"Renounce and Repudiate": Will Republicans Hold Romney to Obama Standard?

Given deafening Republican silence during the national period of anxious disquiet regarding police and state response to the murder of  Trayvon Martin, an unease due in part to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law signed by Romney supporter former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (and an equal silence from the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Willard “Mitt” Romney), a surveyed reflection of the Republicans and their presumptive standard bearer in regard to race, more specifically the politics of race, in America seems in order.

For fear of insulting the reader, I won’t even attempt to cite the numerous times Republican candidates and operatives sought to inject “Reverend Jeremiah Wright ” into a conversation or how many times Fox “News” played videos of his “damning” of America (never noting his meritorious service record in the US Marines and Navy) as any casual observer of “news” is well aware of such media.  It would have been nice, respectful, and most importantly intellectually and spiritually honest to acknowledge such service; to revere it and then to go the extra mile no matter how “repugnant” to one’s sensibilities the rhetoric of  Rev. Wright: to try and empathize how a decorated African-American veteran might feel in seeing “his” people subjected to state sponsored terrorism before, during, and after his service to the same country.  Yes, when one is subjected to the terror often perpetrated by, with the approval of, or general disinterest by operatives of the state it is state sponsored terrorism.

It is funny that, once again, a glaring double standard exists in Republican circles now that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot and a Republican brings forth suspicious and dubious credentials vis-a-vis his faith of choiceRepublicans are habitually duplicitous and we should all accept double standards as simplymodus operandi“. 

Repudiate is a powerful word, a decisive action — to separate from and disown.  Then candidate Obama was demanded to “repudiate” Rev. Wright and the long time spiritual home that brought comfort to the Obamas by Republicans and their operatives.  Will they now make such demands of their standard bearer; his theological doctrine and his “prophets”?  One of the most outspoken of  Rev. Wright was (then) Fox “News” personality Glenn Beck.  Beck is being singled out for this essay in as much as many speculate on his vested interest in the presidency of America’s first non-White President.  This “interest” comes by the way in which Glenn Beck [seemingly] envisions himself the “rider of the white horse” as found in Mormon theology, a character called upon to save the US Constitution as Mormons are called upon to step up and help to introduce an American theocracy.  Glenn Beck is a Mormon — as is Romney.

In a genuinely fair society, anyone’s religious beliefs would be an intimate and personal expression of life and life’s aspirations; aspirations realized and those denied.  As was noted in regard to Rev. Wright (and as can been seen with President Kennedy before), the United States is not that society with the Republicans proving in abundance during the 2008 election cycle that one’s belief  system is of worthy consideration.  Mr. Romney has noted that his faith is important to him, animating his very being.  Given this animation, I felt it equally important to look at some of the theology he taught as a Mormon Bishop; doctrine he apparently believes in and follows.

Having spent a number of years in Utah, I came to learn quite a bit about the dominant culture currently inhabiting the land of the Ute native tribes.  They are small in number as a state.  Many exhibit “prototypical” western ruggedness, fancying themselves “cowboys” and “pioneers”.  The state is currently overwhelmingly Mormon, though these numbers are projected to fall below 50% as the state follows the demographic shift being felt nationwide.  The Mormon Church has amassed an enormous fortune with holdings as varied as land, to securities, to retail establishments — and then there is Brigham Young University.  Lastly, Utah could be construed a theocracy with most legislators (“lawgivers”) deeply immersed in the religion.  In as much as this is generally a blog based on personal, and often but not always anecdotal observation, much of my essay this point forward will be opinion but with many citations to accurately support assertions in an effort to leave the reader feeling like  my opinions have been well thought out and most importantly . . . fair.

The population of African-Americans in Utah is indeed very small as is the “observable” number of African-American Mormons.  Mormons will often point to their growth in developing countries including Africa.  This glee is belied when one conjectures what a hungry, homeless family might do when given the opportunity for blankets and dress clothes — even a home — as opposed to rags and a dusty hut.  My focus in the remainder of this essay will be more on what Mormonism teaches Mormons about those descending from African heritage — and those born of admixture thereof.

