.
Actually FOF, Lynn said,
There is no “potential for godhood” in the lower regions of the CK. But I thought you knew that? (Hint: D&C 132)
Oh FOF, you are so silly. Surely you have read your D&C? The reason why the Lamanites were not destroyed, is because the Nephites became more evil than them. Jo explained it thusly,
Now, you have said you have read the BOM MULTIPLE TIMES, but I find that hard to believe, or you would have known about this passage in Helaman 7:
Just as God used the evil Pharaoh against the Israelites, Jo copied that theme for the Nephites and Lamanites. They were preserved to become an instrument for the Nephites destruction. That is all. THEN you get the BOM (now totally failed) prophecies about the Lamanites descendants turning white and coming back into the Gospel fold as they turned on the whites in America and destroyed the US and helped the Mormons to retake Missouri and build the New Jerusalem.
If the Lamanites were so blessed, why did Brigham Young say,
The Lamanites were not “more favored”, they were just not as wicked as the Nephites, and they still carried the mark of that wickedness into the 19th century, according to Mormon “authorities” and the BOM. They were simply preserved to kill off the more wicked Nephites who had “more light” and rejected it, and so received the “greater condemnation”. Your silly straw man constructs just don’t work, FOF. Not with those who have actually READ and COMPREHEND what the BOM really says, and actually understand Mormon Doctrine (as convoluted and contradictory as it is).
Fof F ,
You claim that no one has adequately responded to your points , and that since you feel the
topic of this thread is the Mormon canon then you will not address the teachings of Mormon
leaders like Brigham concerning Negroes . Both of these claims are silly .
Lynn, commenced her article by citing the recent news article offered by your leadership
concerning certain aspects of the Priesthood ban , which naturally involved mentioning Brigham Young . You mentioned Utah and slavery , and that to would involve Brigham Young . So your
attempts to dodge the main character involved with the Mormon church’s stance on Black
skinned people , is seen to be rather convienent .
Interestingly, I briefly responded to your comment on Utah and slavery with you needed to
hear , yet you offered no reply to that . I guess then it was a ” adequate ” response by me , right?
Now I’m not going to go farther into the slavery issue ( Grindael has provided enough info to us
to understand how Mormons were also guilty of this ) .
Now you seem to be fond of creating a scenario with your posts on this blog whereby you say
something just off center of the main point , and you relentlessly push that point . This you
have done with your ” those in the BM with dark skin color were more blessed than those with
white skin ” , and it can drown out the bigger fact this whole issue eventually points to , namely
the ” living ” prophets ( Brigham Young etc ) teachings about skin color / curse of Cain .
What did Mormon missionaries tell their listeners until 1978 ? Was it the same gospel message
that Paul preached concerning races ? If the same church and gospel that Jesus’ apostles
served in and preached was restored in 1830 why then did Mormon leaders teach that Black
skinned people with African lineage could not receive the full blessings and priviledges of
the gospel affords .
So your point about the dark skinned people in the BM being more blessed , is rather mute .
The BM and Bible are from dead prophets , but there is a living prophet with new light on the
gospel . This new light began around 1849 , and lasted until 1978 , or so the story goes .
Lynn rightly noticed the New Testament apostles message about races and compared that to
the latter day ” scripture ” of her church . She started there and no doubt did the right thing
by also looking at what the “living prophet ” introduced to the flock about black skin people.
The verdict was troubling . Thank goodness she recognized she’d been misled ,and as result
began her exit out of Mormonism and completely into Jesus .
As a final note , why is racism still alive in the Mormon church , years after 1978 ?
An article in the Salt Lake Tribune ( 6-10-2008 ) stated :
” Black Latter -Day Saints say they have grown accustomed to defending their faith to other
Blacks , but they will never understand why they STILL must defend their race to other
Mormons . Racism is alive , they say , in their congregations and in quasi-official publications
and folklore the church will not repudiate . ”
It goes on to say that they implore their leadership ” to face the church’s racist history ” .
The recent public statement on this issue was the latest attempt by Church leaders to end
the controversy about Blacks in Mormon history . But it still did not go far enough , many feel ,
recent past leaders taught false doctrine should be admitted .
This type of anemic response to this issue coupled with the Book of Mormon’s ( and BOA )
being latter day scriptures , and which mention black skin /curse , is why there are devout
Mormons today who still believe Black skinned people / Negroes are inferior , despite the 1978
FOF is back? oh man…
well, it was getting quiet around here without him 😉
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Gimme some truth edition! » Main Street Plaza