MORMON
CURTAIN
⇒ MAIN INDEX ⇒ MC FAQ ⇒ CONTACT ME ⇒ 288 TOPICS ⇒ EX-MORMON FORUMS |
|
|
 Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign! |
© 2005-2010 Compiled With: Caligra 2.0.1 ALPHA |
|
THE
MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 4,184 Articles Spanning 288 Topics Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery Online Since January 1, 2005 |
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
|
|
| Monday, Jan 24, 2005, at 10:57 AM More Racist Mormon Views Posted By Anonymous BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
Joseph Fielding Smith wrote the following:
"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. 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.... There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits."Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages 66-67 |
| Sunday, Feb 13, 2005, at 01:00 AM What Blacks Will Look Like In Mormon Heaven Posted By Anonymous BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
Joseph Smith stated the following:
"For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent, obey the Gospel, and do right from this day forward. . . . 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; The Lamanites, through transgression, became a loathsome, ignorant and filthy people, and were cursed with a skin of darkness … yet, they have the promise, if they will believe, and work righteousness, that not many generations shall pass away before they shall become a white and delightsome people; but it will take some time to accomplish this at best"Source: The Latter-Day Saints Millennial Star, vol. 14, p. 418 |
| Wednesday, Jul 6, 2005, at 09:49 AM Blacks vs. The Mormon Priesthood Posted By Anonymous BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| Plain and simple?
In June of 1978, the LDS-owned Deseret News newspaper printed an announcement by the LDS First Presidency stating that God, by revelation, would now allow all worthy male members in the LDS Church to receive the priesthood as well as "blessings of the temple." (Deseret News, 6/9/78, 1A). This "revelation," known as Official Declaration 2, can be found in printed form at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants. To understand why this announcement was of such extreme importance, it is necessary to go back in time to what Mormons refer to as the pre-existence. According to LDS theology, the God of Mormonism, Elohim, resides near a star called Kolob where he lives with his many heavenly wives. Together they are producing millions upon millions of spirit children. Mormon leaders have taught that aeons ago the time came to present a salvation plan for those of God's children who would eventually advance to a mortal state. Two of Elohim's sons, Jehovah (the pre-incarnate Christ) and Lucifer, presented their respective salvation plans for mortal man. According to LDS President Harold B. Lee: "…Lucifer, a son of God in the spirit world before the earth was formed, proposed a plan under which mortals would be saved without glory and honor of God. The plan of our Savior, Jehovah, was to give to each the right to choose for himself the course he would travel in earth life and all was to be done to the honor and glory of God our Heavenly Father" (Stand Ye In Holy Places, p.219). When Lucifer's plan was rejected, he rebelled against his brother and father and persuaded a third of God's spirit children to join him. Led by Michael the archangel, the remaining spirit children of God would join in what is known as the war in heaven. Lucifer would lose and become known as Satan; his followers then became demons. Both would be cast out of heaven. Unfortunately this battle had casualties of another sort. According to LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, some of those who fought on God's side "were more valiant than others…Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin...The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence" (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.). According to Brigham Young, it was Joseph Smith who classified these people as The Seed of Cain. Young said that "Joseph Smith had declared that the Negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but 'the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity'" (The Improvement Era, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.105). As a consequence of their lack of valiance, these spirit children of God would be banned from holding priesthood authority when they finally received their mortal bodies here on earth. This sanction would make it impossible for them to enjoy the blessings of exaltation. In other words, they would not be allowed to become Gods in eternity, nor would they have the ability to procreate in eternity. 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). For these reasons, Bruce McConkie would write, "The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom…" (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.). Joseph Fielding Smith stated, "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race" (The Way to Perfection, p.101). This comment is especially interesting since it was this same Joseph Fielding Smith who also said, "The Latter-day Saints have no animosity towards the Negro. Neither have they described him as belonging to an `inferior race'" (Answers to Gospel Questions 4:170). The mark of a black skin would be of great importance to the LDS member for it would be the telltale sign as to who was and who was not qualified for celestial exaltation. In his book The Church and the Negro, Assistant church historian John Lund wrote, "It marked Cain as the father of the Negroid race. It also acted as a sign of protection for Cain and set his seed apart from the rest of Adam's children so there would be no intermarriage." In a speech entitled Race Problems as they Affect the Church, LDS Apostle Mark E. Petersen asked, and answered, the following hypothetical question: "If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there?" (p.21.) Brigham Young taught a much greater extreme. In a sermon given on March 8, 1863, Young stated, "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, 10:110). The Devil's Representative? On two separate occasions, third LDS President John Taylor stated that it was God's plan to allow the seed of Cain to remain on the earth in order for the devil to be properly represented. On August 28, 1881, he declared, "And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" (Journal of Discourses 22:304). The following year, Taylor reiterated his former comment when he said, "Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil? Why did the Lord not kill him long ago? Because he could not do without him. He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence on God, and trust in Him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments. When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth" (Journal of Discourses 23:336). It isn't difficult to understand why many would look upon the LDS Church as a racist organization. However, Latter-day Saints would reject such a notion since, in their minds, the leaders were merely reflecting what they erroneously thought was the will of God. Mormons laid the responsibility for this doctrine on God Himself, not the personal bigotry, either real or imagined, of any particular Latter-day Saint. For instance, Mark Peterson said, "When He [God] placed the mark on Cain, He engaged in segregation. When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation" (Race Problems, p.15). Mormons were taught that even though Blacks could never be exalted and become Gods, they could enter the celestial kingdom. In his Race Problems as they Affect the Church speech (p.17), Peterson said, "If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection." Slavery revisited? Forever Cursed? Would those of African heritage be forever banned from holding the LDS Priesthood? Apparently not. LDS leaders did anticipate a day when the ban would eventually be lifted. However, such hopes did not support the change that came about in 1978. John Lund wrote, "There are two sublime stipulations that will have to be met before the Negroes will be allowed to possess the Priesthood, even if they are worthy... First, all of Adam's children will have to resurrect and secondly, the seed of Abel must first have an opportunity to possess the Priesthood" (The Church and The Negro, pp.109-110). As Lund noted, "These events will not occur until sometime after the millennium. It would be unwise to say Negroes will receive the Priesthood during their mortal existence." Lund's comment is based on LDS precedent. On page 89 of his book he quotes a statement by the First Presidency that was given on August 17, 1951. That statement read, "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 father's rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to.'" Notice Young made certain it was understood that only after "all the rest of the children" have received the priesthood that the curse be lifted. Lund wrote, "It is clearly stated in the above quotes that the Negroes must first pass through mortality before they may possess the Priesthood ('they will go down to death')" (p.47). On December 3, 1854, Brigham Young said, "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity" (Journal of Discourses 2:143). President Wilford Woodruff noted in his journal that President Young said, "...that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood, until the time of that redemption" (History of Wilford Woodruff, p.351, as printed in The Way to Perfection, p.106). Since the resurrection from the dead has not taken place, and the redemption of Abel's posterity has not come to fruition, it is apparent that the LDS Church was premature in its 1978 decision. Contradicting Past Prophets and LDS Scripture In Declaration 2, Spencer Kimball stated that past prophets of the LDS Church had promised that at some time the ban would be lifted and that God, by revelation, had shown him that the day has come. This statement is certainly misleading. As previously mentioned, past prophets had said the time would not come until after the resurrection, not 1978! Kimball's declaration contradicts both past LDS leaders and the Standard Works. David O. McKay, Mormonism's ninth president, said, "I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26)." This LDS passage reads, "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." The obvious question is this: If LDS Scripture supports a curse upon the Seed of Cain, didn't lifting the curse violate LDS Scripture? An article in the January 1969 Improvement Era magazine (p.13) quotes then-Apostle Harold B. Lee. He stated, "If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man's own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true." Lee would become president of the LDS Church on July 7, 1972. Lee's statement raises another obvious question: Since the Book of Abraham had been used to justify not giving the Blacks the Priesthood, doesn't the 1978 decision show that this reversal is 'not true'? Since the lifting of the ban contradicted LDS scripture, it seems that the membership should not have voted to sustain this decision on September 30, 1978. A great majority of Latter-day Saints simply attributed this to "Latter-day Revelation" and questioned it no further; however, the timing for such a change is certainly suspect. In my opinion the fiasco in Brazil was one of the strongest reasons why the ban was lifted. In anticipation of the opening of its new temple in Sao Paulo, the LDS Church was ordaining hundreds of Brazilians to its priesthood. Did the LDS Church ignore Brazilian history? Between 1538 and Brazil's abolition of slavery in 1888, about five million African slaves were brought to that country. Through mixed marriages, Mulattos make up a substantial portion of the Brazilian population. How would the LDS Church possibly know whether or not those being ordained were qualified? With the dedication of this temple only a few months away, it would seem imperative that the church either lift the ban or face the possibility of a public relations nightmare. 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? To be sure, the LDS curse upon the Blacks had no biblical justification. This teaching most certainly reflects the social upbringing and bigotry of Mormonism's early leaders rather than the will of the Christian God. The message of the New Testament proclaims that a person's past has no bearing on what he can receive from our gracious God. The Bible declares that God will not hold past transgressions against those who come to Him by faith. (Isaiah 43:25; Jeremiah 31:34; Romans 4:5-7, 23; Hebrews. 8:12). Declaration 2 definitely leaves us with reasons to question the validity of the LDS Church. One, there was no biblical reason for the discrimination in the first place; and two, there was no precedent according to Mormonism to lift it. |
| Tuesday, Feb 7, 2006, at 09:03 AM Turning Black Into Green: Following The Mormon Money Trail To A Tax-Exempt Heavenly Haven Posted By Steve Benson BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| Introduction: Almost Down for the Count—The Mormon Church’s Brush with a Federal Knock-Out Punch Over Its Anti-Black Doctrine What are to be made of reports that, circa 1978, the Mormon Church was in danger of losing its federal tax-exempt status due to its racially-discriminatory policies targeted against Blacks? Predictably, true-believing Mormons have never been willing to admit that their Church was at one time dangerously on the IRS ropes, close to being stripped of its tax-exempt status, due to its anti-Black doctrine--and barely managed to dance away from a federal government knock-out only by abandoning its officially-sanctioned bigotry. GONG!! There's the final bell. Time to examine the scorecard. _____ The Official Mormon Cult Claim: Alleged Threats of Federal Tax-Exempt Revocation Had Absolutely Nothing To Do with Black Men Belatedly Getting the Priesthood Speaking for the Mormon Church’s Public Affairs Department in response to accusations about its suspicious reversal of its long-standing anti-Black priesthood doctrine, LDS spokesman Bruce L. Olsen flatly denied that the Church’s decision to grant priesthood authority to Black men was in any way related to fear of losing federal tax exempt status. With a straight white face, Olsen asserted: ”It's one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson . . . claims that the federal government threatened the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the Church's position regarding Blacks and the priesthood. “We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law. "In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson is seriously mistaken.” (Bruce L. Olsen, “Distorted History,” in "Public Forum," Salt Lake Tribune, 5 April 2001) http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_priesthood.shtml _____ Other Mormon apologists have similarly denied that the LDS Church was pressured into rescinding its anti-Black priesthood doctrine by federal officials holding the sword of tax exemption revocation over its head. Darrick Evenson, for instance, solemnly testified: ”There was really very little external pressure on the Church after 1976 regarding [the Blacks and the priesthood] issue. “The Church has been very open as to what inspired the Brethren to ask the LORD for a rescinding of the Priesthood ban. "They claim it was not external or internal pressure, but rather the exceeding faith of the Negro and Mulatto Saints, which inspired them to petition the LORD.” (original emphasis) http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/q16.htm _____ Color It Contrary: The Case of Mormon U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee Reacting to Mormon mouthpiece Olsen’s dubious claims, Gary Anderson, writingin a letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, countered: "I was quite surprised by LDS PR man Bruce Olsen's attack . . . regarding the Mormon Church's motivations for abandoning its anti-Black doctrine . . . . “His bold assault is particularly amazing in light of the fact that history ‘distortion’ and ‘invention’ have been trademarks of Mormonism since its inception. Of course, the risk in Mr. Olsen's gallant tossing of the gauntlet is that someone might just pick it up. “For example, it didn't take much investigation to discover that in 1981 the Solicitor General of the United States, Rex Lee, a Mormon, recused himself from a case against Bob Jones University. “In that case, the U.S. government was threatening to revoke Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status because of its racist policy of prohibiting interracial dating. "When asked why he took himself off the case, Mr. Lee explained that previously when representing the Mormon church in a similar case, he had argued that the church should retain its tax-exempt status despite its racist policies and felt conflicted from arguing an opposing view in the Bob Jones case. (see, The Tenth Justice, [by] Lincoln Caplan, Knopf, 1987, p. 51, note 2 . . . p. 293). “If the [Mormon] Church's tax-exempt status was never threatened by the U.S. government because of its racist policies, why was Mr. Lee making such an argument, presumably in an era before 1978? “Given Lee's explanation, Olsen's ‘categorical’ assertion that federal tax law was never a motivating factor in the church's 1978 change in racial policy rings disingenuous. One thing true history teaches us is that secrecy breeds dishonesty. “It's fairly easy for Mr. Olsen to hide behind the tightly secured vaults in the Church Office Building and demand proof. If he was a true knight, he would throw open the doors to the vault and invite inquiring minds in to examine the minutes of meetings held by church leaders in the months and days leading up to the 'revelation,' so we might decide for ourselves the Church's actual motivation for the change. "What's that you say, Mr. Olsen? Salamander got your tongue?" (Gary Anderson, Springfield, Virginia, letter to the editor, Salt Lake Tribune, 22 April 2001) http://www.salamandersociety.com/blacks/ _____ In the book to which Anderson refers, author Caplan notes, in fact, that U.S. Solicitor General/Mormon Lee (who would eventually become president of BYU) recused himself from the case of Bob Jones v. IRS, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that religious schools which practice racial discrimination could be constitutionally stripped of federal tax exempt protection. Lee, writes Caplan, bowed out of the case because Lee had previously petitioned the IRS for tax exempt refuge in behalf of the racially-discrimnatory Mormon Church. Lee, noted Caplan, begged off because, given his previous advocacy for the color-bound Mormons, he now considered it improper for him to argue in behalf of the IRS against color-bound Bob Jones University. From Caplan’s book: ”Rex Lee . . . who had been sworn in as Solicitor General seven months before [the Bob Jones brief was filed in 1982], had once represented the Mormon Church when it faced a problem like Bob Jones's and, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, he had taken himself off the case.” (p. 50) “In 1970, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that Bob Jones no longer qualified for tax-exempt status because of [its] segregationist policy, so the school changed it. Blacks could be accepted if they were married to other Blacks, or if they promised not to date or marry outside their race . . . "By the time of the Supreme Court case, a decade later, the number of Blacks attending the school was less than a dozen, making the ratio of whites to blacks about 550 to one. “From the vantage point of the Solicitor General's office, the legal issue in the Bob Jones case was routine. It was a tax question.” (P. 53) As one unpersuaded skeptic points out regarding the Mormon Church’s unpersuasive denials over its threatened tax-exempt status: ”If the IRS had never threatened the LDS church's tax exempt status, why was Lee arguing over it and race with the IRS on the Church's behalf?” Another understandable doubter observed: "The only thing he [Olsen] stated is that the Church never was 'threatened' by the Government, NOT that the Church wasn't worried that such a thing *could* happen and was watching court rulings [like the one that was occurring in Wisconsin] to see if they could continue discriminating against [Black] members. "Yes, it is possible to lose tax-exempt status for discrimination--Bob Jones University lost it once for its interracial dating policy." http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_priesthood.shtml _____ An Insider Source Within the Mormon Church Confirmed That Fear of Losing Its Tax-Exempt Status Helped Drive LDS, Inc. to Abandon Its Anti-Black Priesthood Ban Writing in their article, “Death of the Anti-Black Doctrine,” Jerald and Sandra Tanner recount what they discovered concerning the Mormon Church’s tax-driven disavowal of its racist teachings: ”. . . [W]e . . . learned from a source within the [Mormon] Church that Church leaders were very concerned that they were going to lose their tax exempt status on property they own in the United States. “In the months just prior to the revelation, Church leaders were carefully watching developments in a case in Wisconsin in which an organization was about to lose its tax exempt status because of racial discrimination. “The Church leaders finally became convinced that the tide was turning against them and that they would lose their tax exempt status in Wisconsin and eventually throughout the United States because of their doctrine of discrimination against Blacks. . . . “[I]t may very well have been the ‘straw that broke the camel's back.’ (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, “Death of the Anti-Black Doctrine,” The Salt Lake City Messenger, Issue No. 41, December 1979) http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/black_2.htm _____ A Reported Warning to Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball from U.S. President Jimmy Carter According to one source, amid mounting pressures for the Mormons to join the 20th century, the Chief Executive of the United States did some arm twisting of his own. ”Kimball's announcement [reversing the LDS anti-Black priesthood ban] coincided with events which were adversely affecting the Mormon Church. “For a period of time immediately prior to Kimball's declaration, several major universities, had announced that until such time as the Mormon Church reversed its policy of racial discrimination, they would no longer take part in athletic events in which BYU participated. “More importantly though, approximately two weeks prior to Kimball's surprising declaration, President Jimmy Carter had phoned Kimball and informed him that the IRS was seriously considering removing the Mormon Church's tax exempt status unless changes were made in their policy of discrimination.” http://www.unlimitedglory.org/txtmormon3.htm _____ Not-So-Secret Combinations: Consumer Boycotts, Vacation Detours, NAACP Lawsuits, ACLU Threats, Advice from Paid Professional Consultants--and Pressure from the IRS At the time the Mormon Church relented and reversed its anti-Black doctrine, societal and governmental forces were converging to bring it to its wobbly white and delightsome knees: ” . . . [A]nti-Mormons urged for boycotts of recordings of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the cancellation of vacations to Utah. “The NAACP initiated several lawsuits against Mormon Boy Scout troops, charging that Church policy was foisting racism on minority Scouts. . . . “ “Several professional consulting firms which the Church had previously hired for other matters suggested to Church leaders that they reconsider the status of Blacks in the Mormon Church as part of a major overhaul of church policy. . . .” “Worst of all, the IRS suggested that the racial policies of the Mormon Church might justify a suspension of its tax-exempt status.” (Lorraine Hewlett, “The Second Great Accomodation,” http://www.salamandersociety.com/blacks/ _____ Mike Schreib, pastor of the Pionner Baptist Bible Church in Ontario, California, in an article entitled, “Mormonism: A Religion for Dumb White People,” further lays out the legal hurdles facing a beseiged Mormon Church in danger of taking a haymaker tax hit to the chin: ”In early 1978, the Mormon Church found itself suffering from a massive news media campaign criticizing their attitudes towards blacks and nonwhites. Allegations of discrimination and racism by such groups as the NAACP and ACLU were directed against the LDS Church, and rightly so. "The Mormon leadership began to sweat. “If things progressed badly for them, they feared losing large numbers of their members who saw the Church as a White supremacist haven, and were willing to tell the media about it. "Even worse, they feared losing their federal tax exempt status from the IRS; a loss that would have devastated their financial empire. “THE SOLUTION[:] “On June 8, 1978, Mormon President and prophet, Spencer W. Kimball announced to the world a new “Official Declaration” from the Lord. "Suddenly, he claimed, “...all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE OR COLOR.” (original emphasis) http://www.believers.net/english/belief/mormon/mormon.htm _____ Another skeptic of the Mormon Church’s true motivations in jettisoning its anti-Black doctrine notes that when Kimball announced his “revelation:” ”No indication was given if that ‘revelation’ was prompted by the Church accountants who showed the hierarchy what the tax bill would be and strongly suggested that a revelation would be forthcoming.” http://prophetsplace.typepad.com/testimony/2005/week37/ _____ The cult monitoring group, “Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance” offers a broad overview of the increasing governmental pressures being brought to bear on the Mormon Church to abandon its racist doctrines and practices toward Blacks: ”More federal political pressure was felt by the [Mormon] Church in the 1970s over the Church's institutionalized racism. "The Pearl of Great Price limited the advancement within the Church by Blacks or by persons with Black ancestors. (Higher levels in the priesthood were permitted for Australian aboriginal males, Polynesian men, etc.). . . . “The U.S. Internal Revenue Service threatened [the] LDS's tax exempt status. "There was a groundswell of opinion against racism by many Americans who recognized the centuries of injustice against Afro-Americans. "Additional opposition came from sports groups which threatened to cancel events with Brigham Young University. "Anti-Mormon religious groups promoted boycotts of Church businesses and of Utah tourism. "The Church received a new revelation from God in [June] 1978 . . . which abolished racism within the Church. “ http://www.xploreheartlinks.com/latterdaysaints.htm Hallelujah! ____ Conclusion: Saving Mormonism's Tax-Exempt Bacon with a Touch of Revelation The California-based Christian Research Institute Journal sums up the LDS Church’s financially-footed flip-flop on its anti-Black doctrine, in the coldest of cold cash terms. Writes Latayne C. Scott in “Mormonism and the Question of Truth:” ”LDS leaders . . . perceived threats in both the outcome of a recent court case on racial discrimination and in the possibility of an IRS review of the Church's tax-exempt status. “So, in a tersely-worded statement (a far cry from earlier revelations, which began with 'Thus saith the Lord') the Church announced that Blacks were suddenly eligible for the priesthood it had denied them for almost 150 years.” http://www.douknow.net/mormonstruth.htm _____ Praise the Lord and pass the tax exemption. |
| Thursday, Feb 9, 2006, at 07:36 AM What We Do Know About The 1978 "Revelation" Posted By nao crer BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| In The Beginning >In 1969 Hugh B. Brown actively lobbied to allow blacks to receive the priesthood. This was supported by a majority of the apostles. They formed a “special committee was to report on the Negro situation”. The change was approved while Harold B. Lee was absent. Upon his return he rejected the decision and persuaded the quorum to rescind the vote. The reaffirmation of the restriction was a collaborative effort of Neal A. Maxwell, Gordon B. Hinkley and G. Homer Durham. (Michael D. Quinn – Mormon Hierarchy Extensions of Power p. 14) The Temple >For decades Spencer W. Kimball had been troubled about this race restriction. (ibid p. 15) . At the cornerstone-laying ceremony for the Brazilian temple 9 March 1977, Kimball privately told Helvecio Martins to prepare himself to receive the priesthood. He pointedly asked if Martins “understood the implications of what President Kimball had said”.(ibid p.16) >On March 23, 1978 he began discussing the matter with his counselors. Kimball met privately with individual apostles who expressed their “individual thoughts” about his suggested end to the priesthood ban. (ibid) >After discussing this in several temple meetings and private discussions, Kimball wrote a statement…. And presented it to his counselors on 30 May. He then asked his counselors and apostles to “fast and pray”……at their temple meeting on 1 June. At the temple council that day “the feeling was unanimous”…. (ibid) >On 7 June 1978 Kimball informed his counselors that “through inspiration he had decided to lift the restrictions on priesthood.” In the meantime he had asked three apostles (including Boyd K Packer) to prepare “suggested wording for the public announcement of the decision. (ibid) A letter written to LeGrand Richards on September 11, 1978 corroborates this reason. Chris Vlachos wrote to LeGrand Richards confirming the content of explanations he had been given concerning the revelation. LeGrand Richards acknowledged the letter and in part said “It wouldn’t please me if you were using the information I gave you when you were here in my office for public purposes. I gave it to you for your own information, and that is where I would like to see it remain.” Here is an excerpt from the letter LeGrand Richards was confirming: >One of the most interesting items which you mentioned was that the whole situation was basically provoked by the Brazilian temple—that is, the Mormon Church has had a great difficulty obtaining Priesthood leadership among the South American membership; and now with this new temple, a large proportion of those who have contributed money and work to build it would not be able to use it unless the Church changed its stand with regard to giving the Priesthood to Blacks. >I believe that you also mentioned President Kimball as having called each of the Twelve Apostles individually into his office to hear their personal feelings with regard to this issue. While President Kimball was basically in favor of giving the Priesthood to Blacks, didn’t he ask each of you to prepare some references for and against the proposal as found in the scriptures? (quotes taken from photostatic copies of the letters found in SI Banister – For Any Latter-day Saint) The Money The decision was monetary without a doubt. It was also very political. The Mormon Church could easily lose face. The Mormon Church had spent over 50 Million on a complex in what was one of the countries producing the most baptisms. It was the new South American distribution center for all materials. It was also the new regional church offices. The Mormon Church views temples as profit centers. When a temple is built, they have an identifiable increase in all revenue from the area, and specifically tithing. (Ostling – Mormon America) There were not enough people with verified ancestry to run the temple, let alone be patrons. Even with the change, missionaries were taken from the field and trained as temple officiators and veil workers to man the temple for the first month it was open. (from personal experience - I was one of the missionaries - verifying proof upon request) As far as dates, the revelation was made June 1978 and the temple dedication was October 1978. Initial training of workers was held in September. Very tight time frames by Morg standards. Tax Exemption Then there is the issue of the tax exempt status. First you must understand that educational nonprofits are treated differently than religious nonprofits. Here is an explanation of how religious nonprofits are treated. (I hold a CPA in the state of Utah and a Masters in Accounting-I will verify this to anyone who cares to email me) >In the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) grants non-profit status to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and other religious organizations. This is of tremendous financial benefit. Meanwhile, clergy and other employees are guaranteed free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They are free to voice their opinions and beliefs, and advocate changes to legislation. They can attack women's freedom to obtain an abortion. They can advocate that special rights be reserved for heterosexuals, and not extended to gays and lesbians, including the right to marry. Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and everyone else are free to engage in hate speech against women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, immigrants, and other groups. A pastor in Texas recently called on the U.S. Army to round up and execute area Wiccans with napalm. The tax exempt status of his church was not threatened. Religious groups can promote a stand on other similar "hot" religious topics, from spanking children to the death penalty and physician assisted suicide. They are even allowed by the IRS to contribute small amounts of money and resources to the fight for changes in legislation. In the words of the IRS regulations: "no substantial part of (church) activities (may consist of) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation." Unfortunately, the term "substantial" is not defined precisely in the service's regulations. BYU - Ricks - CCH The IRS was putting pressure on private schools to stop discrimination with the US vs. Bob Jones University. This ruling would directly affect BYU, Ricks, CCH and other US Mormon owned schools. These schools are organized under separate nonprofit corporations which are owned by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As you can see from the following excerpts from case documents the Bob Jones University case was directed at educational nonprofits. This would have affected the Morg, but not the core corporation. >On January 12, 1970, a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from according tax-exempt status to private schools in Mississippi that discriminated as to admissions on the basis of race. Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism'd sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 (1970). Thereafter, in July 1970, the IRS concluded that it could "no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status [under 501(c)(3)] to private schools which practice racial discrimination." IRS News Release, July 7, 1970, reprinted in App. in No. 81-3, p. A235. At the same time, the IRS announced that it could not "treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes [under 170]." Ibid. By letter dated November 30, 1970, the IRS formally notified private schools, including those involved in this litigation, of this change in policy, "applicable to all private schools in the United States at all levels of education. (emphasis added) " See id., at A232. BYU, Ricks and CCH probably received this letter. >On June 30, 1971, the three-judge District Court issued its opinion on the merits of the Mississippi challenge. Green v. Connally, 330 F. Supp. 1150, summarily aff'd sub nom. Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997 (1971). That court approved the IRS's amended construction of the Tax Code. The court also held that racially discriminatory private schools were not entitled to exemption under 501(c)(3) and that donors were not entitled to deductions for contributions to such schools under 170. The court permanently enjoined the Commissioner of [461 U.S. 574, 579] Internal Revenue from approving tax-exempt status for any school in Mississippi that did not publicly maintain a policy of nondiscrimination. >The IRS's 1970 interpretation of 501(c)(3) was correct. It would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools' policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above "charitable" concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3). Pp. 592-596. >The Government's fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. Petitioners' asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest. Pp. 602-604. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=461&invol=574 Rex Lee recused himself from the case. It has been stated that he did this because he had been previously involved in a discrimination case involving the Mormon Church. I have looked for further information about this, but have not been able to find any. If anyone has information about original source information, please let me know. He had been the dean of the BYU Law School which was one of the schools that would have been affected by the Bob Jones decision. That also would have been a reason to recuse himself. In 1986-87 Rex Lee did argue the CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP v. AMOS, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) case and did not feel it was a conflict. Other Religious Nonprofits Corporate Sole is the safest organization for a racist 501(c)(3) Here are a couple of groups that are registered Corporate Soles in the state of Washington and recieving federal tax exempt status. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is a Corporate Sole. >Harrie A. Schmidt Jr., state chairman of the Populist Party, which is run nationally by Ku Klux Klan leader Kim Badynski. >Glen Stoll, a Populist Party member who also is involved in the Embassy of Heaven, an anti-government religious organization based in Sublimity, Ore. Stoll was the leader of the Liaison Group, which called for militia members across the Northwest to assist Whatcom County constitutionalist Donald Ellwanger in a 1995 standoff with the IRS. >Doyal Gudgel, also active in the Liaison Group, but best known for organizing events in Seattle for David Irving, a British man who denies the Holocaust happened. >Despite huge holes in the secretary of state's database, Lunsford was able to spot about 50 corporation soles associated with white supremacists, militiamen, constitutionalists or people who deny the Holocaust. He discovered some supporters of the Christian Identity, anti-government group Posse Comitatus had set up "soles" as early as 1979. http://www.skeptictank.org/corpsoul.htm These are other nonprofits registered for religious purposes: >The Creativity Movement (TCM) is a non-Christian, non-profit, religious organization, with their head office in Illinois. Creativity, based on the eternal laws of nature. Their prime objective is: "The survival, expansion and advancement of the white race." >They regard themselves as being motivated by a love for the white race. This implies extreme hatred of non-white races. They are overwhelmingly hate-filled towards Jews, African-Americans, and other non-whites. They hate homosexual behavior. However their concern in this area appears to be muted in comparison to other white-supremacist organizations. >The Heritage Preservation Association (HPA) is a nonprofit membership group whose purpose is to "fight political correctness and cultural bigotry against the South." To that end, the HPA declared "Total War" last January on those who allegedly attack Southern heritage, focusing especially on the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference because of those groups’ opposition to the Confederate battle flag in South Carolina. Over the last three years, the HPA has worked closely with the white supremacist League of the South to stage pro-Confederate flag rallies and similar events, and in 1999 HPA President P. Charles Lunsford joined the League. >The NAAWP, like David Duke, has tried to hide its hate, but its racist and anti-Semitic views, like those of its founder, are evident. NAAWP News, the group's newsletter, has regularly published articles with titles like "Anti-Semitism is normal for people seeking to control their own destiny"; "Jewish control of the media is the single most dangerous threat to Christianity," and "Why most Negroes are criminals." |
