Replies

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

connection to the reason Willard’s family has adopted a black baby...boy of course... ???

Political expediency ???

Jimmy Carter made them accept black men (only men) as full members in 1978...

for which they punished their good liberal Democrat bosom buddy by voting for the much hated (shudder) Ronald Reagan in 1980 ...

but in 35 years, no black member of the Mormon religion has ever been allowed into the inner circle of the Mormon secret society..

just like Woodruff’s 1890 “proclamation” about polygamy, the 1978 change about the “sons of Cain” was a faust..

only meant for political gain..

Now The Mormons are attempting to help Willard’s next campaign by trying to stomp out 180 years of racial discrimination and bigotry..

Brigham Young took his black slaves to the Utah territory in 1846 and before that Joey Smith didn’t have much to say in favor of black skin..
_____________________________________________________

Smith’s View on Race and Skin Color

The first instance of racism in Smith’s new religion can be found in the Book of Mormon, published in 1830.[11] Here we find the story of a group of Israelites who migrate to America at approximately 600 BC. They soon divide into two groups—the righteous Nephites are described as “white” and “delightsome” while the rebellious Lamanites are cursed by God with a “dark” skin, also referred to as a “skin of blackness”:

2 Nephi 5:21-23: And he [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. . . . 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. . . . And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.”

Jacob 3:5: Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins. . .

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 the transgression and their rebellion. . .

The descendants of these rebellious people were believed by the early Mormons to be the American Indian.[12] While their dark skin was seen as a sign of God’s curse on them, Indians were allowed to join Mormonism and be ordained to its priesthood.

Soon after starting his church in 1830, Joseph Smith began a revision of the Bible. Without knowing either Hebrew or Greek, Smith supposedly relied on divine guidance in correcting the text. Part of his revision is printed in the Pearl of Great Price as the Book of Moses, where we find the scriptural roots of the LDS concept of the origin of black people:

Moses 7:8: . . . and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

Moses 7:12: . . . Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Canaan, to repent . . .

Moses 7:22: 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.

Smith seems to have been adapting the racial arguments of his day, which were used to justify slavery, when formulating his teaching that blacks were under the curse of Cain.[13]

When Mormons started settling in Missouri in the early 1830’s their attitude toward Native Americans and blacks became a concern of their neighbors. Many Missourians worried that Smith’s church, founded in New York, was anti-slavery. After the Mormons published an article “Free People of Color”[14] in their Evening and Morning Star, the non-Mormons worried that it was meant to encourage blacks to immigrate to the Mormon settlement in Independence, Missouri. To calm local fears, the Mormons immediately printed an “Extra” sheet for the paper, in which they announced:

Having learned, with regret, that an article entitled FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR, in the last number of the Star, has been misunderstood, we feel in duty bound to state, in this Extra, that our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church.[15]

After a few abolitionists came to the Mormon settlement at Kirtland, Ohio, in 1836, Smith was concerned that this would cause problems between the Mormons and the Southerners. In an article for the Messenger and Advocate, Smith laid out his lack of support for the abolitionists and his views on slavery. He wrote:

I have learned by experience that the enemy of truth does not slumber, nor cease his exertions to bias the minds of communities against the servants of the Lord, by stirring up the indignation of men upon all matters of importance or interest; therefore I fear that the sound might go out, that “an Abolitionist” had held forth several times to this community, . . . all, except a very few, attended to their own vocations, and left the gentleman to hold forth his own arguments to nearly naked walls. . . .

