No it says nothing about Romney personally, but the fact remains that he belongs to a church which, until 1978 (15 years after the Civil Rights Act) blatantly discriminated against blacks solely on the basis of the color of their skin. Romney was not a convert to Mormonism after the decision to rescind that teaching. This was something that was taught to him during his formative years and which he did not publicly reject until AFTER his church had made the decision to reverse itself on that issue. Romney was not a leader in bringing this change, he was a follower of those who promulgated it.
I left the Mormon Church long before the Mormons decided it was no longer politically correct to discriminate against Blacks on the basis of their skin color. I was a witness to the private conversations of many "good" Mormons who used the "N" word rather indiscriminately when describing people of African descent. Because of the teaching of the LDS Church that these people were not valiant during the war in heaven in the pre-mortal existence, it was logical that many Mormons (like Hindus) thought that their lot in life was what they deserved because of their behavior in the pre-existence.
The LDS Church has changed the rules, but they have not apologized for the blantant racism that permeated their church for 150 years. They will not apologize because they now claim that it was never the "official" doctrine of the LDS Church.
That, my FRiend is pretty slick, wouldn't you say?
If it says nothing about Romney (or any other candidate) personally, what makes it relevant in the context of conservative political activism?
21 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.
26 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.”
27 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;
Isn't it obvious that CURRENT LDS Scripture supports a curse upon the Seed of Cain?
Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black” (The Way to Perfection, p.107).
Smith also stated that “there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).
The fact that Blacks were being punished for something they couldn’t even remember doing makes this doctrine even more offensive. However, while lifting the ban may have put the LDS Church in a more positive light socially, it demonstrated once more the instability of its doctrines and the fickleness of its God. The decision made in 1978 also demonstrates that the LDS people will accept just about anything their leaders tell them. When it comes to accountability, the leadership of the LDS Church answers to no one. Latter-day Saints may respond by saying their leaders are accountable to God, but what does this really mean when they are allowed to make decisions that contradict what Mormons have historically considered to be God’s unchanging will?