| Thursday, Feb 9, 2006, at 01:27 AM Opening The Windows Of Tax Exemption Through Black Priesthood Power Posted By Steve Benson BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| Almost Down for the Count—The Mormon Church’s Brush with a Federal Knock-Out Punch Over Its Anti-Black Doctrine What are to be made of reports that, circa 1978, the Mormon Church was in danger of losing its federal tax-exempt status due to its racially-discriminatory policies targeted against Blacks? Predictably, true-believing Mormons have never been willing to admit that their Church was at one time had its back against the Internal Revenue Service ropes, where it was close to being stripped of its tax-exempt status due to its anti-Black doctrine--and barely managed to dance away from a federal government knock-out only by abandoning its officially-sanctioned bigotry. GONG!! There's the final bell. Time to examine the scorecard. _____ The Official Mormon Cult Claim: Alleged Threats of Federal Tax-Exempt Revocation Had Absolutely Nothing To Do with Black Men Belatedly Getting the Priesthood Speaking for the Mormon Church’s Public Affairs Department in response to accusations about its suspicious reversal of its long-standing anti-Black priesthood doctrine, LDS spokesman Bruce L. Olsen flatly denied that the Church’s decision to grant priesthood authority to Black men was in any way related to fear of losing federal tax exempt status. With a straight face, Olsen asserted: ”It's one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson . . . claims that the federal government threatened the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the Church's position regarding Blacks and the priesthood. “We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law. "In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson is seriously mistaken.” (Bruce L. Olsen, “Distorted History,” in "Public Forum," Salt Lake Tribune, 5 April 2001) http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_priesthood.shtml _____ (Interestingly enough, a former missionary who served under Olsen-- when the latter was his mission president--made the following observation about both the Mormon Church’s decision to reverse course on Black priesthood and Olsen: ”If it was tax considerations and liberal Jimmy Carter that made the Church abandon institutionalized racism, I can understand why the Church is now so Republican. ”[By the way,] Bruce Olsen was my [mission president] and is a great guy. He does have an impossible job representing the Church on PR issues. Like a Tobacco executive in charge of expounding on the health benefits of tobacco, he has his work cut out for him.” (“Interesting stuff,” RfM post by “activejackmormon,” 7 February 2006) _____ Other Mormon apologists have also emphatically denied that the LDS Church was pressured into rescinding its anti-Black priesthood doctrine by federal officials holding the sword of tax exemption revocation over its white and delightsome head. Darrick Evenson, for instance, solemnly testified: ”There was really very little external pressure on the Church after 1976 regarding [the Blacks and the priesthood] issue. “The Church has been very open as to what inspired the Brethren to ask the LORD for a rescinding of the Priesthood ban. "They claim it was not external or internal pressure, but rather the exceeding faith of the Negro and Mulatto Saints, which inspired them to petition the LORD.” (original emphasis) http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/q16.htm ____ Color It Contrary: The Case of Mormon U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee Reacting to Mormon mouthpiece Olsen’s dubious claims, Gary Anderson, in a letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, countered: "I was quite surprised by LDS PR man Bruce Olsen's attack . . . regarding the Mormon Church's motivations for abandoning its anti-Black doctrine . . . . “His bold assault is particularly amazing in light of the fact that history ‘distortion’ and ‘invention’ have been trademarks of Mormonism since its inception. Of course, the risk in Mr. Olsen's gallant tossing of the gauntlet is that someone might just pick it up. “For example, it didn't take much investigation to discover that in 1981 the Solicitor General of the United States, Rex Lee, a Mormon, recused himself from a case against Bob Jones University. “In that case, the U.S. government was threatening to revoke Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status because of its racist policy of prohibiting interracial dating. "When asked why he took himself off the case, Mr. Lee explained that previously when representing the Mormon church in a similar case, he had argued that the church should retain its tax-exempt status despite its racist policies and felt conflicted from arguing an opposing view in the Bob Jones case. (see, The Tenth Justice, [by] Lincoln Caplan, Knopf, 1987, p. 51, note 2 . . . p. 293). “If the [Mormon] Church's tax-exempt status was never threatened by the U.S. government because of its racist policies, why was Mr. Lee making such an argument, presumably in an era before 1978? “Given Lee's explanation, Olsen's ‘categorical’ assertion that federal tax law was never a motivating factor in the church's 1978 change in racial policy rings disingenuous. One thing true history teaches us is that secrecy breeds dishonesty. “It's fairly easy for Mr. Olsen to hide behind the tightly secured vaults in the Church Office Building and demand proof. If he was a true knight, he would throw open the doors to the vault and invite inquiring minds in to examine the minutes of meetings held by church leaders in the months and days leading up to the 'revelation,' so we might decide for ourselves the Church's actual motivation for the change. "What's that you say, Mr. Olsen? Salamander got your tongue?" (Gary Anderson, Springfield, Virginia, letter to the editor, Salt Lake Tribune, 22 April 2001) http://www.salamandersociety.com/blacks/ _____ In the book to which Anderson refers, author Caplan notes, in fact, that U.S. Solicitor General/Mormon Lee (who would eventually become president of BYU) recused himself from the case of Bob Jones v. IRS, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that religious schools which practice racial discrimination could be constitutionally stripped of federal tax exempt protection. Lee, writes Caplan, bowed out of the case because Lee had previously petitioned the IRS for tax exempt refuge in behalf of the racially-discrimnatory Mormon Church. Lee, noted Caplan, begged off because, given his previous advocacy for the color-bound Mormons, he now considered it improper for him to argue in behalf of the IRS against color-bound Bob Jones University. From Caplan’s book: ”Rex Lee . . . who had been sworn in as Solicitor General seven months before [the Bob Jones brief was filed in 1982], had once represented the Mormon Church when it faced a problem like Bob Jones's and, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, he had taken himself off the case.” (p. 50) “In 1970, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that Bob Jones no longer qualified for tax-exempt status because of [its] segregationist policy, so the school changed it. Blacks could be accepted if they were married to other Blacks, or if they promised not to date or marry outside their race . . . "By the time of the Supreme Court case, a decade later, the number of Blacks attending the school was less than a dozen, making the ratio of whites to blacks about 550 to one. “From the vantage point of the Solicitor General's office, the legal issue in the Bob Jones case was routine. It was a tax question.” (p. 53) As one unpersuaded skeptic points out regarding the Mormon Church’s unpersuasive denials over its threatened tax-exempt status: ”If the IRS had never threatened the LDS Church's tax exempt status, why was Lee arguing over it and race with the IRS on the Church's behalf?” Another understandable doubter observed: "The only thing he [Olsen] stated is that the Church never was 'threatened' by the Government, NOT that the Church wasn't worried that such a thing *could* happen and was watching court rulings [like the one that was occurring in Wisconsin] to see if they could continue discriminating against [Black] members. "Yes, it is possible to lose tax-exempt status for discrimination--Bob Jones University lost it once for its interracial dating policy." http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_priesthood.shtml _____ It should be pointed out here that although Lee recused himself from the Bob Jones case, the reasons why he did so are not universally agreed upon. As one contributor on the RfM board has noted: ”It has been stated that he did this because he had been previously involved in a discrimination case involving the Mormon Church. . . . “He [Lee] had been the dean of the BYU Law School which was one of the schools that would have been affected by the Bob Jones decision. That also would have been a reason to recuse himself. In 1986-87 Rex Lee did argue the CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP v. AMOS, 483 U.S. 327 [1987] case and did not feel it was a conflict.” (“What we DO know about the 1978 ‘revelation,’” RfM post by “nao crer,” nao_crer@yahoo.com, 8 February 2006; and idem, “Re: We do the best we can with the sources currently available,” RfM post, 8 February 2006) _____ The Issue of Tax-Exempt Status, As Applied to the Mormon Church In order to understand what was at stake for the Mormon Church in regard to possibly losing its tax-exempt status due to its racial bias against Black men, it is important to understand what kind of tax-exempt protection the LDS Church enjoyed. Again, reference is made to the same poster most recently quoted. This observer also identifies himself as “hold[ing] a CPA in the state of Utah and a Masters in Accounting,” adding that he received his CPA “in 1981, which is in the same time frame [as the Mormon Church reversal of its anti-Black priesthood doctrine].” He further observes that “[t]he IRS law concerning non-profit organizations has not substantially changed since the inception.” He then goes on to explain how educational non-profit organizations and religious non-profit organizations “are treated differently:” ”In the U.S., the . . . IRS grants non-profit status to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and other religious organizations. This is of tremendous financial benefit. “Meanwhile, clergy and other employees are guaranteed free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They are free to voice their opinions and beliefs, and advocate changes to legislation . . . The tax exempt status of [their churches is] not threatened [by doing so]. “Religious groups can promote a stand on other similar ‘hot’ religious topics . . . “They are even allowed by the IRS to contribute small amounts of money and resources to the fight for changes in legislation. “In the words of the IRS regulations:’No substantial part of (church) activities (may consist of) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.’ Unfortunately, the term ‘substantial’ is not defined precisely in the Service's regulations.” (“What we DO know about the 1978 ‘revelation,’” RfM post by “nao crer,” 8 February 2006; and idem, “Corporate Soles—IRS & Bob Jones University,” RfM post, 8 February 2006) _____ The Mormon Church Had Good Reason to Fear Revocation of Its Federal Tax-Exempt Status, in Light of the Bob Jones Decision The LDS Church which, as a tax-exempt organization, practiced notorious racial discrimination against Blacks, was most likely notified of the Jones decision by the federal government and would have undoubtedly become concerned about losing its tax-exempt status. As one contributor observed: ”A lot of tax-exempt organizations were worried during the Bob Jones case about losing their exempt status over discriminatory policies, according to my statutory law professor. . . . “The Supreme Court decided the Bob Jones case in the ‘80s, at which point the federal government (under Reagan) was no longer behind the IRS's interpretation of ‘charitable organization’ defined as excluding those promoting bad public policies, like racism, but Bob Jones still lost in the Court. “The controversy started years before when the IRS sent Bob Jones a notice that they were no longer tax exempt. Whether the Mormon Church received such a notice from the IRS, they would have been well aware of the situation with Bob Jones long before the Supreme Court case, as most non-profits apparently were.” (“Aphrodite,” RfM post, 7 February 2005) _____ Indeed, in all probability the Mormon Church was notified by the federal government of the potential ramifications it faced in the wake of the Jones decision: “The IRS was putting pressure on private schools to stop discrimination with the U.S. vs. Bob Jones University. “This ruling would directly affect BYU, Ricks, CCH [Church College of Hawaii] and other U.S. Mormon-owned schools. “These schools are organized under separate non-profit corporations which are owned by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. . . . [T]he Bob Jones University case was directed at educational non-profits. This would have affected the [Mormon Church], but not the core corporation.” Why, and how, would this have affected the Mormon Church? The answer lies in the tax-exempt status of its privately-owned schools: ”Based on court documents, BYU, CCH, and Ricks were probably notified . . . [since] [t]his affected educational 501(c)(3) organizations.” How the Bob Jones case, specifically, would have impacted BYU is explained as follows: ”The Bob Jones case was concerning a university and discrimination by the university. BYU is a separate 501(c)(3) corporation and there was a risk of losing its tax exempt status for the same reason as in the Bob Jones case. “BYU received government research funds and participated in sporting events governed by the Amature Sports Act. It is an educational non-profit rather than a religious non-profit.” ”Religious organizations are allowed to discriminate. There are early rulings on this, but in 1987 the Mormon Church was directly involved in such a case. In CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP v. AMOS, 483 U.S. 327 (1987), it was affirmed that a religious organizations can discriminate in hiring under section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ”Religions have always been able to limit their membership to any group. There are many examples of religious organizations that limit their membership. . . . ”Religions could always do whatever they want as long as they were not taking public money.” Not only is the Mormon Church a registered 501 (c)(3) organization, it is a racially discriminatory one. For racist organizations such as the Mormon Church: Corporate Sole is the safest organization for a racist 501(c)(3). . . . The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is a Corporate Sole.” Just how the Bob Jones ruling affected private schools like BYU was made clear in a federal court ruling that denied tax-exempt status to private schools. These rulings undoubtedly would have given the racially-discriminatory Mormon Church serious pause about its own standing before the federal government on the matter of continued tax-exemption protection: “On January 12, 1970, a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from according tax-exempt status to private schools in Mississippi that discriminated as to admissions on the basis of race.( Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism'd sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 [1970]). “Thereafter, in July 1970, the IRS concluded that it could ‘no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status [under 501(c)(3)] to private schools which practice racial discrimination.’ ( IRS News Release, July 7, 1970, reprinted in App. in No. 81-83, p. A235). “At the same time, the IRS announced that it could not ‘treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes [under 170].’ (Ibid) By letter dated November 30, 1970, the IRS formally notified private schools, including those involved in this litigation, of this change in policy, ‘applicable to all private schools in the United States at all levels of education.’” (emphasis added)" (See id., at A232). “BYU, Ricks and CCH probably received this letter.” Why the Mormon Church, burdened as it was with its anti-Black priesthood doctrine, would have been concerned about losing its federal tax-exempt status was made abundantly clear in the district court’s ruling: “On June 30, 1971, the three-judge District Court issued its opinion on the merits of the Mississippi challenge (Green v. Connally, 330 F. Supp. 1150, summarily aff'd sub nom. Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997 [1971]). That court approved the IRS's amended construction of the Tax Code. “The court also held that racially discriminatory private schools were not entitled to exemption under 501(c)(3) and that donors were not entitled to deductions for contributions to such schools under 170. The court permanently enjoined the Commissioner of [461 U.S. 574, 579] Internal Revenue from approving tax-exempt status for any school in Mississippi that did not publicly maintain a policy of nondiscrimination. ”The IRS's 1970 interpretation of 501(c)(3) was correct. It would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools' policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above 'charitable' concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3).( pp. 592-596). ”The government's fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. Petitioners' asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest pp. 602-604). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=461&invol=574 " _____ This key information pointing, as it does, to the real vulnerablity Mormon Church-owned private schools faced with regard to having their tax-exempt status removed by the federal government because of the LDS Church's racially discriminatory practices was completely ignored by LDS spokesman Bruce Olsen. Worse still, Olsen grossly misrepresented the facts. As Olsen's inartful dodging demonstrates, Mormon Church spokesmen are akin to diplomats, in that both are sent forth to lie in behalf of the organizations they represent: "[Olsen's] . . . quote . . . was consistent with the [Mormon Church's] use of half truth. [His] statement . . . only addressed the Church as a religious organization. He was not addressing the related issue of the Mormon owned schools. [Again, quoting Olsen:] "'It's one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson . . . claims that the federal government threatened the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the Church's position regarding Blacks and the priesthood. "'We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law.' [end quote] "The [Mormon Church] was not threatened directly; however, their wholly-owned schools were threatened. The financial ramifications in conjunction with the possible political embarrassment made an untenable situation." (“BYU (Edited),” RfM post by “nao crer,” 7 February 2006; “Educational nonprofits,” idem, RfM post, 8 February 2006; “What we DO know about the 1978 ‘revelation,’” idem, RfM post, 8 February 2006; and idem, "I appreciate your thanks," RfM post, 9 February 2006) _____ An Insider Source Within the Mormon Church Confirmed That Fear of Losing Its Tax-Exempt Status Helped Drive LDS, Inc. to Abandon Its Anti-Black Priesthood Ban Writing in their article, “Death of the Anti-Black Doctrine,” Jerald and Sandra Tanner recount what they discovered concerning the Mormon Church’s tax-driven disavowal of its racist teachings: ”. . . [W]e . . . learned from a source within the [Mormon] Church that Church leaders were very concerned that they were going to lose their tax exempt status on property they own in the United States. “In the months just prior to the revelation, Church leaders were carefully watching developments in a case in Wisconsin in which an organization was about to lose its tax exempt status because of racial discrimination. “The Church leaders finally became convinced that the tide was turning against them and that they would lose their tax exempt status in Wisconsin and eventually throughout the United States because of their doctrine of discrimination against Blacks. . . . “[I]t may very well have been the ‘straw that broke the camel's back.’” (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, “Death of the Anti-Black Doctrine,” The Salt Lake City Messenger, Issue No. 41, December 1979) http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/black_2.htm _____ A Reported Warning to Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball from U.S. President Jimmy Carter According to one source, amid mounting pressures for the Mormons to join the 20th century, the Chief Executive of the United States did some arm twisting of his own. ”Kimball's announcement [reversing the LDS anti-Black priesthood ban] coincided with events which were adversely affecting the Mormon Church. “For a period of time immediately prior to Kimball's declaration, several major universities, had announced that until such time as the Mormon Church reversed its policy of racial discrimination, they would no longer take part in athletic events in which BYU participated. “More importantly though, approximately two weeks prior to Kimball's surprising declaration, President Jimmy Carter had phoned Kimball and informed him that the IRS was seriously considering removing the Mormon Church's tax exempt status unless changes were made in their policy of discrimination.” http://www.unlimitedglory.org/txtmormon3.htm _____ Providing possible credence to the claim of a purported phone call from President Carter to President Kimball (in which the former allegedly warned the latter that the Mormon Church’s tax-exempt status was in danger of being removed unless it jettisoned its racially discriminatory practice of banning Blacks from the priesthood), are numerous indicators that a Carter-Kimball line of personal communication did, in fact, already exist around the time that the LDS Church revoked its anti-Black priesthood ban. One piece of tantalizing evidence indicating a close relationship between Carter and Kimball comes from Carter’s White House daily diary entry dated 11 March 1977, in which it is noted that Carter met with Kimball for 21 minutes, although the details of their discussion were not specified. http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/diary/1977/d031177t.pdf _____ A photograph of their White House encounter