At Picnic for Black Mormons, No Sign of Church’s Biased Past (NY Times Mormon Hate on Cue)

COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, Utah — On Christmas Day in 1964, the day before Darius A. Gray was to be baptized as a Mormon, he learned that the church would not allow a black man, like him, to be in the priesthood.

It was last Saturday, and we were sitting with about 300 other Mormons, including dozens of children, at the annual picnic of the Genesis Group, a social organization for black Mormons and their friends. Some were Latino or American Indian, and nearly half were white, the parents and siblings of adopted black children. It was the most racially integrated church event I had ever attended.

Having been introduced to Mormonism by kindly white neighbors in his hometown of Colorado Springs, the teenage Darius read his way through much of the scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He had no idea about the racist church policy. His newfound faith was badly shaken.

“I went home and prayed,” Mr. Gray said. “And I received a personal revelation, an inspiration from God: ‘This is the restored Gospel, and you are to join.’ So the next day, I entered into the waters of baptism. Then the next day I went to church as a member for the first time.” And a little girl addressed him using a certain racial epithet. That was a first, too.

Typical liberal hate--digging up something that was over with forty years ago.

That MORMON 'god' sure changes his (it's?) mind a lot!!

"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."

We are told that on June 8, 1978, it was 'revealed' to the then president, Spencer Kimball, that people of color could now gain entry into the priesthood.

According to the church, Kimball spent many long hours petitioning God, begging him to give worthy black people the priesthood. God finally relented.

Sometime before the 'revelation' came to chief 'Prophet' Spencer Kimball in June 1978, 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)

They would probably castigate America for slavery of centuries past instead of celebrating its racial tolerance of today. [Zulu, post #16]

Typical liberal hate--digging up something that was over with forty years ago [hinckley buzzard, post #3]

At least some random Christian denomination allows one to confess and make amends for being a racist. [morpheus2009, post #4]

Where’s the article about “Democrat Party’s Racist Past” with regard to blacks? [Protect our freedom, post #7]

As long as we are going to dig into the past... [E. Pluribus Unum, post #15]

My question to Zulu, Hinckley Buzzard, Morpheus, Protect our freedom, and e. Pluribus Unum, is: Why do you assume that overt Mormon racism went out the door in 1978? (And no Hinckley Buzzard, that wasn't 40 years ago.)

In fact, why are you seemingly defending the Mormon sacred-book verses below?
Do you think black skin is a "curse" and white skin color is "delightsome?"

There's five Book of Mormon verses below talking about how the "skin of blackness" is a "cursing" based upon their "iniquity" (2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6; Jacob 3:5) and how when the curse would be removed, they would again become "white" (3 Nephi 2:15), which the Book of Mormon says is a "delightsome" color (2 Nephi 5:21; cf. older version of 2 Nephi 30:6):

* "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 exceeding 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." (2 Nephi 5:21)

* "...many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people." (2 Nephi 30:6, pre-1981 versions...changed from unknown reasons in 1981 to "fair and delightsome")

* "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 the their brethren..." (Alma 3:6)

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

* "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." (3 Nephi 2:15)

On the next post, I'll also highlight Mormon Doctrine & Covenants 134:12, also another racist Mormon sacred-book passage that hasn't been touched, revised, removed...

They would probably castigate America for slavery of centuries past instead of celebrating its racial tolerance of today. [Zulu, post #16]

Typical liberal hate--digging up something that was over with forty years ago [hinckley buzzard, post #3]

At least some random Christian denomination allows one to confess and make amends for being a racist. [morpheus2009, post #4]

Where’s the article about “Democrat Party’s Racist Past” with regard to blacks? [Protect our freedom, post #7]

As long as we are going to dig into the past... [E. Pluribus Unum, post #15]

A question for Mr. Romney and those who defend him or the so-called Mormon "past": Do you believe that your peculiarly Mormon Scripture on proper consideration for the owners of slaves (D&C 134:12) still applies today?

Setting: Summer, 1835: Joseph Smith felt behooved to address slavery amongst the bigger umbrella of obeying laws, rulers, etc. Now D&C 134:1,3,5,8 all tell Mormons to obey laws, rulers & their government. But then we get to verse 12...note the highlighted words:

We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do NOT believe it right to...
...interfere with bond-servants,C
...neither preach the gospel to,
...nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters,
...nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life,
...thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

Questions:
* Is this "scripture" still on the record as standing canonized authority for the Mormon church? (Yes)
* Has any scripture statement superceded, trumped or "manifesto-ed" it out of authority? (No)
* Well how does the Mormon church then reconcile a statement made by its spokesman, Michael Purdy -- “The blessings of the church are available to anyone who qualifies for membership and accepts the gospel of Jesus Christ” -- with D&C 134:12?
* How can lds "scripture" say that it's not "right to...preach the gospel to...bond-servants [slaves] ...nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters?" -- while simultaneously claiming the gospel can be accepted by anyone and that anyone can become a member?
* Well, can slaves be baptized and become an LDS member if their master says "no?" (Not according to D&C 134:12)
* What about a girl who is being "trafficked" as a sex slave...can she be baptized & become a Mormon even if her "pimp" says no? (Not according to D&C 134:12)
* Does Joseph Smith have authority in the Mormon church or not?

And then, how can Lds agree with these pro-illegal immigration Mormon policies when their own "scripture" (D&C 134:8) says: all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment??? Illegal immigration laws qualify as "good laws" do they not?

Why aren't Lds leaders & grassroots lds stepping forward to use their ability in bringing offenders to justice according to their own good book?
What? Are lds only for selective "continuing revelation?"

If your motives were pure, it's Muslims you'd be most offended by. But Muslims kill their critics, and Mormons don't, so cowards find it much safer to attack them instead.

If, E. Pluribus Unum, you were biblically oriented instead of just operating by the world's standards, you'd realize that both Mormons and Muslims are worthy of spiritual rescue and that we...unlike others...are able to multi-task.

Thank God we had the Silent Generation take on the Axis (Germany, Italy, Japan). To listen to some FReepers, they can't handle more than a single frontline at a time!

Besides, the physical violence from Muslims isn't our key "cue." Jesus even says:

"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)

So does Jesus say, "fear the Muslims?" (No)
Instead, does He say to exercise fear of the One who has authority to cast somebody into hell? (Yes)
So, indeed, our "fear" is on behalf of those who are placing their eternal spiritual lives at risk. That includes both Mormons and Muslims.

(Now if you wanna point me to evidence that we have Muslim FReepers in our midst or that conservative Muslims read this thread often, please let me know...I'd love to dialogue with them here as well)

The apostle Paul also prioritized those who would come in "among you" (kind of like the 52,000 Mormon missionaries out in the world today). As Paul was leaving the church of Ephesus, he warned them with this high-priority alert:

"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20:29-31)

Paul's cultural priority? (Defend against the false disciples who will proselytize the flock and draw away men unto themselves!)

Tell me something, E. Pluribus Unum: If you did something tearfully night and day for three years, do you think it's rather important? So what? We're just to conclude, "Oh, the man who contributed a good chunk to the New Testament -- what does he know about cultural priorities?"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.