It is my privilege then to name certain passages from the Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude. “And he said, Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” (Gen. 9:25,26). . . . What could have been the design of the Almighty in this singular occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; . . . I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not have slaves, than the South have to say the North shall. . . . All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves, contrary to the mind and will of their masters.[16]

On Tuesday, January 25, 1842, Joseph Smith commented “that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain.”[17] A year later, January 2, 1843, Joseph Smith gave this assessment of blacks:

At five went to Mr. Sollars’ with Elders Hyde and Richards. Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. . . . Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.[18]

Ironically, right at the time Joseph Smith was developing his racial doctrines he allowed the ordination of a black man named Elijah Abel.[19] 1Abel was “ordained an elder on March 3, 1836, and a seventy April 4, 1841.”[20]

In 1842 Smith published his new scripture, the Book of Abraham, in the Times and Seasons, the LDS newspaper in Nauvoo, Illinois. This has since been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price and reflects Smith’s growing racist attitude towards blacks and priesthood:

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 the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

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. (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham, 1:21-27)

LDS author Stephen Taggart observed:

With the publication of The Book of Abraham all of the elements for the Church’s policy of denying the priesthood to Negroes were present. The curse of Canaan motif borrowed from Southern fundamentalism was being supported within the Church by a foundation of proslavery statements and attitudes which had emerged during the years of crisis in Missouri. . . . [21]

When a reporter asked LDS President David O. McKay in 1961 about the basis for the policy of restricting blacks from priesthood, “he replied that it rested solely on the Book of Abraham. ‘That is the only reason,’ he said. ‘It is founded on that.’ “[22] Even though the LDS Church now denounces racism, how are readers to interpret racial statements in the LDS scriptures?[23]

It should be noted that the story of Noah’s curse on Ham and Canaan in Genesis, chapter nine, never connects the curse to race, skin color or to Africa. The same can be said of the curse on Cain in Genesis, chapter four. The Bible does not identify the mark placed on Cain as being a black skin. These interpretations arose centuries later in an attempt to justify slavery.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no118.htm

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. 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 'servant of servants', and they will be, until that curse is removed."

Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.

Here are two examples from their 'other testament', the Book of Mormon.

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.'

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.'

August 27, 1954 in an address at Brigham Young University (BYU), Mormon Elder, Mark E Peterson, in speaking to a convention of teachers of religion at the college level, said:

"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent.I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after."
"He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage."
"That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'...."

(Rosa Parks would have probably told Petersen under which wheel of the bus he should go sit.)

1967, (then) Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson said,

"The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder."

General Authority, Bruce R McConkie had said:

"The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.
The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin, it is the Lord's doings."
(Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).

When Mormon 'Apostle' Mark E Petersen spoke on 'Race Problems- As they affect the Church' at the BYU campus in 1954, the following was also said:

"...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, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

When Mormon 'Prophet' and second President of the Church, Brigham Young, spoke in 1863 the following was also said:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so."
(Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110)

The Mormon Church’s Essay on Blacks and the Priesthood is a Lie . . .

. . . one which the Mormon Church is currently and desperately employing in an unsuccessful effort to cover the tracks of its attack on Blacks in terms of both its:

a) historically official doctrinal status; and

b) its historically acknowledged tie-in to Joseph Smith.

The Mormon Church, on its official website, makes a grossly dishonest claim that the long-established official position of the Mormon Church banning Blacks from holding the priesthood was a policy and not a doctrine. In an essay entitled, “Race and the Priesthood,” the Mormon Church makes the following deliberately disingenuous and factually disproveable assertion:

“In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, [Mormon Church president] Brigham Young announced a POLICY restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination . . .

“ . . . [G]iven the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the POLICY and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done.”

(emphasis added)

(“Race and the Priesthood,” at: http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-th...)

However, the highest authoritative decision-making body in the Mormon Church—the First Presidency (comprised of the Mormon Church president and his two counselors)—has directly and emphatically contradicted this latest lie from Latter-day Saint Central. The official position of the Mormon Church has historically, explicitly and unambiguously declared the Mormon Church anti-Black priesthood ban to be one of DOCTRINE, NOT POLICY.

Further, contrary to the ongoing false claims being made by the Mormon Church, there is documented evidence from the Mormon Church First Presidency itself that Joseph Smith was behind the DOCTRINAL Mormon anti-Black priesthood ban.