was actually captured on film. As one observer noted: ”According to the President Carter Library, President Kimball and Jimmy Carter met on 03/11/1977. [T]his would be in the right time frame. “And a good search revealed the actual photograph—at lds.org. http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/images/presidents/SWK_JCarter_4018_14_tn.jpg ” (“According to the President Carter Library,” RfM post by “CLee the Anti-Mormon,” 8 February 2006) _____ Edward Kimball, in his biographical work, Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, reports that President Kimball received a phone call from President Carter the same year of their White House meeting: ”In 1977, President Kimball and Marion G. Romney were attending a stake conference in Filmore, Utah. The White House telephone operator tracked President Kimball down and said that President Jimmy Carter wished to speak to him. “Spencer was at the pulpit speaking, so President Romney took the call. President Carter was preparing to speak at a Baptist convention about missionary work and asked many questions about the Mormon program: How many missionaries? What salary do they receive? How long do they serve? Where do they come from? Where are they sent? He complimented the Church on an inspired program and asked that he be sent additional information." http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/051110stride.html _____ Five months before the Mormon Church abandoned its priesthood prohibition against Black males, Carter was the invited guest of the LDS Church at a Salt Lake City event celebrating the family. Carter’s participation in those festivities are described on the Mormon Church’s official website: "On 27 January . . . (1978), President Jimmy Carter of the United States was invited by . . . [the Mormon] Church to the All-American Family Week held in Salt Lake City. “After the meeting, President Carter said that attending the Family Week was a most pleasurable experience for him. He also praised the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for launching the welfare and community services programs. He remarked, ‘If these programmes can be extended to all states in the nation, my job as the president will be much easier.’” http://www.lds.org.hk/english/local_church_history/local_church_html/local_history_8.htm _____ When Kimball eventually announced the Mormon Church’s reversal of its anti-Black priesthood ban, Carter again contacted him, this time by written correspondence. According to the article, “The LDS Church and African-Americans: THE PRIESTHOOD BAN:” “Jimmy Carter, then-president of the United States, wrote President Kimball, ‘I welcome today your announcement. . . . I commend you for your compassionate prayerfulness and courage in receiving a new doctrine. This announcement brings a healing spirit to the world and reminds all men and women that they are truly brothers and sisters.’” http://www.ldshistory.net/1990/embry.htm _____ In the Mormon publication, Meridian Magazine, under the headline, “Hallelujah! The 25th Anniversary of the Revelation on Priesthood,” Maurine Jensen Proctor reports that Carter made this contact with Kimball in order to relay his approval of the Mormon Church’s reversal on its racist ban relative to Black membership in the LDS priesthood: ”President Jimmy Carter commended President Spencer W. Kimball for ‘compassionate prayerfulness and courage.’ http://www.ldsmag.com/articles/030606hallelujahprint.html _____ If one is to believe Latter-day lore, Carter even suggested to Kimball that the Mormon Church’s reversal on its ban against Black priesthood acquisition was divinely inspired. According to LDS writer Janet Brigham: "Even President Jimmy Carter implied acceptance of the revelation's divine origin. A telegram from Carter to President Kimball said, "I commend you for your compassionate prayerfulness and courage in receiving a new doctrine." http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/searchable/Issue11.asp _____ (Most of the above information on the Carter-Kimball connection comes from “Polygamy and Racism—a funny but sad story,” RfM post by “cricket,” cricket@salamandersociety.com, in which the author notes that he also “found some notes about Jimmy Carter and Spencer Kimball.” 7 February 2006) _____ What the evidence of Carter-Kimball connective tissue shows is that that a line of interpersonal contact existed between the two men during the time period when the Mormon Church was considering, and eventually implementing, its priesthood change pertaining to Black men. With Carter and Kimball enjoying such a comfortable and regular one-to-one communication around the time of the Mormon Church's anti-Black doctrinal flip-flop, this potentially opens another investigative trail for following up on claims that Carter also allegedly warned Kimball that continuation of the LDS priesthood ban against Blacks could endanger its tax-exempt position. _____ Not-So-Secret Combinations: Consumer Boycotts, Vacation Detours, NAACP Lawsuits, ACLU Threats, Advice from Paid Professional Consultants--and Pressure from the IRS At the time the Mormon Church relented and reversed its anti-Black doctrine, societal and governmental forces were converging to bring it to its wobbly white and delightsome knees: ” . . . [A]nti-Mormons urged for boycotts of recordings of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the cancellation of vacations to Utah. “The NAACP initiated several lawsuits against Mormon Boy Scout troops, charging that Church policy was foisting racism on minority Scouts. . . . “ “Several professional consulting firms which the Church had previously hired for other matters suggested to Church leaders that they reconsider the status of Blacks in the Mormon Church as part of a major overhaul of church policy. . . .” “Worst of all, the IRS suggested that the racial policies of the Mormon Church might justify a suspension of its tax-exempt status.” (Lorraine Hewlett, “The Second Great Accomodation,” 17 June 2004) http://www.salamandersociety.com/blacks/ _____ Mike Schreib, pastor of the Pionner Baptist Bible Church in Ontario, California, in an article entitled, “Mormonism: A Religion for Dumb White People,” further lays out the legal hurdles facing a besieged Mormon Church in danger of taking a haymaker tax hit to the chin: ”In early 1978, the Mormon Church found itself suffering from a massive news media campaign criticizing their attitudes towards blacks and nonwhites. Allegations of discrimination and racism by such groups as the NAACP and ACLU were directed against the LDS Church, and rightly so. "The Mormon leadership began to sweat. “If things progressed badly for them, they feared losing large numbers of their members who saw the Church as a White supremacist haven, and were willing to tell the media about it. "Even worse, they feared losing their federal tax exempt status from the IRS; a loss that would have devastated their financial empire. “THE SOLUTION “On June 8, 1978, Mormon President and prophet, Spencer W. Kimball announced to the world a new “Official Declaration” from the Lord. "Suddenly, he claimed, “...all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE OR COLOR.” (original emphasis) http://www.believers.net/english/belief/mormon/mormon.htm _____ Another skeptic of the Mormon Church’s true motivations in jettisoning its anti-Black doctrine notes that when Kimball announced his “revelation:” ”No indication was given if that ‘revelation’ was prompted by the Church accountants who showed the hierarchy what the tax bill would be and strongly suggested that a revelation would be forthcoming.” http://prophetsplace.typepad.com/testimony/2005/week37/ _____ The cult monitoring group, “Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance” offers a broad overview of the increasing governmental pressures being brought to bear on the Mormon Church to abandon its racist doctrines and practices toward Blacks: ”More federal political pressure was felt by the [Mormon] Church in the 1970s over the Church's institutionalized racism. "The Pearl of Great Price limited the advancement within the Church by Blacks or by persons with Black ancestors. (Higher levels in the priesthood were permitted for Australian aboriginal males, Polynesian men, etc.). . . . “The U.S. Internal Revenue Service threatened [the] LDS's tax exempt status. "There was a groundswell of opinion against racism by many Americans who recognized the centuries of injustice against Afro-Americans. "Additional opposition came from sports groups which threatened to cancel events with Brigham Young University. "Anti-Mormon religious groups promoted boycotts of Church businesses and of Utah tourism. "The Church received a new revelation from God in [June] 1978 . . . which abolished racism within the Church. “ http://www.xploreheartlinks.com/latterdaysaints.htm Hallelujah, indeed. ____ Memories of National News Accounts Indicating Mormon Church Fear of Losing Its Tax-Exempt Status Due to Its Anti-Black Priesthood Doctrine News reports around the time that the Mormon Church reversed its anti-Black priesthood ban are said to have detailed the Church’s concern about losing its tax-exempt protection. Writes one recollecting observer: ”I was not a member at the time but remember hearing all this discussion (in the late '70's) on the ‘national news’ about the LDS Church being threatened with losing its tax exempt status over discrimination issues. “The topic was a hot one--and it blew over quickly when the ‘Blacks [and] the priesthood’ revelation was issued. ”I've been amazed that so few members of the Church seem to be aware that this was even an issue. There have to be some recorded media reports at the time or articles in Time and other news magazines that we can compile and reference.” (“. . . [T]his is a great summary. [W]e need to keep working on this,” RfM post by “FCI,” fci.666@gmail.com, 8 February 2006) _____ Conclusion: Saving Mormonism's Tax-Exempt Bacon with a Touch of Revelation The California-based Christian Research Institute Journal sums up the LDS Church’s financially-footed flip-flop on its anti-Black doctrine, in the coldest of cold cash terms. Writes Latayne C. Scott in “Mormonism and the Question of Truth:” ”LDS leaders . . . perceived threats in both the outcome of a recent court case on racial discrimination and in the possibility of an IRS review of the Church's tax-exempt status. “So, in a tersely-worded statement (a far cry from earlier revelations, which began with 'Thus saith the Lord') the Church announced that Blacks were suddenly eligible for the priesthood it had denied them for almost 150 years.” http://www.douknow.net/mormonstruth.htm _____ Use the Blacks, praise the Lord and pass the tax exemption. |
| Monday, Oct 2, 2006, at 06:46 AM African Lineage And Missionary Work In Latin America, Pre 1978 Posted By Celsius BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| The Mormon Church has been doing Missionary work in Latin America since the 1920s, and Missionary work in Mexico as early as the 1870s. Yet, the LDS Church has had a doctrine then that males of African lineage could not hold the Priesthood. Brigham Young stated:
Quote: "Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained...," (Speach by Gov. Young in Joint Session of the Legeslature. Feby. 5th 1852, giving his veiws on slavery.)During the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries, Spain and Portugal imported many millions of African slaves into Latin American. The Country of Brazil received about four million African slaves during that time span. http://www.yorku.ca/mediar/releases_1... The LDS Church tried very hard to make sure that no males of African lineage would be ordained to the Priesthood there in Brazil. The LDS Church instructed the LDS Missionaries there, to ask the males they taught there if they have any African ancestry. The LDS Church did Not want any males of African lineage to receive the Priesthood there in Brazil, as well as in U. S. America. However, other Latin American Countries also received huge quantities of African slaves. Latin American Countries, such as Columbia and Venezuela, received huge quantities of African slaves. African Columbians make up about 26% of the population there today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Lat... Also Mexico is another Latin American Country that received huge quantities of African slaves. At least 200,000 African slaves were imported into Mexico between the years of 1521 and 1810. Most of the Africans that were brought into Mexico ended up intermarrying and intermixing with the Native Americans and People of Spaniard ancestry there. http://www.isteve.com/2002_Where_Did_... Yet, I am not aware of any instances of hearing about any males in Mexico being denied the Priesthood there, before the year of 1978, because of African lineage. |
| Friday, May 11, 2007, at 09:20 AM Gordon B. Hinckley Admits Past LDS Racism Was Not Wrong Posted By Baura BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| On the closed "Al Sharpton" thread I was asked for a reference on my claim that GBH has stated, on the record, that past LDS racism was not wrong.
From an interview on Australian Television at http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs... A little over half way down the page. Interview of GBH by David Ransom. Aired: November 09, 1997 *********Begin quote********** RB: Now up until 1978 I understand Blacks were not allowed to be priests in your Church? GBH: That is correct. Although we have Black members of the Church. They felt that they would gain more in this Church than any other with which they were acquainted and they were members of the Church. In 1978 we (the president of the Church) received a revelation under which all worthy men would receive all the blessings of the Church available to them as well as to any others. So across the world now we are teaching the Gospel to Blacks, Whites, everyone else who will listen. RB: So in retrospect WAS THE CHURCH WRONG IN THAT? GBH: NO I DON'T THINK IT WAS WRONG. It things, various things happened in different periods. There’s a reason for them. RB: WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT? GBH: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REASON WAS. But I know that we’ve rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at that time. **********End quote************ [emphasis added] So whatever "may have appeared to be wrong" has been changed but nothing was really wrong. Also Hinckley brings up that "there's a reason" for past LDS racism but he doesn't know what the reason was. |
| Friday, May 11, 2007, at 09:24 AM Al Sharpton Is Absolutely Right: Calling Mormonism Bigoted For Its Doctrinally - Practiced Bigotry Is Not Bigotry - It Is A Response To Mormon Bigotry Posted By Steve Benson BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| Sharpton: Prior to '78, Mormons Weren't 'Real Worshippers of God'
by Mark Finkelstein - 9 May 2007 In going on Paula Zahn's CNN show this evening, was Al Sharpton's goal to quell the controversy surrounding his comments about Mormonism, or to inflame it? If the former, he failed miserably. If the latter, he succeeded admirably. Far from retracting his earlier allegation that Mormons aren't real believers, he repeated it, adding an allegation of racism for good measure. Let's recall Sharpton's original statement, that in going on the Zahn show he presumably was seeking to explicate. Debating Christopher Hitchens recently, Sharpton said: "And as for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway. So don't worry about that. That's a temporary, that's a temporary situation." Discussing those comments on "Paula Zahn Now" . . . Sharpton and Zahn discussed the fact that until 1965 [according to CNN], or 1978, according to Sharpton, the Mormon church did not accord Blacks full status. That engendered the following exchange: CNN HOST PAULA ZAHN: Prior to 1965 - THE REVEREND AL SHARPTON: I think it's 1978. ZAHN: Well, our researchers are using a different date. But prior to that date, when Blacks were finally considered equals within the church, did you find the Mormon church racist? SHARPTON: I think that's that by self-definition. If prior to '65, '78, whenever it was, they did not see Blacks as equal, I do not believe that as real worshippers of God, because I do not believe that God distinguishes between people. That's not bigotry, that's responding to their bigotry. http://newsbusters.org/node/12644 |
| Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 08:20 AM Kevin Barney Of FAIR States Blacks Not Valiant In Pre-Existence Was "Folk" Doctrine Posted By Baura BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
Kevin Barney writes:
"The notion that blacks were not valiant in the preexistence is not correct. It was a "folk" doctrine that arose as an attempt to explain the priesthood ban, which seemed otherwise inexplicable. So President Hinckley is absolutely correct not to state that as a reason for the ban.Notice what happened in the "discussion"? It suddenly turned on a detail. Many Church leaders taught that Blacks were "less valiant" in the preexistence (or at least had done something in the preexistence for which they were being punished. The First Presidency said Blacks were "not entitled" to the priesthood. Brigham Young, when claiming prophetic powers said it was because they were descended from Cain. BY, by the way, never said it was because they were "less valiant." But - Joseph Fielding Smith, an apostle, future prophet and the church's leading scriptorian published a book "The Way to Perfection" in which he stated: "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have came into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fulness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning...." -Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Way to Perfection" p. 101 Again this is an apostle speaking and he doesn't say "maybe" or "possibly" or "personally I think" he lays down the doctrine. In 1954 another apostle, Mark E. Petersen, in his official capacity spoke to institute teachers on the church's position on "Race relations." As well as teaching the "less valiant" reason stated: "I would like to read to you now from The Way to Perfection, by President Joseph Fielding Smith. I believe the chapters in this book, three of them primarily, provide the best statement of our inter-racial position that I know anything about, and I certainly highly recommend them to you." Later Joseph Fielding Smith published another monumental and popular work "The Doctrines of Salvation" in three volumes. In volume I we find: "There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. 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.... There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits." -Joseph Fielding Smith "Doctrines of Salvation," Volume 1, pages 66-67. "Folk doctrine" is what you would expect members to come up with in gossip sessions. This was taught by the leaders to the members witout a dissenting voice. But the exact reason for the ban is a minor point. That the apologist would jump on the fuzzy historical justification for that minor point is telling. What is important is that Mormonism was, in its policies, racist. The leader of the church today has said that past leaders weren't wrong in their racist policies. That means that the current prophet says that racism was right. That means that racism is an acceptable tenet of Mormonism--Oh, it's not supposed to be practiced openly now, just as polygamy is not supposed to be practiced openly now. But just as polygamy is still the doctrine of the church the stance of the church is that past leaders, who claimed God instituted the racist practices, were not wrong. That makes racism part of LDS doctrine, just not currently practiced. Is there ANY authoritative statement that Blacks were NOT "less valiant" in the preexistence or is it just a "we don't know" situation? Remember, any such statement would have to be more authoritative than Joseph Fielding Smith's pronouncements and Bruce R. McConkie's concurring pronouncements and Mark E. Petersen's concurring pronouncements which were unchallenged for decades by any Church leaders. If that was "folk doctrine" then everything taught during the last 25 years has been "folk doctrine." Conference is nothing but a celebration of "folk doctrine." Of course in 25 years when someone brings up the earring ban of the past someone will say "oh, that was just 'folk doctrine.'" I repeat, the main point is: The LDS church from the top on down embraced racist policies for over a century. The current prophet has said that the past leaders who implemented these racist policies, justified these racist policies and continued these racist policies were not wrong. That means Mormonism is racist. |
| Wednesday, Aug 1, 2007, at 07:12 AM Elder George F. Richards: "The Negro Is An Unfortunate Man. He Has Been Given A Black Skin." Posted By JW the Inquizzinator BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| http://search.ldslibrary.com/article/...