 Beyond the jokes that BYU started admitting African-Americans to better enable their competitiveness in athletics is the very anxiety of the Mormon Church’s history with and treatment of Americans of African decent.  I have zero interest in surveying the entire history of Mormonism.  What I will offer are a number of quotations and examples of oratory which put into context the general theological perspective of the Mormon Church.  What should not be lost in these quotes is that while the Mormon Church started to allow African-American men to hold their “priesthood,” these African-Americans none-the-less entered an order unrepentant of its past (of corollary interest might be the assertion that a number of African-Americans have even found membership in the Ku Klux Klan or Jews as Nazi collaborators).  When asked of an ex-Mormon, now popular Utah “Mormon debunker,” I learned,

“The Mormons have never disavowed nor apologized for their historical stand on racism.  They rationalize it and make all kinds of excuses for it, but have never renounced it.  I do not understand how a person of “color” could with a clear mind ever become and embrace Mormonism.”

. . . or as I often asked: “what ‘White man‘s religion’ befits you (them, African-Americans) that only in the 1970’s were you righteous and worthy enough that a single White man finally saw fit to allow entré into “God’s kingdom” as he/they saw it?  “Is this this really something worthy of your [spiritual] life”?  Perhaps the following will offer insight into my curiosity and overall query.  I will simply present quotes and let the reader judge for themselves, offering a general summation before closing the essay. 

** Required teminological reference: Lamanite(s) and Nephite(s) — a mythical race of Peoples found in the Book of Mormon for which zero evidence exists in anthropology.  Mythical as are the Women of Amazon and the People of Atlantis.

Quotes (with citations) from Mormon leaders’ personal interpretation or direct quotes from Mormon doctrine:

Brigham Young, the leader who led many of the Mormons to Salt Lake City, UT wrote:

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.

Cain slew his brother. . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race–that they should be the ‘servant of servants;’ and they will be, until that curse is removed.”

 Brigham Young, “Journal of Discourses,” Vol. 7, Pages 290 & 291

Joseph Fielding Smith — not to be confused with Joseph Smith, the founder of the church — was the sixth President of the Mormon Church.  He wrote:

“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.”

Joseph Fielding Smith, “Doctrines of Salvation,” Page 61.

 Book of Mormon

1 Nephi 11:13 (Mary) “. . . she was exceedingly fair and white.”

1 Nephi 12:23 (Prophecy of Lamanites after Christ) “. . . became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.”

1 Nephi 13:15 (Gentiles) “. . . they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people [Nephites] before they were slain.”

2 Nephi 5:21 “. . . a sore cursing . . . as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

2 Nephi 30:6 (Prophecy to Lamanites) “. . . scales of darkness shall begin to fall . . . they shall be a white and delightsome people.” (Changed to pure and delightsome in 1981)

Jacob 3:5 (Lamanites cursed) “. . .whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins. . .”

Jacob 3:8-9 “. . .their skins will be whiter than yours . . . revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins . . .”

Alma 3:6 “. . . skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion. . .”

Alma 3:8 (Cursed) “. . .that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren . . .that they might not mix . . .”

Alma 3:9 “. . . whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.”

Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed) “. . . set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed. . .”

Alma 3:19 (Amlicites cursed) “. . . brought upon themselves the curse …”

Alma 23:18 “. . . [Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them.”

3 Nephi 2:14-16 “. . . Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites . . . became exceedingly fair . . .”

3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples) “. . . they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness . . . nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof . . . they were white, even as Jesus.”

Mormon 5:15 (Prophecy about Lamanites) “. . .shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us . . .”

Mormon 5:17 “They were once a delightsome people . . .”

 And more . . .

Interesting theological manifesto; proclamtions seemingly more interested in one’s apparent appearance (“what they are” or “whom they seem to resemble“) as opposed to their unknown spiritual self (“what might be in their hearts” or “whom they are“).  A “book’s cover” and the content of that book is a parable that immediately comes to my mind as well as the value of the story printed upon the book’s pages.