The proof:

—On 17 July 1947, the Mormon Church First Presidency wrote the following to Lowry Nelson, Mormon professor at Utah State Agricultural College regarding the status of Blacks in the eyes of the Mormon God:

“Dear Brother Nelson:

“. . . The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God’s children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God’s dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham’s seed and their position vis-a-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God’s children were assigned to superior positions before the world was formed.

“We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the DOCTRINES s that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a relationship in the life heretofore. FROM THE DAYS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH EVEN UNTIL NOW, IT HAS BEEN THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, NEVER QUESTIONED BY ANY OF THE CHURCH LEADERS, THAT THE NEGROES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE FULL BLESSINGS OF THE GOSPEL.

“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning ‘marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit’]. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between Whites and Blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

“Faithfully yours,

George Albert Smith J. Reuben Clark, Jr. David O. McKay”

(emphasis added)

Nelson responded on 8 October:

“The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad. I do not believe God is a racist.”

The First Presidency answered:

“We feel very sure that you are aware of THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men, however well founded they may seem to be. We should like to say this to you in all sincerity, that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning.

“You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can re-orient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed Word of God.”

(emphasis added)

—An official First Presidency statement, dated 17 August 1949, again noting that the Mormon Church’s priesthood ban imposed against Blacks was a clear matter of DOCTRINE, NOT POLICY:

“THE ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH WITH REFERENCE TO NEGROES REMAINS AS IT HAS ALWAYS STOOD. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF THE DECLARATION OF A POLICY BUT OF DIRECT COMMANDMENT FOM 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 THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRIESTHOOD AT THE PRESENT TIME. THE PROPHETS OF THE LORD HAVE MADE SEVERAL STATEMENTS AS TO THE OPERATION OF THE PRINCIPLE. President Brigham Young said: ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death.’”

(emphasis added)

—During the 1960s civil rights movement where the Mormon Church was coming under increasing fire for its bigoted anti-Black priesthood stsand, Mormon church leaders circled the wagons and again issued another official First Presidency statement, dated 15 December 1969, invoking the words of then-Mormon Church president, David O. McKay and laying the orgins of the ban at the feet of Mormonism’s inventor, Joseph Smith:

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

“Dear Brethren:

“In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH WITH REGARD TO THE NEGRO BOTH IN SOCIETY AND IN THE CHURCH.

“A word of explanation concerning THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH.

“FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISPENSATION, JOSEPH SMITH AND ALL SUCCEEDING PRESIDENTS OF THE CHURCH HAVE TAUGHT THAT NEGROES, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, WERE NOT YET TO RECEIVE THE PRIESTHOOD, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

“Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, ‘The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God. . . . ‘Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.’ President McKay has also said, ‘Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.’

“Faithfully your brethren,

“The First Presidency

” Hugh B. Brown N. Eldon Tanner”

(emphasis added)

Finally, for the DOCTRINAL, NOT POLICY, status which clearly and historically attended the Mormon Church’s anti-Black priesthood ban, see “Mormon Racism As doctrine, Not Merely Folklore or Tradition,”

Here’s their daily Mormon scripture study guide on the racism of their Mormon God, as noted in the article, “Racism as Doctrine, Not Merely Folklore or Tradition”:

—”Mormon Scripture: God Curses Bad Races with Black Skin

“2 Nephi 5:21: ‘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 2:14-1: ‘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: ‘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

“’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, p. 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, p. 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. . . . [E]very 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, p. 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, p. 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, p. 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’ (March 1835), p. 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, p. 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. . . . .

“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?: ‘The Embarrassing Truth about Mormonism, by Mark Wignall, “The Jamaca Observer,” 25 September 2005, at: http://www.i4m.com/think/comments/mor...; source for first article: at: http://www.i4m.com/think/history/morm...)

Today’s Mormon Church seems to have an official policy of lying about its official doctrines.

(Benson, Steve, Topic: LDS OFFICIAL ESSAYS, “The Mormon Church’s Essay On Blacks And The Priesthood Is A Lie” tHE Mormon curtain website, Dec 17, 2013)

http://mormoncurtain.com/

a product of men's minds and prejudices???