Conference Reports, CR April 1939, Second Day-Morning Meeting: Elder George F. Richards "The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin....But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom....What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven. Neither could they have been a part of those who rebelled and were cast down, for the latter had not the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh. Somewhere along the line were these spirits, indifferent perhaps, and possibly neutral in the war. We have no definite knowledge concerning this. But I learn this lesson from it, brethren and sisters, and I believe we all should, that it does not pay in religious matters, matters that pertain to our eternal salvation, to be indifferent, neutral, or lukewarm." |
| Monday, Aug 6, 2007, at 08:33 AM People Forget Black Women Weren't Allowed In The Temple Either Posted By Deconstructor BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| Included in the "priesthood ban on black men" was the ban on black women entering the temple. Women with even a trace of African-American ancestry were not allowed to receive their endowments or be sealed.
Lowell Bennion's excellent biography contains just one example of this. In this case, the girl's grandmother allegedly had some "Negroid blood" with prevented her from getting married in the temple. Bennion had to go all the way to the president of the church to intervene. As always, Lowell saw the ban regarding blacks and the priesthood in terms of its impact on individual lives. One of his most powerful experiences was one that President McKay would remember. About 1956 or 1957 a blond male freshman, fighting back tears, told Lowell after a Sunday school class, "They asked me to pass the sacrament today, but I couldn't because it's believed in my town that my grandmother in South Carolina had Negro blood." He and his brothers and male cousins had been denied ordination to the priesthood but had remained active in the church "because my mother asked me to and I love her." Then one morning he appeared in Lowell's office to report that his sister was planning to marry in the temple. A few days later the young man called to report the marriage had been scheduled for the following Friday, but the young couple would not be married in the temple. "Let me see what I can do," Lowell said. He went to Hugh B. Brown, then assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve, who listened thoughtfully and made an appointment for Lowell with President McKay the next morning. McKay greeted Lowell cordially, then asked, "What's on your mind?" Lowell explained the situation involving the marriage and the wider ramifications to the family then summarized: "President McKay, in my experience, the gospel builds life. Here I see it tearing it down." McKay confided that in 1954 he had discontinued the practice in South Africa of tracing a convert's genealogy to certify its "purity." Then he mused, "When problems like this come to me, I say to myself, 'Sometime I shall meet my Father in Heaven, and what will He say?'" Lowell responded quickly, "He'll forgive you if you err on the side of mercy." McKay smiled, "But don't you think it's a little too late to do something about it?" Lowell responded simply, "No, sir." McKay paused then said, "Leave it to me." Within a day or so Lowell heard from the young man that his sister would be married in the temple. Lowell recalled that McKay had said, "Now if we let the girl go, it means we should let the boy go too, doesn't it?" Lowell had replied, "Yes, if he's worthy." Two months later the young man asked Lowell to ordain him an elder preparatory to a mission call. If the girl had been black herself, the church would not have made an exception. |
| Thursday, Dec 6, 2007, at 08:06 AM The Fallacy Of The Curse Of Cain Posted By Obi wan kolobi BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| A Mormon doctrine that prevailed for much of the church’s history and some would argue is still part of the church’s teachings is the idea that God curses the children and descendents of evil-doers and unbelievers with additional skin pigmentation. Native Americans, having rejected the Christian teachings of their white and delightsome Nephite bretheren were cursed with dark skin as were the descendents of Cain, Adam’s boy and fratricidal brother of Abel. The curse on the descendents of Cain was sufficiently onerous that under Mormon Doctrine, Cain’s descendents would be deprived of the blessings of the priesthood and would therefore be limited in their opportunities for eternal progression. The interpretation of who descended from Cain and who had the curse came down as those of African descent.
Outside of the fact that all humans eventually descend from Africa where hominid species such as humans evolved, this doctrine never took into account the degree of intermarrying that took place in the ancient world. As a result, I can say with all the fiber in my bean, that I, Obi wan kolobi, having been descended from Cain, was never the less confirmed a deacon, teacher, priest, elder and high priest in the Mormon Church. And I, Obi wan kolobi am not alone. Most Mormons have English ancestors. I am among them. Most genealogists would logically conclude that 95% or so of all people of English descent could if given adequate information be able to track their genealogy back to the English King Edward I (longshanks) the misrepresented evil man from the movie Braveheart. The basis for this assumption regards what we know about the large number of known descendents and the large number of unknown. You also can calculate how many ancestors you as an Englishman had going back to the time of Edward I. I Obi wan kolobi can actually trace my ancestry back to Edward I. My Great Great Great Grandfather Josiah Guile Hardy has the following direct ancestors (according to http://www.familysearch.com. Sylvanus Hardy (64), Rebecca Hardy(128), Ebenezer Hardy(512), Mary Burbank(1,024), Martha Smith(2,048), Hugh Smith(4,096), Hugh Smith(8,192), Elizabeth Gorge(16,384), Winifred Budockshide(32,768), Frances Champernon(65,536), Catherine Carew(131,072), Catherine Huddesfield(262,144), Catherine Courtenay(524,288), Philip Courtenay(1,048,576), John Courtenay(2,097,152), Philip Courtney(4,194,304), Margaret de Bohun(8,388,608), Elizabeth Princess of England(16,777,216), Edward I(33,554,432). This is one of several genealogies that I can trace back. But my purpose here is to show how many generations back you go and it’s implications. My Great Great Great Grandfather Josiah Guile Hardy was one of 32 GGG Grandparents that I can claim as ancestors. Each generation back, each of these ancestors have two parents who I also descend from. So each generation back, you double by two and see the numbers in parentheses by each ancestor. From England, little old Obi has potentially 33.5 million ancestors from a country that had scarcely over a million, the probability of not descending from Edward I is not good. (Interestingly, the probability of not descending from Charlemagne is pretty much non-existent for the entire western world) But let’s look for a moment at Edward I’s ancestry and a little bit of historic context behind it. Edward I’s Great Grandfather Henry II married Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine and by so doing, created a situation where the Kings of England then also inherited this important Duchy in the south of France. This Duchy bordered with what is now northern Spain and the Kingdoms of Aragon, Leon, and Castille. In order to cement relations with these neighbors, much intermarrying went on between the English nobility and the Spanish nobility. Southern Spain at this time was controlled by the Moors, Muslims of African descent. The northern Spaniards intermarried quite liberally with the Moors and with them, carried African DNA to England. Follow this Moorish ancestor of mine, Urraca of Alvar: Urraca of Alvar, born in 1017 begat Ramiro King of Aragon, who begat Sancho V King of Aragon who begat Ramiro II King of Aragon who begat Petronila Queen of Aragon who begat Alphonso II King of Aragon who begat Alphonso III King of Aragon who begat Raymond Bberinger Count of Provence who begat Elbeonore Countess of Provence who begat Edward I, (longshanks) King of England. Edward I descends from Africans! I and virtually all Englishmen descend from Edward I. Urraca is one of many ancestors of Edward I and other English nobility that descend from African Moors. On another note, Brigham Young, the prophet who most firmly cemented Mormon racist doctrines descends from all Englishmen. I have traced his genealogy through http://www.familysearch.com and have been unable to locate any non-Englishmen. Oh the irony, that brother Brigham, was a “brother” after all. |
| Monday, Feb 18, 2008, at 08:20 AM The Long-Suppressed Revelation On The Black Race And The Priesthood Posted By Richard Packham BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
BACKGROUNDUntil 1978 it was the policy and practice of the Mormon church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to bar those with black African ancestry (even partial) from admission to the Mormon priesthood, which otherwise was open to all (non-black) male members of the church. This ban also applied to keep black members of the church from participation in the sacred temple ceremonies which Mormon doctrine says are necessary for admission to the highest degrees of the Celestial Kingdom. In other words, blacks would never get as high a place as members of other races in Mormon heaven.Mormon theologians justified this racial prejudice by claiming that the black race is descended from Cain, who was cursed and marked (supposedly with a black skin; Genesis 4:8-15). His descendants, through Ham, the son of Noah who was also cursed (Genesis 9:18-27), continued to bear the mark (black skin) and the curse, in the Mormon view. This ban was further justified by reference to the Mormon belief in a great War in Heaven before the creation of the world, when the forces of good overcame the forces of evil; Mormons believe that one's position at birth in this life is determined by one's valiance in that struggle. Those human beings who were born to privileged and prosperous white Mormons were obviously very valiant. Blacks were (just as obviously) less valiant. These ideas were widely taught by Mormon prophets, from Brigham Young's day to the late 1970's. Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie summarized the doctrine as follows: "The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, ...but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their First Estate [the pre-existence]." Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 - 528, 1966 editionTypifying the attitude of Mormon leaders was Mormon Apostle Mark E. Petersen, who said, in an address at Brigham Young University on "Race Problems as They Affect The Church" (August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 307): "Now, we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves." The 1978 ChangeIn 1978, this policy and practice changed, and the Mormon leaders announced that, pursuant to revelation, black members of the church would have full equality: priesthood for worthy black men and temple privileges for all worthy black members. The change was incorporated into the Mormon book of scripture Doctrine and Covenants.Critics of the church point out that, although the ban has been removed, and the practice has changed, the doctrine (that Blacks are cursed because they were less valiant in the pre-existence) has not changed. This seems to follow the Mormon pattern of changing a practice without changing the doctrine on which the practice was based, such as when polygamy was abandoned in 1890, but retained as a church doctrine even today. Or when the practice of "blood atonement" (shedding the offender's blood to atone for certain sins such as apostasy or adultery) was given up, but retained as a pantomime slitting of the throat in the temple ritual until 1990. It has always been a puzzlement to me that the 1978 change of practice in that church, allowing blacks to receive the priesthood, is not in the Doctrine and Covenants in the form of a revelation, but only as an "Official Declaration - 2" which reports that a revelation had been received. The text of the revelation, however, is not given, nor has there been any indication that it was recorded anywhere. Through contacts I have with some former members of the office support staff at the Church Office Building, I have been able to obtain a photocopy of the only copy of the actual revelation. So far as I know, it has not yet been published anywhere. The text follows:
REVELATION given to Spencer W. Kimball, March 6, 1978, Salt Lake City, Utah. Revelation on Blacks and the Priesthood (1978) - continued13. And now, my servant Spencer, I recommend unto thee my young servant Claymore "Rappa" Johnson, whom in my wisdom I have called and chosen and who, in obedience to my call, has requested baptism at the hands of my servants in East Los Angeles, having repented of his former life of pimping and car theft, yea, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jr., repented of his former life of treasure hunting and sorcery.My source indicates that the copy had to be pieced together from many shreds; apparently it had accidentally been run through an office shredder. For this reason the name "Claymore" is not entirely clear. In what may be pure coincidence, Los Angeles police investigated in June 1978 the apparent murder of a 22-year-old black man, Clayborn Johnson, whose body was found near the parking lot of a local Mormon meeting-house, with the throat slit from ear to ear. The police theorized that it was a gang-type execution, since acquaintances said that Johnson had recently "got religion" and had neglected his gang activities. The crime remains unsolved. © Richard Packham Permission granted to reproduce for non-commercial purposes, provided text is not changed and this copyright notice is included |
| Wednesday, Jun 11, 2008, at 07:53 AM In Honor Of The LDS Church's "Celebration" Of Blacks, I Submit A Few Choice Quotes Posted By JW the Inquizzinator BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| “For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the bareness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.”
- Pearl of Great Price, Mormon scripture, Book of Moses 7:8; online at http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/ Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805 – 1844): “I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.... the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible.... And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it [slavery] 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.” - Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 2, p. 438; online at http://www.antimormon.8m.com/hocindex... “Thirteenth – ‘Are the Mormons abolitionists?’ No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the negroes free.” - Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v.3, p. 29; online at http://www.antimormon.8m.com/hocinde... Prophet Brigham Young (1801-1877): “When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the priesthood and of coming into the Kingdom of God and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity.” - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, pp. 142-143; online at http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.... “You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham.” - Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 56 “The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction, - we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed.” - Prophet Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Feb. 5, 1852, LDS historical department; online at http://www.geocities.com/solmes.geo/a... and http://home.teleport.com/~packham/byo... “Cain slew his brother.... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and tehn 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; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.” - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 290-291; online at http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.... “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin 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. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. He has placed life and death before his children, and it is for them to choose. If they choose life, they receive the blessings of life; if they chose death, they must abide the penalty. This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come.” - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 272; online at http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.... “I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing [sic] that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants.... Let this Church which is called the Kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons [sic] the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick [sic], and all the elders of Isreal [sic], suppose we summons them to apear [sic] here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be pertakers [sic] with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and the Kingdom of God leaves us to our fate.” - Prophet Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Feb. 5, 1852, LDS archives; online at http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/s... Prophet John Taylor (1808 - 1887): “For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every should 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.” - Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, v. 14, p. 418; online at http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtm... “And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth, and be governed by it or not according to their wishes and abide the result; and that those who would be able to associate with the Gods in the eternal worlds. It is the same eternal programme. God knew it and Adam knew it.” - Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 22, p. 304; online at http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.... Apostle Orson Hyde (1805-1878): “We feel it to be our duty to define our position in relation to the subject of slavery. There are several men in the valley of the Salt Lake from the Southern States, who have their slaves with them.” - Apostle Orson Hyde, Millennial Star, 1851, p. 63 Apostle George F. Richards ( 1861 - 1950 ): “The Negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom [i.e., godhood].” - Apostle George F. Richards, Conference Report, April 1939, p. 58; online at http://www.ibae.org/html/fac139.html Prophet David O. McKay (1873 - 1970): “I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest that the real reason dates back to our pre-existent life.” - Prophet David O. McKay, as quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, Part 2, p. 19; online at http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/se... and http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/chang... Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith (1876 - 1972): “Not only was Cain called to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures.... they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning.” - Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 101, 1935; online at http://www.rickross.com/reference/mor... and http://www.helpingmormons.org/Lecture... “It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible.” - Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Improvement Era, v. 27, p. 565; online at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/chang... “It is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness... 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.” - Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Juvenile Instructor, v. 26, p. 635; online at http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtm... and http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/pu... “There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.” - Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66; online at http://www.mormonismi.net/artikkelit/... and http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc... “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 come 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.” - Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, p. 61; online at http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/re... and http://www.bcmmin.org/aframer.html “It is not the authorities of the Church who have placed a restriction on him [the black man] regarding the holding of the Priesthood. It was not the Prophet Joseph Smith.... It was the Lord!” - Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, quoted in John J. Stewart, The Glory of Mormonism, 1963, p. 154 Apostle LeGrand Richards (1886 – 1983): “Walters: On this revelation, of the priesthood to the Negro, I’ve heard all kinds of stories: I’ve heard that Joseph Smith appeared; and then I heard another story that Spencer Kimball had had a concern about this for some time, and simply shared it with the apostles, and they decided that this was the right time to move in that direction. Are any of those stories true, or are they all? [Apostle LeGrand] Richards: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it’s hard to get leaders that don’t have Negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It’s going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising money to build that temple. If we don’t change, then they can’t even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it.” - Apostle LeGrand Richards in an interview with Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos, August 16, 1978, Church Office Building, available online at: http://www.lds-mormon.com/legrand_richards.shtml Apostle Bruce R. McConkie (1915-1985): “Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them.... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned...” - Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 477, 1958; online at http://www.mormonismi.net/artikkelit/... Apostle Mark E. Peterson (1900 - 1984): “When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation.” - Apostle Mark E. Peterson, “Race Problems – As They Effect the Church,” Address given at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at BYU, August 27, 1954; online at http://www.mormonismi.net/mep1954/ “I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation?” - Apostle Mark E. Peterson, “Race Problems As They Affect The Church,” Address At the Convention of Teachers of Religion On the College Level, delivered at BYU, August 27, 1954; see Abanes, One Nation Under God, p. 363; online at http://www.mormonismi.net/mep1954/ “Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life? ... can we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Latter-day Saints. There are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds.... “Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race, seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn’t the mercy of God marvelous? Think of the Negro, cursed as to the Priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa – if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, theLord is willing.... to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the Celestial Kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.” - Apostle Mark E. Peterson, “Race Problems – As They Effect the Church,” Address given at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at BYU, August 27, 1954; online at http://www.mormonismi.net/mep1954/ “We must not inter-marry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would oil be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn’t any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there?” - Apostle Mark E. Peterson, “Race Problems – As They Effect the Church,” Address given at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at BYU, August 27, 1954; online at http://www.mormonismi.net/mep1954/ Apostle N. Eldon Tanner (1898 - 1982): “The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There’s really nothing we can do to change this. It’s a law of God.’” - Apostle N. Eldon Tanner, Seattle Magazine, Dec. 1967, p. 60; online at http://www.watchman.org/lds/smorgas.htm Others: “Having learned with extreme 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 [Utah], but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church.” - The Evening and the Morning Star, July 16, 1833, reprinted in History of the Church, v. 1, pp. 378-379; online at http://www.geocities.com/solmes.geo/r... “... a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind.” - Juvenile Instructor, v. 3, p. 157; online at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/chang... “In fact we believe it to be a great sin in the eyes of our Heavenly Father for a white person to marry a black one. And further, that it is a proof of the mercy of God that no such race appear to be able to continue for many generations.” - Juvenile Instructor, v. 3, p. 165; online at http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk... “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.... We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white.” - Juvenile Instructor, v. 3, p. 157; online at http://www.xmission.com/~country/chng... “Those who believe that the Church ‘gave in’ on the polygamy issue and subsequently should give in on the Negro question are not only misinformed about Church History, but are apparently unaware of Church doctrine.... Therefore, those who hope that pressure will bring about a revelation need to take a closer look at Mormon history and the order of heaven.” - Elder John L. Lund, The Church and the Negro, pp. 104-105, 1967; online at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/chang... “Those who would try to pressure the Prophet to give the Negroes the Priesthood do not understand the plan of God nor the order of heaven. Revelation is the expressed will of God to man. Revelation is not man’s will expressed to God. All the social, political, and governmental pressure in the world is not going to change what God has decreed to be.” - Elder John L. Lund, The Church and the Negro, p. 109; online at http://www.mormonismi.net/artikkelit/... “First, [before the seed of Cain get the priesthood] all of Adam’s children will have to resurrect and secondly, the seed of Abel must have an opportunity to possess the Priesthood. These events will not occur until sometime after the end of the millennium.” - Elder John L. Lund, The Church and the Negro, pp. 109-110 “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no call to carry the Gospel to the Negro, and it does not do so.” - Elder Arthur M. Richardson, That Ye May Not Be Desired, p. 13; online at http://www.churches-of-christ.net/tra... “Also, the gospel was not carried to this segregated black group... the Negroes tread the earth with black dishonorable bodies as a judgment of God because at the time of decision in the pre-existence they were faint-hearted and exhibited an infirmity of purpose – they were not valiant in the cause of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, they were entitled to no better earthly lineage than that of the first early murderer, Cain. They were to be the ‘servant of servants.’ They were to be segregated. No effort was made to carry the gospel to them as a people.” - Elder Arthur M. Richardson, That Ye May Not Be Deceived, pp. 9-10; online at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/chang... “... No direct efforts have been made to proselyte among them [Negroes].” - Elder William E. Berrett, Vice President of Brigham Young University, Mormonism and the Negro, Part 2, p. 5; online at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/chang... “Even Joseph’s ‘calling for the end of slavery by 1850’ in his Presidential campaign is not so liberal as Brodie supposes.... Joseph Smith was, therefore, to some degree a racist, a segregationist, a colonizer, and only incidentally a supporter of abolition. He had some elements of liberalism in his thinking, but these had definite limits. His record... is marked with ambiguity.” - Marvin Hill, BYU Professor, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1970, p. 99 “A different thing is going on in South America where Mormon missionaries are pushing ahead full throttle. There the former careful selection to keep out ‘white Negroes’ has been allowed to slide a little.... ‘There is no question but that in Brazil they have been ordaining priests who are part Negro,’ said one careful observer.” - Wallace Turner, The Mormon Establishment, p. 261, 1966 “The Negro Mormon can hold no office whatsoever in a church which offers some office to every one of its male members at some time in his life. A gray-haired Negro Mormon who may have spent his adult life in careful practice of all the complicated and demanding rules set down by the LDS church stands disenfranchised before the altar where a youth whose beard is just beginning to fuzz may preside.” - Wallace Turner, The Mormon Establishment, pp. 243-244 “The Quorum upheld a decision by John Widtsoe denying a temple recommend to a ‘sister having one thirty-second of negro blood in her veins...’” - Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 66 Because of LDS policy toward nonwhites, “the late sixties found the Brigham Young University the focal point of militant protests. Sports events provided the context for protests, boycotts, disrupted games, mass demonstrations, and ‘riots.’ At one point the conflict among schools within the Western Athletic Conference became so intense that the conference almost disbanded. Administrators, already embroiled in student demonstrations over Vietnam, began to separate themselves from the Mormon school. Stanford University, for instance, severed all relations with Brigham Young University.” - O. Kendall White, Jr., and Daryl White, “Abandoning an Unpopular Policy: An Analysis of the Decision Granting the Mormon Priesthood to Blacks,” Sociological Analysis, v. 41, p. 233, Fall 1980 “In all humility I must say that God has not inspired me to feel good about the Church’s practices regarding Negroes.... when my wife and I went to San Francisco Ward’s bishop to renew our temple recommends, he told us that anyone who could not accept the Church’s stand on Negroes as a divine doctrine was not supporting the General Authorities and could not go to the temple. Later, in an interview with the stake president we were told the same thing: if you express doubts about the divinity of this ‘doctrine’ you cannot go to the temple.” - Grant Syphers, LDS scholar, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1967, p. 6 “My plea, then to the civil rights organizations and to all critics of the Mormon Church is: get off our backs! ... agitation over the ‘Negro issue’ by non-Mormon groups, or even by Mormon liberals, is likely simply to increase the resistance to change.” - Armand L. Mauss, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1967, pp. 38-39 “The Church is either true or it isn’t. If it changes its stand on the strength of the ‘great stream of modern religious and social thought,’ it will be proven criticism.... If the Church is true it will hold to its beliefs in spite of its members. If it is false, more power to the easy-way-out philosophers who claim to know the ‘imperious truths of the contemporary world.’” - Paul C. Richards, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1967, p. 6 “The revelation that the church is talking about with respect to the Negro and the priesthood should have been sought 50 years ago – not now when we are forced into looking for one. Even if a revelation should come now, we have compromised our position because it looks as if we have been forced into seeking it, which will be true.” - Donald Ira French, Jr., Mormon elder and writer, Time, Nov. 1, 1963 “A 12-year-old boy scout has been denied a senior patrol leadership in his troop because he is black, Don L. Cope, black ombudsman for the state, said Wednesday.... The ombudsman said Mormon ‘troop policy is that in order to become a patrol leader, he must be a deacon’s quorum president in the LDS church. Since the boy cannot hold the priesthood, he cannot become a patrol leader.” - Salt Lake Tribune, July 18, 1974 “The Saints would have been so much better off if they had never gone near Missouri because they... compromised their position by adopting an idea that already prevailed... that ‘Negroes are cursed with a black skin and that they are intended as the curse of Noah on Canaan goes, to be ‘servant of servants.’” - Sterling McMurrin, “The Mormon Doctrine and the Negro,” address given to the Salt Lake Branch of the N.A.A.C.P., March 1969 “There are Negroes born into families of wealth and refinement, others who are blessed with great talents, and there are those born into the lowest classes of society in Africa, in squalor and ignorance, living out their lives in a fashion akin to that of the animals. Does not this infinite variety of circumstance give further evidence of man’s being assigned that station in life which he has merited by his performance in the premortal existence.” - John J. Stewart, The Glory of Mormonism, 1963, inside front flap book cover and p. 44 “When God allows a spirit to take on a Negroid body, do you suppose He is unaware of the fact that he will suffer a social stigma? Therefore, if you say this Church is unjust in not allowing the Negro to bear the Priesthood, you must, to be consistent, likewise say that God is even more unjust in giving him a black skin.” - John J. Stewart, The Glory of Mormonism, 1963, p. 154 “I want to talk to you a little bit now about something that is not missionary work, and what I say is NOT to be given to your investigators [potential converts] by any matter of means.... Why is it that you are white and not colored?.. God is not unjust to cause a righteous spirit to be born as a cursed member of the black race.” - LDS European Mission president, Alvin R. Dyer, “For What Purpose?,” Missionary Conference in Oslo, Norway, March 18, 1961, printed in The Negro in Mormon Theology, pp. 48-58 “With the concurrence of President McKay, a young man of known Negro ancestry was ordained to the priesthood after receiving a patriarchal blessing which did not assign him to a ‘cursed’ lineage. In another case, President McKay authorized two children with Negro ancestry to be sealed in the temple to the white couple who had adopted them.” - Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 45 “[A Negro] looks as though he has been put in an oven and burnt to a cinder.... His hair baked crisp, his nose melted to his face, and the color of his eyes runs into the whites. Some men look as if they had only been burned brown; but he appears to have gone a stage further, and been cooked until he was quite black.” - “From Caucasian to Negro,” quoted in Bush, Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview, pp. 57-58, endnote #99 R.L.D.S. Prophet, Joseph Smith III “It is expedient in me that you ordain priests unto me, of every race who receive the teachings of my law, and become heirs accourding to the promise.... Be not hasty in ordaining men of the Negro race...” - RLDS Prophet Joseph Smith III, revelation to the RLDS Church, May 4, 1865; online at http://www.centerplace.org/hs/dc/rdc-... |
| Monday, Sep 1, 2008, at 10:17 AM Pulling Back The Curtain On The '78 Priesthood "Revelation": Black Redemption Thru Tax Exemption Posted By Steve Benson BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| In another thread, poster "mikeutah" indicates that he is "interested in the sources to back . . . up" claims regarding "[t]he 'real' reason for [the] 'Blacks and Priesthood' revelation," saying the he "just want[s] to research it more thoroughly."