A more important thought that enters my consciousness is that anyone with an ounce of sense should clearly be able to differentiate, I would hope, between a patriotic American fighting for the dignity and security of “his” historically oppressed people as opposed to one who subscribes to dubious doctrine that seeks to further marginalize an already marginalized segment of society.  Equally, there is a spiritual, practical, and real difference between the “Black Liberation Theology” purportedly espoused by the Rev. Wright (and vilified by the likes of Beck et al.) and the perpetuation of a fraudulent type of spiritual subjugation based on race as historically articulated by the Mormon Church and embraced by the likes of Beck and apparently Romney.

One could correctly ask, “but by offering these quotes and citations from a small and marginal sect aren’t you simply giving succour to those who seek a spiritual home in which to place their racist beliefs and ideologies; subterfuge to their agenda(s)?”  Indeed that is a fair critique and precisely what I endeavored to unearth in this essay.  Additionally, it kind of makes the point then doesn’t it in regard to the racist tenor of foundational Mormon doctrine and its home for “marginal” and racially biased beliefs?   . . . and there is much more to be unearthed for those who believe in continued (modern) women’s suffrage, same-sex equality, converting the deceased including Holocaust survivors, and the like — actually, there is probably something for many historically aggrieved persons to discover; for mainstream Christians as well.

Despite what Mormon theology as noted above clearly observes, and as a bi-“racial,” multi-ethnic American (“mixed seed”), I must note that I have not been “cursed” nor has my ancestry or I “dropped dead on the spot” thank you very much for your false prophecy.  So, in the face of such theological dogma, I for one will hold to the highest scrutiny any person seeking the nation’s highest political and symbolic office in our country.  Any “leader” bold enough to seek this office must understand that s/he does so as the person who begins to usher the American nation into a new demographic era as projected by all statistical and empirical data: a majority nation of constituent minorities.

Such a “melting pot president” must be able to present to the nation a “spiritual self” devoid of any “animation” contrary to the nation the United States is becoming, to be able to help America shed the sad cloak of a racially biased and all too often “terrorized” manifestation of  history.  If  Romney is to be this man, he must repudiate, renounce, and denounce not simply the likes of his fellow Mormon Glenn Beck but more importantly: denounce the very foundations on which his Church was founded and the “leadership” that has led to its “growth”.  More plainly, Mr. Romney needs to repudiate much of his Church’s doctrine and the foundational oratory espoused by its many racist leaders.

Mr. Romney should personally offer this out of conscience and in homage to the office in which he seeks and to the time, place, and nation in which he seeks it.  If he can not or will not make such an offering, then the very same Republican hierarchy and its set of operatives should place upon Romney the same scorn they sought to place upon President Obama — anything less is patently hypocritical and exposes as fraudulent not only the Republican Party and its “modus operandi” as noted in this essay’s introduction, but makes divisive and I will add un-American any potential presidency of Willard “Mitt” Romney.

If we as a nation truly aspire to live up to Dr. King’s “Dream Speech,” and if the preamble to the Constitution is more than this set of words:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,

then we need to ensure that there is honorable leadership worthy of making the concept of  “American exceptionalism” more than bumper-sticker jargon.  Most importantly, we need leadership that can ensure that no more American citizens, indeed American heroes, will be betrayed by those who [fraudulently] lay claim to these American ideals.

Republicans, Mr. Romney . . . what say you?


***** NOTES, CREDITS, and THANK YOUS *****

A very special thanks to Doris Hanson and the Shield and Refuge Ministry, Salt Lake City, UT

Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City, UT

Post-Mormon.org, Logan, UT


**UPDATE (2 April 2012)**

Watch MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell destroy any contrarian opinion or propaganda on this issue!


Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    What say me? I say you sound an awful lot like just another anti-Mormon trying to justify hating on Mitt and Mormons. You give a bunch of misinformation, then dig up some quotes and misquotes, and out of context quotes from anti-Mormon sources. I don't think what you are doing is helping bring peace to the world.
    I never thought it was right to imply that Obama was racist or un-American because of things said by his Church. But, we've already seen that used to justify painting me, my Black LDS family members, Mitt, and 14 million other members of the Church of Jesus Christ as racists etc. (even though most Mormons are probably not white, are of Native American descent, are considerably less white than Obama’s UCC, and would be insulted if they read your article implying that they their faith in Christ is based on trying to get money and that, because they are poor etc, they are less intelligent than others and don't know what they are getting into etc, there are half a million Black LDS and maybe 6 million Hispanic etc. ).

    If we are going to compare Mitt, Wright, Santorum, you, etc, I think it is only fair to compare attitudes and things said by LDS in this century to things said by others in this Century.
    Newt, Santorum, and Wright have all been accused of making racist statements recently, and their Churches have ongoing racial issues.
    Mitt has made no racist statements that I know of, and his Church seems, once again, to be doing better than others on race matters. Still, Mormons are attacked while others are left alone.
    If we are going to compare the past, we should keep in mind that almost all Churches have had racist ideas. It is a sad part of American history. But Mormons have been among the most progressive.

  • In reply to Whittlingwhistler:

    In as much as this is the third of three replies (flames?) submitted by this author, and in an effort to inoculate my post from any accusations of not offering a chance for rebuttal, I will address this post.

    You said: “What say me? I say you sound an awful lot like just another anti-Mormon trying to justify hating on Mitt and Mormons. You give a bunch of misinformation, then dig up some quotes and misquotes, and out of context quotes from anti-Mormon sources. I don’t think what you are doing is helping bring peace to the world.”

    Well, your opinion is just that -- and you are entitled to it. I am not seeking to "hate on" anyone and indeed the point of my post was not to deconstruct Mormonism as there are plenty authors available, far more eloquent than I, in that pursuit. What I "give up" is indeed numerous; quotes that emanate directly from the Mormon "good book" and from those in authority to "interpret". The sources (people) from which I reference can not be labeled "anti-Mormon" as they often come from that tradition -- simply because one leaves a "Church" and its "teachings" does not inherently make them "anti" and it quite often allows a soul to find and speak a previously unknown "truth". It is funny how when someone "sees the light" they are then all too often derided by those they leave behind -- telling. Defensive perhaps?

    Additionally I am not quite sure in what context having "mixed seed," for but one example, ever justifies condeming a spirit one knows not to "death on the spot" simply by virtue of birth from two parents of differing "races" -- often times loving parents. By the way, "race" is an artifical construct enhanced in the America's to justify the slave trade. Though there are clear and mitochondrial differences in the human species, they are scientifically so slight in the grand scheme as to be laughable. "Race," it turns out, is near pseudo-science.

    Most importantly, I am calling upon Willard "Mitt" Romney to enter in to the same "covenant" if you will with the American people that his political party of choice asked of the President -- no more, no less. "Peace in the world," as you claim to seek, is indeed a noble goal but is built upon the works of men. My primary goal in this essay is but to expose the double standard at play within the Republican Party and to ask Mr. Romney to abide by their tenet, "Mormonism" and its codified set of beliefs and orators thereof is but the catalyst for that request.

    You said: "I never thought it was right to imply that Obama was racist or un-American because of things said by his Church. But, we’ve already seen that used to justify painting me, my Black LDS family members, Mitt, and 14 million other members of the Church of Jesus Christ as racists etc. . . . "

    Obviously I don't know your political beliefs but I suggest that if you identify with the Republican Party, your gripe is with them. If you refer back to the article, the Republicans during the 2008 election cycle saw fit to make "spiritual character" a prudent and justifiable criterion by which to attack then candidate Obama. Later attacks on The President continued unabated by the likes of (like it or not) Mormon Glenn Beck, birthers, Limbaugh's "Magic Negro," and a litany of others who sought to marginalize and otherwise discredit not simply Obama's presidency but, based on the same relentless droning about Michelle Obama (remember the "terrorist fist jab" witnessed by "Fox and Friends"?), the very fact that a non-White couple occupies the, how ironic -- White House.

