Subject: Mormon Atonement and Blacks
Date: Aug 17 20:11
Author: Deconstructor
Mail Address:

Mormons (at least this prophet) teach that Christ's atonement "payed the debt" for "original sin" but there's a funny little clause attached to this doctrine.

According to Mormon Doctrine, we are not punished for Adam's transgressions, but some are born into this world with other sins they comitted in the pre-existence. These born-sinners get black skin and are born as the decendants of Cain.

"It is one of the most abominable, cruel and unreasonable doctrines that Satan ever introduced into this world to lay at the door of innocent, helpless babies, a sin which they never committed. Jesus Christ paid the debt for "original sin," or the bringing of death into the world. No other soul ever born, or that may yet be born, will be charged with any taint because of Adam's Fall. Jesus Christ came and paid that debt, and the sprinkling or touching the body of a baby with water to cleanse it from original sin, and to condemn it to "limbo," and deny it the mercies of the Lord if it is not so touched or sprinkled, comes close to being an unforgivable sin. Spirits who have received the privilege of coming to this earth had their agency in that spirit world. Some of them failed because of rebellion and were cast out with Lucifer. Others were not valiant and therefore came into this world under some restriction, and the Lord deals with them according to their works."

- Joseph fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Volume 2, Page 178

"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

So yes, in the Mormon world the atonement covers the sins of Adam's fall, but babies are still born black and get treated like inferiors.

Were women "less valient" in the pre-existence and so are denied the priesthood here?

Were gays "less valient" in the pre-existence, so they deserve getting mistreated here?

Were Mormon leaders "more valient" in the pre-existence and so desere our honors and obedience?

Sounds like a Mormon caste system to me.

Subject: Sounds like a hot topic tonight, D
Date: Aug 17 20:29
Mail Address:

Deconstructor wrote:
>There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan.

Oh yeah, the good one. The one they are trying to bury but it keeps bobbing up to the surface of net pages. I got a different version of that verse which was that "negroes" stood by and did nothing. Yet another version of that statement is that the "negroes" fought on Christ's side but were less valiant. I'll tell you one immediate reaction I had though I didn't heed that inner voice for years:

"Cari, this is bulls***-it's not true--they lied to keep blacks from gaining power in the church--they don't like black people--this isn't inspired it's made up--they were pressured to give blacks priesthood...."

And then the voice stopped there. It only lasted a few seconds. I tried not to heed it but it kept nagging and nagging like a bitter housewife. Finally, I couldn't ignore it anymore!


Subject: Even stranger than that
Date: Aug 17 20:43
Author: Matt
Mail Address:

Joseph Smith was giving the priesthood to Black men. Then he was shot and then Brigham Young came along with his own racist baggage and decided that Brother Joseph had been in error to give the Black man the priesthood.

Brigham young set the stage for nigh on 100 years of racism in the Morg.

I wonder. I am guessing -of course- but I think that had he lived Joseph would have abolished polygamy (except for a select few, ie himself!) and would have eventually given women the priesthood. After all, originally Joseph Smith did give Women some form of limited priesthood-style powers, so he was clearly thinking along those lines.

Subject: Brigham Young once said...
Date: Aug 17 21:04
Author: Ray A

he never taught anything that Joseph didn't teach him. Towards the end Smith was having private doubts about polygamy, as William Marks attested.

I believe there is record of only two blacks being ordained to the PH, one was Elijah Abel, and Abel's PH was eventually suspended, in Smith's lifetime. The seeds of the black PH ban were laid by Joseph Smith.

Subject: And Brigham ordained how many in his lifetime?
Date: Aug 17 21:10
Author: Matt
Mail Address:

None. Smith was no Saint (tee hee!) but I think that out of the two Brigham was by far and away the worse of the two.

And althought Brigham Young once said "he never taught anything that Joseph didn't teach him", that does not mean that Brigham was telling the truth. ;o))

Subject: That's because he was theocratic...
Date: Aug 17 21:22
Author: Ray A

and not doctrinally innovative. He was nothing short of a tyrant. Thos who think that BY couldn't have ordered the MMM should read David Bigler's Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West 1847-1896.

While this thread is focussing on 19th century statements and racism, what about now? There have been several Australian GAs already, a few from Britain and more from the rest of Europe, but how many blacks? One. From where? South America. How about a REAL black as a GA, eh? African American. But what would the good white folks in SLC think?