Hopefully the following will be of assistance to him and others with a similar interest: --Almost Down for the Count—The Mormon Church’s Brush with a Federal Knock-Out Punch Over Its Anti-Black Doctrine-- What are to be made of reports that, circa 1978, the Mormon Church was in danger of losing its federal tax-exempt status due to its racially-discriminatory policies targeted against Blacks? Predictably, true-believing Mormons have never been willing to admit that their Church was at one time had its back against the Internal Revenue Service ropes, where it was close to being stripped of its tax-exempt status due to its anti-Black doctrine--and barely managed to dance away from a federal government knock-out only by abandoning its officially-sanctioned bigotry. GONG!! There's the final bell. Time to examine the scorecard. --The Official Mormon Cult Claim: Alleged Threats of Federal Tax-Exempt Revocation Had Absolutely Nothing To Do with Black Men Belatedly Getting the Priesthood-- Speaking for the Mormon Church’s Public Affairs Department in response to accusations about its suspicious reversal of its long-standing anti-Black priesthood doctrine, LDS spokesman Bruce L. Olsen flatly denied that the Church’s decision to grant priesthood authority to Black men was in any way related to fear of losing federal tax exempt status. With a straight face, Olsen asserted: ”It's one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson . . . claims that the federal government threatened the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the Church's position regarding Blacks and the priesthood. “We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law. "In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson is seriously mistaken.” (Bruce L. Olsen, “Distorted History,” in "Public Forum," Salt Lake Tribune, 5 April 2001) http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_pries... (Interestingly enough, a former missionary who served under Olsen-- when the latter was his mission president--made the following observation about both the Mormon Church’s decision to reverse course on Black priesthood and Olsen: ”If it was tax considerations and liberal Jimmy Carter that made the Church abandon institutionalized racism, I can understand why the Church is now so Republican. ”[By the way,] Bruce Olsen was my [mission president] and is a great guy. He does have an impossible job representing the Church on PR issues. Like a tobacco executive in charge of expounding on the health benefits of tobacco, he has his work cut out for him.” (“Interesting stuff,” RfM post by “activejackmormon,” 7 February 2006) --Color It Contrary: The Case of Mormon U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee-- Reacting to Mormon mouthpiece Olsen’s dubious claims, Gary Anderson, in a letter to the editor of the "Salt Lake Tribune," countered: "I was quite surprised by LDS PR man Bruce Olsen's attack . . . regarding the Mormon Church's motivations for abandoning its anti-Black doctrine . . . . “His bold assault is particularly amazing in light of the fact that history ‘distortion’ and ‘invention’ have been trademarks of Mormonism since its inception. Of course, the risk in Mr. Olsen's gallant tossing of the gauntlet is that someone might just pick it up. “For example, it didn't take much investigation to discover that in 1981 the Solicitor General of the United States, Rex Lee, a Mormon, recused himself from a case against Bob Jones University. “In that case, the U.S. government was threatening to revoke Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status because of its racist policy of prohibiting interracial dating. "When asked why he took himself off the case, Mr. Lee explained that previously when representing the Mormon church in a similar case, he had argued that the Dhurch should retain its tax-exempt status despite its racist policies and felt conflicted from arguing an opposing view in the Bob Jones case. (see, "The Tenth Justice," [by] Lincoln Caplan, Knopf, 1987, p. 51, note 2 . . . p. 293). “If the [Mormon] Church's tax-exempt status was never threatened by the U.S. government because of its racist policies, why was Mr. Lee making such an argument, presumably in an era before 1978? “Given Lee's explanation, Olsen's ‘categorical’ assertion that federal tax law was never a motivating factor in the church's 1978 change in racial policy rings disingenuous. One thing true history teaches us is that secrecy breeds dishonesty. “It's fairly easy for Mr. Olsen to hide behind the tightly secured vaults in the Church Office Building and demand proof. If he was a true knight, he would throw open the doors to the vault and invite inquiring minds in to examine the minutes of meetings held by Church leaders in the months and days leading up to the 'revelation,' so we might decide for ourselves the Church's actual motivation for the change. "What's that you say, Mr. Olsen? Salamander got your tongue?" (Gary Anderson, Springfield, Virginia, letter to the editor, "Salt Lake Tribune," 22 April 2001) http://www.salamandersociety.com/blac... In the book to which Anderson refers, author Caplan notes, in fact, that U.S. Solicitor General/Mormon Lee (who would eventually become president of BYU) recused himself from the case of Bob Jones v. IRS, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that religious schools which practice racial discrimination could be constitutionally stripped of federal tax exempt protection. Lee, writes Caplan, bowed out of the case because Lee had previously petitioned the IRS for tax exempt refuge in behalf of the racially-discrimnatory Mormon Church. Lee, noted Caplan, begged off because, given his previous advocacy for the color-bound Mormons, he now considered it improper for him to argue in behalf of the IRS against color-bound Bob Jones University. From Caplan’s book: ”Rex Lee . . . who had been sworn in as Solicitor General seven months before [the Bob Jones brief was filed in 1982], had once represented the Mormon Church when it faced a problem like Bob Jones's and, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, he had taken himself off the case.” (p. 50) “In 1970, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that Bob Jones no longer qualified for tax-exempt status because of [its] segregationist policy, so the school changed it. Blacks could be accepted if they were married to other Blacks, or if they promised not to date or marry outside their race . . . "By the time of the Supreme Court case, a decade later, the number of Blacks attending the school was less than a dozen, making the ratio of Whites to Blacks about 550 to one. “From the vantage point of the Solicitor General's office, the legal issue in the Bob Jones case was routine. It was a tax question.” (p. 53) As one unpersuaded skeptic points out regarding the Mormon Church’s unpersuasive denials over its threatened tax-exempt status: ”If the IRS had never threatened the LDS Church's tax exempt status, why was Lee arguing over it and race with the IRS on the Church's behalf?” Another understandable doubter observed: "The only thing he [Olsen] stated is that the Church never was 'threatened' by the Government, NOT that the Church wasn't worried that such a thing *could* happen and was watching court rulings [like the one that was occurring in Wisconsin] to see if they could continue discriminating against [Black] members. "Yes, it is possible to lose tax-exempt status for discrimination--Bob Jones University lost it once for its interracial dating policy." http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_pries... It should be pointed out here that although Lee recused himself from the Bob Jones case, the reasons why he did so are a matter of some dispute. As one contributor on the RfM board has noted: ”It has been stated that he did this because he had been previously involved in a discrimination case involving the Mormon Church. . . . “He [Lee] had been the dean of the BYU Law School which was one of the schools that would have been affected by the Bob Jones decision. That also would have been a reason to recuse himself. In 1986-87 Rex Lee did argue the CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP v. AMOS, 483 U.S. 327 [1987] case and did not feel it was a conflict.” (“What we DO know about the 1978 ‘revelation,’” RfM post by “nao crer,” nao_crer@yahoo.com, 8 February 2006; and idem, “Re: We do the best we can with the sources currently available,” RfM post, 8 February 2006) --The Issue of Tax-Exempt Status, As Applied to the Mormon Church-- In order to understand what was at stake for the Mormon Church in regard to possibly losing its tax-exempt status due to its racial bias against Black men, it is important to understand what kind of tax-exempt protection the LDS Church enjoyed. Again, reference is made to the same poster directly quoted above. This observer also identifies himself as “hold[ing] a CPA in the state of Utah and a Masters in Accounting,” adding that he received his CPA “in 1981, which is in the same time frame [as the Mormon Church reversal of its anti-Black priesthood doctrine].” He further observes that “[t]he IRS law concerning non-profit organizations has not substantially changed since the inception.” He then goes on to explain how educational non-profit organizations and religious non-profit organizations “are treated differently:” ”In the U.S., the . . . IRS grants non-profit status to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and other religious organizations. This is of tremendous financial benefit. “Meanwhile, clergy and other employees are guaranteed free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They are free to voice their opinions and beliefs, and advocate changes to legislation . . . The tax exempt status of [their churches is] not threatened [by doing so]. “Religious groups can promote a stand on other similar ‘hot’ religious topics . . . “They are even allowed by the IRS to contribute small amounts of money and resources to the fight for changes in legislation. “In the words of the IRS regulations: ’No substantial part of (church) activities (may consist of) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.’ Unfortunately, the term ‘substantial’ is not defined precisely in the Service's regulations.” (“What we DO know about the 1978 ‘revelation,’” RfM post by “nao crer,” 8 February 2006; and idem, “Corporate Soles—IRS & Bob Jones University,” RfM post, 8 February 2006) --The Mormon Church Had Good Reason to Fear Revocation of Its Federal Tax-Exempt Status, in Light of the Bob Jones Decision-- The LDS Church which, as a tax-exempt organization, practiced notorious racial discrimination against Blacks, was most likely notified of the Jones decision by the federal government and would have undoubtedly become concerned about losing its tax-exempt status. As one contributor observed: ”A lot of tax-exempt organizations were worried during the Bob Jones case about losing their exempt status over discriminatory policies, according to my statutory law professor. . . . “The Supreme Court decided the Bob Jones case in the ‘80s, at which point the federal government (under Reagan) was no longer behind the IRS's interpretation of ‘charitable organization’ defined as excluding those promoting bad public policies, like racism, but Bob Jones still lost in the Court. “The controversy started years before when the IRS sent Bob Jones a notice that they were no longer tax exempt. Whether the Mormon Church received such a notice from the IRS, they would have been well aware of the situation with Bob Jones long before the Supreme Court case, as most non-profits apparently were.” (“Aphrodite,” RfM post, 7 February 2005) Indeed, in all probability the Mormon Church was notified by the federal government of the potential ramifications it faced in the wake of the Jones decision: “The IRS was putting pressure on private schools to stop discrimination with the U.S. vs. Bob Jones University. “This ruling would directly affect BYU, Ricks, CCH [Church College of Hawaii] and other U.S. Mormon-owned schools. “These schools are organized under separate non-profit corporations which are owned by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. . . . [T]he Bob Jones University case was directed at educational non-profits. This would have affected the [Mormon Church], but not the core corporation.” Why, and how, would this have affected the Mormon Church? The answer lies in the tax-exempt status of its privately-owned schools: ”Based on court documents, BYU, CCH, and Ricks were probably notified . . . [since] [t]his affected educational 501(c)(3) organizations.” How the Bob Jones case, specifically, would have impacted BYU is explained as follows: ”The Bob Jones case was concerning a university and discrimination by the university. BYU is a separate 501(c)(3) corporation and there was a risk of losing its tax exempt status for the same reason as in the Bob Jones case. “BYU received government research funds and participated in sporting events governed by the Amature Sports Act. It is an educational non-profit rather than a religious non-profit.” ”Religious organizations are allowed to discriminate. There are early rulings on this, but in 1987 the Mormon Church was directly involved in such a case. In CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP v. AMOS, 483 U.S. 327 (1987), it was affirmed that a religious organizations can discriminate in hiring under section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ”Religions have always been able to limit their membership to any group. There are many examples of religious organizations that limit their membership. . . . ”Religions could always do whatever they want as long as they were not taking public money.” Not only is the Mormon Church a registered 501 (c)(3) organization, it is a racially discriminatory one. For racist organizations such as the Mormon Church, "Corporate Sole is the safest organization for a racist 501(c)(3). . . . The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is a Corporate Sole.” Just how the Bob Jones ruling affected private schools like BYU was made clear in a federal court ruling that denied tax-exempt status to private schools. These rulings undoubtedly would have given the racially-discriminatory Mormon Church serious pause about its own standing before the federal government on the matter of continued tax-exemption protection: “On January 12, 1970, a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from according tax-exempt status to private schools in Mississippi that discriminated as to admissions on the basis of race.( Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism'd sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 [1970]). “Thereafter, in July 1970, the IRS concluded that it could ‘no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status [under 501(c)(3)] to private schools which practice racial discrimination.’ ("IRS News Release," July 7, 1970, reprinted in App. in No. 81-83, p. A235). “At the same time, the IRS announced that it could not ‘treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes [under 170].’ (Ibid) By letter dated November 30, 1970, the IRS formally notified private schools, including those involved in this litigation, of this change in policy, ‘applicable to all private schools in the United States at all levels of education.’” (See id., at A232). “BYU, Ricks and CCH probably received this letter.” Why the Mormon Church, burdened as it was with its anti-Black priesthood doctrine, would have been concerned about losing its federal tax-exempt status was made abundantly clear in the district court’s ruling: “On June 30, 1971, the three-judge District Court issued its opinion on the merits of the Mississippi challenge (Green v. Connally, 330 F. Supp. 1150, summarily aff'd sub nom. Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997 [1971]). That court approved the IRS's amended construction of the Tax Code. “The court also held that racially discriminatory private schools were not entitled to exemption under 501(c)(3) and that donors were not entitled to deductions for contributions to such schools under 170. The court permanently enjoined the Commissioner of [461 U.S. 574, 579] Internal Revenue from approving tax-exempt status for any school in Mississippi that did not publicly maintain a policy of nondiscrimination. ”The IRS's 1970 interpretation of 501(c)(3) was correct. It would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools' policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above 'charitable' concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3)(pp. 592-596). ”The government's fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. Petitioners' asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest (pp. 602-604). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin... This key information pointing, as it does, to the real vulnerablity Mormon Church-owned private schools faced with regard to having their tax-exempt status removed by the federal government because of the LDS Church's racially discriminatory practices was completely ignored by LDS spokesman Bruce Olsen. Worse still, Olsen grossly misrepresented the facts. As Olsen's inartful dodging demonstrates, Mormon Church spokesmen are akin to diplomats, in that both are sent forth to lie in behalf of the organizations they represent: "[Olsen's] . . . quote . . . was consistent with the [Mormon Church's] use of half truth. [His] statement . . . only addressed the Church as a religious organization. He was not addressing the related issue of the Mormon owned schools. [Again, quoting Olsen:] "'It's one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson . . . claims that the federal government threatened the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the Church's position regarding Blacks and the priesthood. "'We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law.' . . . "The [Mormon Church] was not threatened directly; however, their wholly-owned schools were threatened. The financial ramifications in conjunction with the possible political embarrassment made an untenable situation." (“BYU (Edited),” RfM post by “nao crer,” 7 February 2006; “Educational nonprofits,” idem, RfM post, 8 February 2006; “What we DO know about the 1978 ‘revelation,’” idem, RfM post, 8 February 2006; and idem, "I appreciate your thanks," RfM post, 9 February 2006) --An Insider Source Within the Mormon Church Confirmed That Fear of Losing Its Tax-Exempt Status Helped Drive LDS, Inc. to Abandon Its Anti-Black Priesthood Ban-- Writing in their article, “Death of the Anti-Black Doctrine,” Jerald and Sandra Tanner recount what they discovered concerning the Mormon Church’s tax-driven disavowal of its racist teachings: ”. . . [W]e . . . learned from a source within the [Mormon] Church that Church leaders were very concerned that they were going to lose their tax exempt status on property they own in the United States. “In the months just prior to the revelation, Church leaders were carefully watching developments in a case in Wisconsin in which an organization was about to lose its tax exempt status because of racial discrimination. “The Church leaders finally became convinced that the tide was turning against them and that they would lose their tax exempt status in Wisconsin and eventually throughout the United States because of their doctrine of discrimination against Blacks. . . . “[I]t may very well have been the ‘straw that broke the camel's back.’” (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, “Death of the Anti-Black Doctrine,” in "The Salt Lake City Messenger," Issue No. 41, December 1979) --A Reported Warning to Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball from U.S. President Jimmy Carter-- According to one source, amid mounting pressures for the Mormons to join the 20th century, the Chief Executive of the United States did some arm twisting of his own: ”Kimball's announcement [reversing the LDS anti-Black priesthood ban] coincided with events which were adversely affecting the Mormon Church. “For a period of time immediately prior to Kimball's declaration, several major universities, had announced that until such time as the Mormon Church reversed its policy of racial discrimination, they would no longer take part in athletic events in which BYU participated. “More importantly though, approximately two weeks prior to Kimball's surprising declaration, President Jimmy Carter had phoned Kimball and informed him that the IRS was seriously considering removing the Mormon Church's tax exempt status unless changes were made in their policy of discrimination.” http://www.unlimitedglory.org/txtmorm... Providing possible credence to the claim of a purported phone call from President Carter to President Kimball (in which the former allegedly warned the latter that the Mormon Church’s tax-exempt status was in danger of being removed unless it jettisoned its racially discriminatory practice of banning Blacks from the priesthood), are numerous indicators that a Carter-Kimball line of personal communication did, in fact, already exist around the time that the LDS Church revoked its anti-Black priesthood ban. One piece of tantalizing evidence indicating a close relationship between Carter and Kimball comes from Carter’s White House daily diary entry dated 11 March 1977, which records that