    In as much as you imply that you are African-American, I shall not attempt to know what is in your mind/soul or in the mind's and soul's of any persons "of color" who join the Mormon Church. I will simply defer to the White ex-Mormon (a scholar and theologian by the way) who, in knowing what that Church's "prophets" have "revealed," what they have taught, and what they continue to refuse to do: to "full throatedly renounce" past "prophecy" and teaching and expunge it from "the Book of Mormon" and other controlling Church texts. She can not understand it ("minority" membership), neither can I (then again, I can't understand why an African-American might want to join the KKK or a Jewish person help the Nazi extermination machine). Perhaps a type of "self-preservation" or perceived elevation in status? Further more, I do not know what is in the heart or soul of Willard Romney. I do know, however, what he says he believes in and again, as noted in the essay, I will let the quotes speak for themselves. As a sociologist, however, to you I would recommend a wonderful book by Albert Memmi entitled, "The Colonizer and the Colonized".

    You said: "If we are going to compare Mitt, Wright, Santorum, you, etc, I think it is only fair to compare attitudes and things said by LDS in this century to things said by others in this Century. Newt, Santorum, and Wright have all been accused of making racist statements recently, and their Churches have ongoing racial issues."

    Indeed they do! However, none have passages in their "good book" that are as vile as those found, repeatedly, in "the Book of Mormon". Believe me, I have no love of Santorum or Gingrich either!

    You said: "Mitt has made no racist statements that I know of, and his Church seems, once again, to be doing better than others on race matters. Still, Mormons are attacked while others are left alone. If we are going to compare the past, we should keep in mind that almost all Churches have had racist ideas. It is a sad part of American history. But Mormons have been among the most progressive."

    I never claimed that Mr. Romney had ever espoused racist sentiment (not knowing of course what passages he might have taught from "the Book of Mormon" during his tenure as a Mormon bishop) and again I clearly can not tell what is in his heart. All I know is what he says he believes in. Herein perhaps Mr. Romney is due some lattitude in as much as his public (political) positions seem to change with the seasons.

    Look, "past is prologue" as the saying goes and one can not simply dismiss "the past" without renouncing the very real text and its supporters. The Southern Baptists, have attempted this though they still are some of the worst offenders. I will again assert that there is nothing in their "good book" for which they lay claim to "racial superiority" to the degree in which "the Book of Mormon" does. Your opinion that Mormons have been "most progressive" is certainly one you can have though I clearly find it myopic; again I suggest Mr. Memmi's most wonderful and insightful work.

    In an effort toward full dislosure, personally I believe in "the tan millenium," and that any period of universal peace and human understanding will be ushered in not by one that reflects the world's minority (those of European blood) but rather one or a group that embody and reflect the world's majority: those of "mixed seed," those who are tan. If the "meek are to inherit the earth" . . . well, those of European stock (partly myself included) haven't "seen meek" as a group for quite a long time. I must also note your unique definition of the term/concept "progressive". Though neither "Mormons" nor Utah very often make national news, when they do they are usually associated with "regressive" action(s) as was the case with the Mormon Church's attempts to influence California's Poposition 8 where they aligned themselves with the anti-marriage side. Hardly "progressive".

    In closing, you can continue to embrace an order that saw fit to only recently allow you admission into "their god's kingdom" in the late 1970's or you can also renounce this and indeed find the peace you say you seek by embarking on what I called "the tan millennium". It is your choice brother. Peace!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Whittlingwhistler:

    Hope you will let people hear both sides by posting all of my comments, not just that one above : ), it's only fair you know.

    Liberal’s often seem to feel they are better than others and so it's ok to hate religious persons etc because liberals don’t have any bigotry or racism in their past. But, it seems to me that we all have racism in our past, and, in the present, liberals have some of the biggest ongoing issues with bigotry and racism, AND those groups most often associating themselves with the left have some really seriously frightening issues with past racism, bigotry and genocide.