Subject: I think the racist priesthood policy was JS's idea
Date: Aug 17 23:41
Author: Buffalo Bill Shakespeare
Mail Address:

The Book of Abraham talks about Pharaoh being a good man, but being forbidden to hold the priesthood because Egyptians were descendants of Cain. Briggy may have expanded on the idea, but Joe started it.

...Of course, the biblical Joseph married an Egyptian, so I suppose all his descendants (which include, supposedly, the Nephites and JS himself) are "cursed" too.

Subject: You know what I think.....
Date: Aug 17 20:46
Author: Helen
Mail Address:

At the time of Joseph Smith he must have known that he couldn't allow Blacks to be members, it would have been the death of his Church he wanted to start if he permitted Blacks.

He would not have gotten White converts and he needed the White converts, or at least their money. He knew the Blacks didn't have the money. I think Joseph knew exactly what he was doing in this regard.

Ah, he decides to get a revelation, easier to blame it on God, and well, the rest is history.

Just my MOO.

Subject: Blacks and Women lack priesthood for opposite reasons...
Date: Aug 17 20:48
Author: brainbutter
Mail Address:

according to mo doctrine. Women, it is taught, don't need the priesthood because they are naturally need the priesthood to make them more spiritual. But blacks lacked the priesthood because they weren't spiritual ENOUGH! LOL! What a wacky god this elohim is!

Subject: decon...I assume black women weren't allowed to take out
Date: Aug 17 21:24
Author: deltamoon
Mail Address:

their endowments in the temple, but I have never read anything specifically about black women and the limits placed on them by the church.

Do you have anything?



Subject: Correct! Black Women were banned from temple until 1978...
Date: Aug 17 23:41
Author: Deconstructor
Mail Address:

Not only were black men banned from holding the priesthood, but black women were banned from annointing/endowment and sealing ceremonies until 1978.

There's two possible explanations for this:

1. Women do indeed receive the priesthood when they are annointed, endowed and sealed in the temple. This was what was taught and believed by the early church and is consistent with church practice. After the 1978 priesthood announcement, white men were finally allowed a temple wedding with their black brides.

2. The church was just anti-black and its leaders couldn't stand the thought of a black women in the temple, even though it had nothing to do with the priesthood ban.

Either it was tied to the priesthood ban or it wasn't. Either way, it looks bad for the church. If' the answer is #1, then it is consistent with church doctrine but also means all endowed women today have the priesthood (authoirty but no office). If it's #2, then the church is a ugly organization led by racist white men, not God The Eternal Father.

Based on Mormon history, is there another alternative?

Subject: Re: Mormon Atonement and Blacks
Date: Aug 17 22:09
Author: Ray A
Mail Address:

The following link is a defence of the Mormon racist policy.

Well, they don't see themselves as being racist. But look at the statement below. First they condemned the Southern Baptists as being racist too in the 19th century, but the SBC apologised to blacks. Has the LDS church apologised for its racist past? No, because that racism is still entrenched. Don't be fooled by the New Era,, the reality if that this kind of propaganda is ubiquitous. This is the test of whether the racism has subsided. The LDS apologists wrote of the SBC after it apologised to African Americans:

"This has been like a bad shadow hanging over them [SBC] since the 1850's. The must realize many African-Americans will watch the SBC closely in the months to come." "Will African-Americans be appointed to positions of leadership and governing boards? If this is true repentance, we should already see (blacks) rising." Pastor France Davis, of Calvary Baptist Church, agreed with the Rev. Glass on the timing of the SBC resolution and also promised to watch the convention's deeds. "It certainly is a good-faith effort. The proof will be whether repentance means reconciliation," Pastor Davis said. "Lots of people are trying to make a move toward amending with minorities: the pope for the way dealt with Muslims and atrocities during the Nazi era, Lutherans for their anti-Semitism.

Will the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever apologise for its treatment of blacks?

It cannot, because if it did it would be acknowledging that the previous prophets were wrong.

Subject: Mormon Doctrine - a bit of a tangent
Date: Aug 18 01:18
Author: Nightingale
Mail Address:

If I am understanding this correctly, then the Mormon church teaches exactly the same (non-Christian) doctrine as the JWs do about original sin and the atonement.

