Replies

From the article: Romney has claimed that he was so moved when the church finally allowed blacks into the priesthood that he broke into tears. Yet he was a full grown man in his 30s and there is no evidence whatsoever that he previously objected to or campaigned against the blatantly racist policies.

This right here will be the mantra repeated over & over & over & over again if Romney won the nomination.

A race about economics & social issues & world policies would be reduced by the MSM & Obamaites to a referendum on racism...all with the pre-approval of the GOP establishment!

Sickening!

The issue garnered attention this week after the Washington Post published an article, "The Genesis of a Church's Stand on Race". In the article, Randy Bott, a well-regarded religious professor at Brigham Young University, which is owned by the Church of Latter-day Saints, sought to justify the church's previous exclusion of blacks to the priesthood, as well as the disturbing teachings -- and explicitly racist texts of the Book of Mormon. "God has always been discriminatory," Bott said..."What is discrimination?" Bott asked. "I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn't have been a benefit to them?" Professor Bott tried to explain that though blacks were not allowed into the priesthood before 1978, this meant that they were spared from being sent to the lower rung of hell.

So, let's see. The Mormons have proxy-baptized racist Hitler see Hitler Baptized as a Mormon...and this BYU prof was claiming that God wanted blacks to live on lower rungs of heaven -- like Hitler's rung -- because this might somehow pre-empt them from winding up in a worse place?

Ah...such Mormon theology from the "most popular" BYU prof on campus in 2008...the year, btw, when he wrote his first blog on a similar topic as this...and one that didn't rile the BYU campus or Mormon hierarchy...showing that BYU & the Mormon hierarchy are still racist!

From the article: ...Bott's comments actually reflected mainstream Mormon opinion for at least 150 years.

Well, one would like to think that Mormonism's policy change wiped out its official sanctioning of racism.

Wrong-o, boy-o:

Here'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):

The Mormon "prophets" Nephi, Alma and the Mormon Jacob are racists!

* "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"...It's not like the Mormon church has the supposed gold plates to go back and look to interpret a word differently)

* "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) [Note: The "Lamanites" per Mormonism are Native Americans...so their skin color, says Mormon "scripture" is based upon a supposed curse]

* "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." (3 Nephi 2:15) [Note: So...to be "uncursed" is to have your skin turn white...per Romney's Mormonism, that is!]

The Book of Abraham verses are 1:24-27..."and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land." (v. 24)...Pharaoh was then supposedly "cursed...as pertaining to the Priesthood. Now, Pharaoh, being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood..." (v. 26-27)

Some Mormons talk as if a darker skin color as-a-supposed-curse was just ONLY some talk in the past. Uh, no! Look at the verses above -- Alma 3:6 and Jacob 3:5, for example. They also talk as if the "curse of Ham" being a darker skin color was also just some teaching that's been jettisoned. Well, then why is the Book of Abraham phrasing still there in their Mormon "scripture" -- the Pearl of Great Price?

From the article: ...Bott's comments actually reflected mainstream Mormon opinion for at least 150 years.

It's not just the Book of Mormon & Pearl of Great Price (half of Mormonism's "scriptures") that are openly racist. Consider the following "revelation" from the Mormon god to Joseph Smith...deemed as "scripture" in "Doctrine & Covenants" -- a "sacred" doc embraced & endorsed by Mitt Romney & true-believing Mormons everywhere!

Well, it’s mid-1835. Smith is churning out new “Scripture.” Smith is taking aim at new converts. But in that time, did he believe the Mormon “gospel” to be aimed at slaves? (No, not unless express “permission” was granted by their “owners”).

Could you imagine a verse still applicable today—one similar to the Mormon scripture of Doctrine & Covenants 134:12—which would tell you in effect that yes, the gospel was for women who are sexually trafficked--but only if their Pimp-owner says "Yes?".

I mean, imagine if you will, for a moment, that you are the God of the universe; God of every planet; God of the earth; Creator of every person. Imagine for a moment you are speaking forth universal eternal truth. And then imagine that someone claims you (as God) made the following “Scriptural” statement:

”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, 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.”

D&C 134:12 is LDS “Doctrine” that has never been removed or rescinded!!! This passages makes it quite clear – in contrast to the apostle Paul who vied for the religious freedom of Onesimus while treating him as a full Christian brother and encouraged Philemon to do the same--somehow, LDS think that "religious freedom" applies to everyone except slaves!

D&C 134:12, written in 1835 pro-slavery America, made it quite clear that instead of the Mormons having a universal god who issued eternal truth applicable to all cultures, he is instead an American-sounding god who speaks only in King James English & was beholden to the American slavery industry.

D&C 134:12 "settles" the issue for the Mormon: Are slaves & trafficking victims worthy of the "gospel?" LDS Answer? Nope! "neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them..." says LDS "Scripture.

And why not? Well, says D&C 134:12: We don't want ya ta meddle with the Mastuhs' business “property,” or to say it as precisely as LDS "scripture" says it: nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life...

(Nah. We can't have unhappy slaves or trafficking victims now, can we? Too disturbing to their "stations" of life, eh?)

Now what are the ultimate reasons for this again? D&C 134:12 provides the answer:

Reason #1: ...such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust... (There ya have it...wouldn't want to be "unjust" by giving slaves the gospel & baptizing them, would ya?)

Reason #2: ...and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude. (And, of course, the "closer": Wouldn't want to disturb the peace & quiet of slavery-sanctioning governments, now would ya?)

Romney has claimed that he was so moved when the church finally allowed blacks into the priesthood that he broke into tears. Yet he was a full grown man in his 30s and there is no evidence whatsoever that he previously objected to or campaigned against the blatantly racist policies.

What a crock.

Never did the Romney family do anything to stop the practice or even reevaluate, oh yea why would they, the lds gods said black people where cursed.

Seriously, if you are a mormon and your gods said blacks where cursed and valueless, why would Romney weep over this.

Curious that mormons don't seem to have a problem with their gods changing ther minds about stuff.