    I don't think we need to talk about it, but if we must, it should be pointed out that you have been misinformed by anti-Mormons. And there is a double standard applied to Mormons, that others don't apply to themselves.
    Can we justify implying that Obama is racist, or that he should renounce his faith because of the racism in his Church? There are reasons why we only hear his UCC/Congregationalists mentioning ordaining the first Black to priesthood in America, and yet don’t mention that they ran him off when they discovered that he was Black (not long before LDS were ordaining Blacks who looked Black). Nor do they mention how they so mistreated Blacks that they felt a need to start their own congregations. And there are reasons why we don’t hear much about Popes praying that God would remove the curse of Ham from the “wretched Ethiopians in Central Africa.” (after Brigham Young said “If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been...For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.”
    And why don’t gays want to talk about the “Brown Shirts” or their ongoing segregation and subjugation of racial minorities.
    Why don’t atheists seek to eliminate racism among atheists, instead of bullying the religious? Past bigotry in atheistic regimes has caused the genocide of millions.
    And why don’t all Christians discuss how early Christian fathers taught that slavery was due to the curse of Ham, and why Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, discuss that they taught "[t]he descendants of Ham… in whom the sensual and corporeal appetites predominate, are driven like an infected race beyond the deserts of Sahara, where under a glowing sky nature harmonized with their brutal and savage disposition." And teaching that Blacks were savages, marked for servitude and not subjects of salvation, and having no souls etc. And the edicts of some mainstream Christians caused the enslavement and genocide of over 100million humans. Mormon leaders said this: "We repudiate efforts to deny to any person his or her inalienable dignity and rights on the abhorrent and tragic theory of the superiority of one race or color over another." (Church Global Media Guide)
    And, even in modern times many Churches have these beliefs (see letter to James Landrith from Bob Jones University, 1998; see Catholic Church present racism, past genocide; Baptists still excluding Blacks etc; Islam occupying Christian Africa and teaching Christians the slave trade, etc.)
    : )) , and Santorum and others have made racist comments while campaigning.
    I think the reasons we don’t bring these things up is that we are rightly embarrassed.
    But, of these, I think LDS scriptures are the only ones that condemn slavery and teach that Ham’s descendants were blessed with wisdom etc.
    FAIR lds says: LDS scripture forbade slavery (Alma
    27:9-10, DC 101:79), but Latter-day Saints (like believers in every age) did not always live up to the light given them. Those who practiced slavery during a historical time in which it was legal will have to answer to God's justice and mercy. Perhaps this is why LDS tend to be even more embarrassed.

    But the anti-Mormon, in bigotry based on religion, tries to stir hatred against Mormons by accusing them of being more bigoted than others. This, even though they used to justify their hatred with statements such as: One of the fist anti-Mormon publications said:
    “As the promulgators of this extraordinary legend maintain
    the natural equality of mankind, without excepting the native Indians or the African race, there is little reason to be surprised at the cruel persecution by which they have

    "The believers in this miserable production, are known
    by the name of "Mormonites," and their book is commonly called "The book of Mormon."…” Among them is a man of color, a chief man…”
    (Tone sound familiar? Same song that you hear on the anti-Mormon websites ("mormons bad!!!") different words : ))
    Joseph Smith had given priesthood to Blacks and Mormons were hated back then because he taught that Blacks were equal to whites, and even superior.
    Trying to stir hatred against Mormons the anti-Mormon must twist statements, and refuse to understand. FAIR lds says this (They)”apparently hope that readers will judge the Church or its members or leaders harshly. This is a dangerous wish, since "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"

  • In reply to Whittlingwhistler:

    **UPDATE (2 April 2012)**

    Watch MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell destroy this sadly confused African-American Mormon apologist's distortions and misbegotten attempts at propaganda!

    *********************More Reply**********************

    You said: "Please don’t inoculate your post from these : ), you wouldn’t want people to only have a one sided view of others would you?"

    Dear Respondent: Again, in an effort to provide a forum for contrarian opinion, I have offered you now a second chance to post and as you can see did so in its entirety. Given that you have again "flamed" my inbox I will not allow this post to become a proselytizing forum (ergo, I will not be posting every reply you send) -- you clearly have enough of those.