JWs teach that the sacrifice of Christ covered for Adam's sin only, but that gives the rest of us the opportunity to work towards our own salvation. In effect, humankind was given a second chance because of Jesus' death but his blood doesn't cover all sin for all people, you have to atone also in some way, by works. LDS doctrine and practice on this point seem very similar to me, with everybody working to be worthy, trying to climb as far can possible up the ladder of perfection before Jesus is needed to make up their shortfall.

Accepted mainstream Christian teaching is that sin did, indeed, enter the world because of Adam's sin, we have all inherited the tendency to sin, but fortunately, the blood of Jesus covers all sins for everyone, if they accept that. And nobody has to run around on the hamster wheel til they drop before Jesus' blood has value.

As this is a central Christian teaching and to a believer, a deeply held conviction attached to commitment, emotion and their entire belief system, perhaps it goes a little way towards explaining why they consider some of the Mormon teachings about Jesus to be irreparably blasphemous.

Not to mention, the LDS teachings on this effectively keep people in bondage, on the works treadmill, trying to reach an acceptable level of worthiness.

This doctrine alone accounts for a huge difference between JW/LDS lives and the lives of other believers, whose doctrine teaches that they are saved by grace, therefore, they do good works. It's different for Mormons, who are climbing that ladder by their own good works. A crucial difference.

Also, re lack of valiance (or whatever) in the pre-ex. Again, double whammy of non-Christian doctrine. First, the Christian teaching is that life begins at conception. Second, they teach that human sin began and is perpetuated by Adam's fall and not our own poor performance in another existence. Another reason the Mormon burden is so heavy. The non-Mormon believer gets a lighter load to start with (the sin clock starts ticking only from earthly birth!!) and an easier path to redemption - believe in Jesus, period. The Mormon way leads to bondage to the church. No wonder SusieQ#1 notices a few haggard Mormons around. :(

I know this is a wide tangent, please excuse me. I am interested in this doctrinal point, though. And thanks for the quotes and interesting questions, Decon.

Now we are are to the year 2000

Subject: Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute!
Date: Aug 17 13:08
Author: Timothy

I just re-read an article in the September 2000 Ensign that still burns my fern!

In this article - titled; 'No More Strangers' - Elder Alexander B. Morrison of the Seventy writes:

"How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations. President Spencer W. Kimball stated the Church's position well: "We do wish that there would be no racial prejudice ... Racial prejudice is of the Devil ... There is no place for it in the Gospel of Jesus Christ" ..."

Uh, huh ... It appears that these two honkies are as daft on church history as their faithful congregation.

Bro' Brigham seems to disagree somewhat with Bro' Morrison and Bro' Kimball!

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, and low in their habits ... wild and seemingly deprived of all the blessings of intelligence ... 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 the dark skin ... and the abolitionists cannot help it nor in the least alter that decree!”

Now if that ain't some sorry-ass shit, listen to what bro' McConkie had to say:

“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, and is based on his eternal laws of justice!”

That sorry Mutha' Fu---- ! ... and whassup with this bulls--- from bro' Petersen:

“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 Caddillac if they could afford it - I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life - But let them do these things among themselves!”

You know, I've lived in the South for most of my life and I've seen some pretty ugly things. But I don't think I've seen anything in the way of racial injustice that compares to the Mormon Church.

Kimball's half-hearted TKO of the church's ban on blacks in 1978 was perhaps the worst!

“We have pleaded long and hard in behalf of these our faithful brethren ... he has heard our prayers and, by revelation, has confirmed that the long promised day has come ... Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color!”

Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute there Bro' Kimball ... are you actually taking credit for convincing God to change his mind on the issue???

Perhaps this is why God chose you to be prophet ... would it not be wise to employ a prophet who is willing to point out certain mistakes?

Or do you just make it up as you go along, adapting God's will to meet the demands of an ever changing society?

Well, I suppose its time to re-write church history again. According to bro' Morrison, the church has always stood strongly against racism. I guess that means Kimball's revelation - not Joseph's - constitutes the beginnings of Mormonism. Consequently, the Church was established in 1978, not 1830 ... and all prophets before Kimball simply didn't exist!

That's one way to white-wash the situation ... and it won't be the first time!

This is the Gospel according to Timothy ... Emma, you can turn the spit now ... I think Brigham's done on that side!