Carter met with Kimball for 21 minutes, although the details of their discussion were not specified. http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/doc... A photograph of their White House encounter was actually captured on photographic film. As one observer noted: ”According to the President Carter Library, President Kimball and Jimmy Carter met on 03/11/1977. [T]his would be in the right time frame. “And a good search revealed the actual photograph—at lds.org. http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/pres... (“According to the President Carter Library,” RfM post by “CLee the Anti-Mormon,” 8 February 2006) Edward Kimball, in his biographical work, "Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball," reports that President Kimball, in fact, received a phone call from President Carter the same year of their White House meeting: ”In 1977, President Kimball and Marion G. Romney were attending a stake conference in Filmore, Utah. The White House telephone operator tracked President Kimball down and said that President Jimmy Carter wished to speak to him. “Spencer was at the pulpit speaking, so President Romney took the call. President Carter was preparing to speak at a Baptist convention about missionary work and asked many questions about the Mormon program: How many missionaries? What salary do they receive? How long do they serve? Where do they come from? Where are they sent? He complimented the Church on an inspired program and asked that he be sent additional information." http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books... Five months before the Mormon Church abandoned its priesthood prohibition against Black males, Carter was the invited guest of the LDS Church at a Salt Lake City event celebrating the family. Carter’s participation in those festivities are described on the Mormon Church’s official website: "On 27 January . . . (1978), President Jimmy Carter of the United States was invited by . . . [the Mormon] Church to the All-American Family Week held in Salt Lake City. “After the meeting, President Carter said that attending the Family Week was a most pleasurable experience for him. He also praised the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for launching the welfare and community services programs. He remarked, ‘If these programs can be extended to all states in the nation, my job as the president will be much easier.’” http://www.lds.org.hk/english/local_c... When Kimball eventually announced the Mormon Church’s reversal of its anti-Black priesthood ban, Carter again contacted him, this time by written correspondence. According to the article, “The LDS Church and African-Americans: THE PRIESTHOOD BAN:” “Jimmy Carter, then-president of the United States, wrote President Kimball, ‘I welcome today your announcement. . . . I commend you for your compassionate prayerfulness and courage in receiving a new doctrine. This announcement brings a healing spirit to the world and reminds all men and women that they are truly brothers and sisters.’” http://www.ldshistory.net/1990/embry.... In the pro-Mormon publication, "Meridian Magazine," under the headline, “Hallelujah! The 25th Anniversary of the Revelation on Priesthood,” Maurine Jensen Proctor reports that Carter made this contact with Kimball in order to relay his approval of the Mormon Church’s reversal on its racist ban relative to Black membership in the LDS priesthood: ”President Jimmy Carter commended President Spencer W. Kimball for ‘compassionate prayerfulness and courage.’ http://www.ldsmag.com/articles/030606... If one is to believe Latter-day lore, Carter even suggested to Kimball that the Mormon Church’s reversal on its ban against Black priesthood acquisition was divinely inspired. According to LDS writer Janet Brigham: "Even President Jimmy Carter implied acceptance of the revelation's divine origin. A telegram from Carter to President Kimball said, 'I commend you for your compassionate prayerfulness and courage in receiving a new doctrine.' http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazin... (Most of the above information on the Carter-Kimball connection comes from “Polygamy and Racism--a funny but sad story,” RfM post by “cricket,” cricket AT salamandersociety.com, in which the author notes that he also “found some notes about Jimmy Carter and Spencer Kimball.” 7 February 2006) The evidence of Carter-Kimball connective tissue shows that a line of interpersonal contact existed between the two men during the time period when the Mormon Church was considering, and eventually implementing, its priesthood change pertaining to Black men. With Carter and Kimball enjoying such a comfortable and regular one-to-one communication around the time of the Mormon Church's anti-Black doctrinal flip-flop, this potentially opens another investigative trail for examining claims that Carter also allegedly warned Kimball that continuation of the LDS priesthood ban against Blacks could endanger its tax-exempt position. --Not-So-Secret Combinations: Consumer Boycotts, Vacation Detours, NAACP Lawsuits, ACLU Threats, Advice from Paid Professional Consultants, and Pressure from the IRS-- At the time the Mormon Church relented and reversed its anti-Black doctrine, societal and governmental forces were converging to bring it to its wobbly white and delightsome knees: ” . . . [A]nti-Mormons urged for boycotts of recordings of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the cancellation of vacations to Utah. “The NAACP initiated several lawsuits against Mormon Boy Scout troops, charging that Church policy was foisting racism on minority Scouts. . . . “ “Several professional consulting firms which the Church had previously hired for other matters suggested to Church leaders that they reconsider the status of Blacks in the Mormon Church as part of a major overhaul of church policy. . . .” “Worst of all, the IRS suggested that the racial policies of the Mormon Church might justify a suspension of its tax-exempt status.” (Lorraine Hewlett, “The Second Great Accomodation,” 17 June 2004) http://www.salamandersociety.com/blac... Mike Schreib, pastor of the Pionner Baptist Bible Church in Ontario, California, in an article entitled, “Mormonism: A Religion for Dumb White People,” further lays out the legal hurdles facing a besieged Mormon Church in danger of taking a haymaker tax hit to the chin: ”In early 1978, the Mormon Church found itself suffering from a massive news media campaign criticizing their attitudes towards blacks and nonwhites. Allegations of discrimination and racism by such groups as the NAACP and ACLU were directed against the LDS Church, and rightly so. "The Mormon leadership began to sweat. “If things progressed badly for them, they feared losing large numbers of their members who saw the Church as a White supremacist haven, and were willing to tell the media about it. "Even worse, they feared losing their federal tax exempt status from the IRS; a loss that would have devastated their financial empire. “THE SOLUTION “On June 8, 1978, Mormon President and prophet, Spencer W. Kimball announced to the world a new 'Official Declaration' from the Lord. "Suddenly, he claimed, “. . . all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE OR COLOR.” (original emphasis) The cult monitoring group, “Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance” offers a broad overview of the increasing governmental pressures being brought to bear on the Mormon Church to abandon its racist doctrines and practices toward Blacks: ”More federal political pressure was felt by the [Mormon] Church in the 1970s over the Church's institutionalized racism. "The Pearl of Great Price limited the advancement within the Church by Blacks or by persons with Black ancestors. (Higher levels in the priesthood were permitted for Australian aboriginal males, Polynesian men, etc.). . . . “The U.S. Internal Revenue Service threatened [the] LDS's tax exempt status. "There was a groundswell of opinion against racism by many Americans who recognized the centuries of injustice against Afro-Americans. "Additional opposition came from sports groups which threatened to cancel events with Brigham Young University. "Anti-Mormon religious groups promoted boycotts of Church businesses and of Utah tourism. "The Church received a new revelation from God in [June] 1978 . . . which abolished racism within the Church. “ http://www.xploreheartlinks.com/latte... Hallelujah, indeed. --Memories of National News Accounts Indicating Mormon Church Fear of Losing Its Tax-Exempt Status Due to Its Anti-Black Priesthood Doctrine-- News reports around the time that the Mormon Church reversed its anti-Black priesthood ban are said to have detailed the Church’s concern about losing its tax-exempt protection. Writes one recollecting observer: ”I was not a member at the time but remember hearing all this discussion (in the late '70's) on the ‘national news’ about the LDS Church being threatened with losing its tax exempt status over discrimination issues. “The topic was a hot one--and it blew over quickly when the ‘Blacks [and] the priesthood’ revelation was issued. ”I've been amazed that so few members of the Church seem to be aware that this was even an issue. There have to be some recorded media reports at the time or articles in 'Time' and other news magazines that we can compile and reference.” (“. . . [T]his is a great summary. [W]e need to keep working on this,” RfM post by “FCI,” fci.666@gmail.com, 8 February 2006) --Conclusion: Saving Mormonism's Tax-Exempt Bacon with a Convenient Revelation-- The California-based Christian Research Institute Journal sums up the LDS Church’s financially-footed flip-flop on its anti-Black doctrine, in the coldest of cold cash terms. Writes Latayne C. Scott in “Mormonism and the Question of Truth:” ”LDS leaders . . . perceived threats in both the outcome of a recent court case on racial discrimination and in the possibility of an IRS review of the Church's tax-exempt status. “So, in a tersely-worded statement (a far cry from earlier revelations, which began with 'Thus saith the Lord') the Church announced that Blacks were suddenly eligible for the priesthood it had denied them for almost 150 years.” http://www.douknow.net/mormonstruth.h... Use the Blacks, praise the Lord and pass the tax exemption. |
| Monday, Jan 26, 2009, at 07:47 AM Thurl Baliey Fireside About Blacks Posted By Mr. NBA BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| For anyone who does not know, Thurl Bailey is African-American. He played for the NC State Wolfpack team coached by Jimmy V. His team beat Houston in the famous NCAA finals. He also played for and is now a commentator for your Utah Jazz. He married a "white" Mormon and converted.
Thurl gives a fireside about his conversion and references blacks and the Priesthood. In it he says, he is so grateful that his wife looked past the color of his skin to see the real person. I can only suppose the real person he is talking about is "white"? Throughout the fireside, Thurl seems embarrassed in front of this 100% white BYU audience that he is black. As the fireside continues, Thurl recounts his struggle with the Black question. But it seems Thurl did not put up much of a fight. It was enough that his Stake Mission President said " we don't know why", and " it was time" for blacks to be allowed to be "Priests". After that he was "all-in". The entire fireside is uncomfortable. The all "white" members all with fake accepting smiles on their faces. His wife with an awkward expression of pride and anger. I assume that before they were married, many people disapproved. Thurl basically asking forgiveness of his new "family" for being black. It was hard to watch. I am not saying Thurl is not a great man or sincere in his faith. I felt sorry for him. |
| Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, at 08:08 AM Mormonism's Black Issues, Article By Joanna Brooks Posted By JW the Inquizzinator BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- | ↑ |
| http://www.religiondispatches.org/arc...
By Joanna Brooks, October 25, 2009 Snippets: "While many Mormons would like to forget the Church's history of discrimination against blacks, an Apostle's recent statements comparing the post-Proposition 8 Mormon backlash to the Civil Rights-era harassment of black voters have brought that painful past back into the spotlight." "Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks chose a friendly audience deep within the Book-of-Mormon-belt for his now controversial October 13 speech in defense of the Mormons' ongoing fight against same-sex civil marriage. Speaking to students at Brigham Young University-Idaho, Oaks decried the continuing erosion of religious freedom and the declining influence of religion in the public sphere, before mounting a strongly-worded defense of "the ancient order" of marriage against the "alleged 'civil right' of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage." ...Oaks, a former University of Chicago law professor who clerked for United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1957 and 1958 in the aftermath of the Warren court's landmark Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) desegregation decision, knew that his black-Mormon comparison would draw public attention. In fact, when he previewed his speech for an AP reporter on October 12, he speculated that it might "be offensive to some."..." "Sure enough, commentators from within (and without) the world of Mormonism have questioned the soundness of Oaks' analogy, asking whether Mormons in their effort to eliminate same-sex marriage are more justly characterized as proponents of religious freedom or opponents of gay human rights. In fact, four Mormon gay rights groups issued a joint statement on October 16 urging the Apostle to consider how the Mormon anti-gay marriage effort might paradoxically compromise religious freedom for members of faiths that recognize the sanctity of committed same-sex relationships." "But most of Oaks' respondents politely sidestepped an even deeper paradox troubling his black-Mormon analogy: the fact that Mormons have our own long and peculiar history of discrimination against African Americans. MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann alluded to this history when he gave Oaks his daily "worst person in the world" award on October 14. Comparing the Proposition 8 Mormon backlash and the harassment of black voters was especially inappropriate, Olbermann argued, because Mormons had been "on the wrong side of integration."..." "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prohibited individuals of African descent from joining the Church's lay priesthood (open to all devout Mormon men over the age of twelve), serving as missionaries, or participating in Mormon temple ordinances from 1849 until 1978, a fact that many Mormons today find difficult to talk about or explain. In the earliest years of Mormon history, during the 1830s and 1840s, six or seven African-American men including Elijah Abel (1808-1885) and Walker Lewis (1798-1856) were ordained to the Church's priesthood. But under the leadership of Mormon Church president Brigham Young, the ordination of African-American men ceased, African-American men and women were prohibited from temple worship, and intermarriage was officially discouraged." "Some historians believe that Young's about-face on the status of African Americans may have been motivated by embarrassment stemming from an 1847 scandal involving an excommunicated African-American Mormon named William McCary, or by political pressures surrounding the extension of slavery to Utah territory." "Whatever the actual motivation for the priesthood ban, Mormons soon articulated a number of working theological narratives to legitimate anti-African American discrimination, drawing liberally from European and European-American folk theologies that identified Africans and African Americans as the descendents of Cain or Ham. According to some Mormons, the priesthood ban was an element of the curse placed upon Cain for killing his brother Abel (Genesis 4), or the curse levied on Ham's son Canaan to punish Ham's humiliation of his father, Noah (Genesis 9:20-27). The Pearl of Great Price, a Mormon book of scripture, described the people of Canaan as being cursed with "blackness" (Moses 7:5-8) and indicated that descendents of Ham and his wife Egyptus were "cursed... as pertaining to the Priesthood" (Abraham 1:21-26)." "In 1849, Brigham Young declared that "the Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood," a position he reaffirmed in a January 16, 1852 statement to the Utah territorial legislature: Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain]… in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it." "Another rationale for Mormon discrimination against African Americans was articulated in 1845 by Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde, who speculated that the cursed condition of African Americans was a consequence of their actions during their premortal existence." "Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, these doctrines gained traction while memories of early African-American priesthood holders like Elijah Abel faded; Church leaders continued to prohibit temple ordinances and priesthood ordination for Church members with as little as "1/32" African-American ancestry. In 1949, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement declaring that the black priesthood ban was a "direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization.".." "The rise of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s actually spurred some Mormon leaders to renew their support for discrimination. In a 1954 speech at Brigham Young University, Apostle Mark E. Peterson denounced interracial marriage on theological grounds, arguing that "if there is one drop of Negro blood in my children... they receive the curse [of Canaan]"; in 1958 Bruce R. McConkie wrote in Mormon Doctrine that African Americans had been "less valiant in the pre-existence," and thus "sent to earth through the lineage of Cain." Speaking from the pulpit at a semi-annual Church Conference in 1965, Apostle Ezra Taft Benson (a former Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower) charged that the Civil Rights Movement was a Communist plot to destroy America." "Other Mormon leaders were more moderately disposed towards African American equality. Historians credit Apostle Hugh B. Brown and Church President David O. McKay with efforts to open the question of ending the priesthood ban, even though both men maintained personal misgivings about the Civil Rights Movement. In 1969, the First Presidency of the Church issued an official statement expressing support for full civil equality under the law for all citizens regardless of race while defending the black priesthood ban as a prerogative of religious freedom." "...In the years since the repeal of the priesthood ban, a number of official steps have been taken to correct prejudice within the Church. The Church published a new edition of the Book of Mormon in 1981, replacing a promise that the righteous would become "white" with a promise that they would be made "pure" (2 Nephi 30:6), but leaving intact a handful of other Book of Mormon scriptures correlating dark skin with spiritual accursedness. In 1990, Helvecio Martins, an Afro-Brazilian Mormon, became the first man of African descent to be ordained as one of the Church's General Authorities. African-American Mormons and their allies have also undertaken a number of unofficial efforts to raise consciousness about Black Mormon experience and concerns, like the well-received 2007 documentary Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons." "But without an official, explicit clarification of earlier teachings on race, many older Mormons continue to quietly maintain and circulate old beliefs connecting blackness and the priesthood ban to the Cain-Ham genealogy or to lack of spiritual valiance in pre-earthly life. Younger Mormons born after the end of the priesthood ban, and raised in what one prominent black Mormon has described as Mormonism's "deafening silence" on race, have little knowledge of the Church's history of discrimination and few resources for coming to terms with it." "Indeed, Mormons may now have a greater sense of their own historical persecution as a religious minority than they do a sense of responsibility for the Mormon Church's discriminatory history. Whereas Mormonism's African-American problem is rarely discussed within mainstream orthodox Mormon circles, stories about nineteenth-century anti-Mormon mob violence, the state of Missouri's 1838 Mormon "extermination order," the assassination of Joseph Smith Jr., and the subsequent exodus to Utah are frequently recounted. Last November's protests directed at Mormon temples and wardhouses after the election only confirmed and intensified Mormons' deeply-held sense of marginalization and persecution." "Elder Oaks' October 13 analogy between African Americans and Mormons mobilized this sense of persecution and galvanized Mormon same-sex marriage opponents, just as Maine's Proposition 1 campaign to ban same-sex marriage enters its home stretch and last-minute fundraising appeals from the National Organization for Marriage find their way into Mormon same-sex marriage activists' inboxes." |