    Sadly, you do as has been forecast by cited sources: you deflect the main thesis of the essay (which is about the Republican Party and their double standards) and get bogged down in esoteric discourse which is but an attempt to "rationalize," devoid of historic repudiation specific to the Book of Mormon or any of its historic advocates -- if there are such specific repudiations and redactions contrary to my post's quotations (with said redactions omitted from publicly accessible copies of the book, journals and the like) please forward their links with citations and dates of redress. I am not above mea culpa, or in our vernacular . . . "my bad".

    No, instead you too often attempt to "mainstream" a spiritual belief which I have noted time and again is but ancillary interest to me and when you do admit to questionable historical doctrine or anecdotes you simply try to say, "oh, that was history . . . everyone did it . . . look at those guys". Not good enough, sorry as I am not surveying those guys at present. Sweeping things "under the rug" might work on others -- not here. Plus, and once again, we are talking about a specific man, seeking a specific office, under the banner of a specific Party and how that Party and its operatives operated in 2008 (on the heels of a record turnout and vote tally for Obama). Indeed there is yet another exposure of Republican "modus operandi" -- if you can't beat 'em, suppress the vote! Actually a currently much reported tactic. As I said last time, you need to talk to the Republicans and ask why they made religious beliefs an issue in '08 -- they really "screwed the pooch" didn't they?

    As a "Black man," I would think you have a little more sympathy for the likes of Reverend Wright: a man that fought for his nation then had to fight with it to try to advance "his" people's desire for dignity and respect. I find your criticism of him and his Church somewhat curious. But that is just me. You probably have issues with Malcolm X as well. Again, read Albert Memmi!

    In concluding, I think that readers of this post have enough to chew on and I am sure they can seek out more should they desire; either "pro" or "con".

    All the best . . . sincerely.

  • Interesting comments found on Freerepublic.com (right-wing news consolidation website) in response to "Renounce and Repudiate" [excerpts]:

    "They have left themselves open to The Left re: charges of engaging in open religious hypocrisy if they object to coverage of Romney's Mormonism -- as this blogger claims. From the Book of Mormon citations: 3 Nephi 19:25,30..."...they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness...nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof...they were white, even as Jesus. Sounds like Joseph Smith was very much into extolling whiteness. And this isn't just some "former" teaching; the above citations & more are all still "on the books" as Mormon sacred "scripture"...meaning Mormons can't shove this into yesteryear as something they dealt with in 1978. It's still all on the Mormon theological cookbook which they feed worldwide Mormons & prospective proselyted Mormons EVERY DAY!"

    "This then becomes, in essence, like a "scouting report" as to the ongoing ways the Democrats will have its bloggers scouring and presenting Mormon doctrine. All, without telling one single lie about mormonism. "

    "Yes, I expect Romney will have to answer to having been active in a church that discriminated well into his adulthood—1978, when Mitt was in his 30’s. Also, he’d have to answer for his church not having to this day—as far as I understand—denounced that dozen or so racist statements in their founding book. . . . "

    "Yes, I expect Romney will have to answer to having been active in a church that discriminated well into his adulthood—1978, when Mitt was in his 30’s. Bishop Romney was far more than active in the LDS Church. Bishop Romney was and still is in a Mormon leadership position; served a two year Mormon Church mission; proclaimed and still proclaims Mormon doctrines; gave and still gives large amounts of money to the Mormon Church; and promised and still promises to uphold the Mormon prophet and all their beliefs. As such, he will have far more to answer for than just an average "cult" [sic] member. "

    "Mormonism has been (and in many ways) continues to be JUST as racist as Wright’s church. I still hear older LDS make statements that Black and Indians who truly ‘live the [LDS] gospel’ get lighter. Just last night, a friend who recently left Mormonism told me that his mother was wondering if Blacks had to wait to become ‘white and delightsome’ after the resurrection."

    **Full Disclosure** I am not a Democrat or member of the Democratic Party (personally, too often I find them to be too conservative).

Leave a comment