Subject: 'Scuse me While I Go . . . (cuss word necessary)
Date: Aug 17 13:16
Author: SL Cabbie
Mail Address:

Clean out the old bullsh*t filter. I'm the guy whose sister married an African in the late 70's, and the whole TBM half of my dad's family boycotted the ceremony. Oh, I know why! It was a Catholic wedding . . .

Subject: Unbelievable
Date: Aug 17 13:34
Author: Nightingale
Mail Address:

I just read LWR's thread on this same topic, with quotes from JFS about "the curse of dark skin". Then I come here and see this jawdropper for the day:

How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations.

President Spencer W. Kimball stated the Church's position well: "We do wish that there would be no racial prejudice ... Racial prejudice is of the Devil ... There is no place for it in the Gospel of Jesus Christ" ..."

Of the Devil, you say? Well, it seems there's plenty of room for it in the restored gospel of the CoJCoLDS, past and present. "Out of their own mouths, they convict themselves."

Another jawdropper:

We have pleaded long and hard in behalf of these our faithful brethren ... he has heard our prayers and, by revelation, has confirmed that the long promised day has come ... Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color!

Let me see, it's God who's racist and his prophets put him straight?

Timothy, thanks for your right-on response:

Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute there Bro' Kimball ... are you actually taking credit for convincing God to change his mind on the issue???

I thought I couldn't be surprised by anything else about this church. As I sit here shaking my head in astonishment and shame at this stuff, I see I was wrong again.

Subject: Don't be too hard on yourself ...
Date: Aug 17 13:59
Author: Timothy

... Remember, you were smart enough to see through Joseph's Myth. According to Church records, there are a few million who still haven't figured it out!

This is the Gospel according to Timothy ... I wonder how Gladys Knight will take the news?


Subject: Beautiful contradiction...
Date: Aug 17 13:57
Author: DeafGuy
Mail Address:

...Yeah, I remember my disgust at reading that original Ensign article pretending that there was never any racism in the church. It was a classic.

Timothy, I'm going to post this on a certain webpage I maintain, just for the fun of it--could you give me the references to this quotes?

Subject: Re: Beautiful contradiction...
Date: Aug 17 14:02
Author: Timothy

Don't have them handy, but if you go to the main page and click on 'Links on Mormonism' you can find them there.

Please send me the address to your site. I'd really like to see it!


Subject: Address...
Date: Aug 17 14:17
Author: DeafGuy
Mail Address:

It's just a single page, not a website, but it used to be the website for a pro-LDS site, and still gets a fair amount of traffic, even after being off-line, then going pro-truth for the last several years:

Subject: Speaking of beautiful contradictions
Date: Aug 17 15:10
Author: Nightingale
Mail Address:

It used to be a pro-LDS site now it's pro-truth!

Ha, I love it when people get shafts in like that!

Good page too, BTW, DeafGuy.

Subject: One quick question, DeafGuy, if it isn't too personal
Date: Aug 18 00:39
Author: Nightingale
Mail Address:

Does displaying this web page make you, in theory, more "apostate" than if you were a quiet exmo?

I'm trying to maintain some church relationships but also want to speak out about some things. If that gets me labelled apostate and destroys the relationships and my credibility with church people (not that I ever had much), I'll pay the price, for some things you can't keep quiet about. Just want to know ahead of time what I'd be getting into.

For instance, I'm trying to help out with the anti-polygamy activism. I don't know where it might go and not sure if it will get me labelled as actively anti-church. I'd still participate in the activism, as it's the right thing to do, but I guess I'm just wanting to know ahead of time what might happen, so I don't get blindsided by it. (In theory, it's not really anti-church, as they disavow polygamy, no?)

Reason I ask: I'm still quite unsure about the church apostasy thing. Last time I left a rigid church (pre-LDS) I ended up getting the big shunning thing happening. It was very unpleasant. Not eager to repeat. Except I guess you do what you have to do.

Subject: Gee, the prophet has spoken, so it must be true.
Date: Aug 17 15:29
Author: Stray Mutt

If the official word from the COB is that the church was never racist, then it wasn't.

Whoosh, the past is gone.

Subject: This is the EXACT reason why I left the church. nt
Date: Aug 17 15:49
Author: Exmorg
Subject: Here's a site with some great racist quotes from LDS
Date: Aug 18 00:45
Author: Cattle Mutilator
Mail Address: