OFFICIAL FIRST PRESIDENCY STATEMENT:

August 17, 1949
The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is NOT a matter of the declaration of a POLICY but of DIRECT COMMANDMENT FROM THE LORD, on which is FOUNDED THE DOCTRINE of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. 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 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.”
President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”
The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that THE CONDUCT OF SPIRITS IN THE PREMORTAL EXISTENCE has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark
David. O. McKay


"Not Doctrine" What a laugh. Is there anything the cult doesn't lie about??

Wow. Rodolfo. Pretty clear what the "Doctrine" is. Thanks for this.

WOW. Blacks are "handicapped" now? The Church NOW says that the pre-existence thing is not true.

I knew it! That lying SOB Mike Ash told me in an email exchange that the curse of Cain was never "doctrinal." I knew he was blowing smoke up my arse!

For comparison, here is the revised history version now put out by the church taken from the church's news website:

"The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine."

Is this an admission that the First Presidency is not inspired. I am sure the church would just say that God is fickle, and changes his mind from time to time. You know, like he did when he held that members could no longer marry other men's wives.

Because there's just one mormon in my family who really needs to see this particular piece of information.

This will reinforce my statement that should anyone dead-dunk my handicapped sister, or indeed my able-bodied sister, recently passed, they will really find out what shunning feels like. I notice that in the statement 'handicap' is referred to as being some sort of punishment, be it skin colour or other problems.

Very many thanks for posting this Rodolfo. I hope you don't mind my using it today.

Briggy

I've always wondered... If men are judged by their own transgressions as the second article of faith states, then why were black people judged according to what folks did thousands of years ago?

That's easy -- their very spirits weren't valient in the pre-existance. So they're being punished for sins commited prior to receiving their earthly bodies. Um yeah.

If Jesus returned today the church would try and sell him a condo.

The church cares more about it's corporate opperations and a current PR image more than it does about historical accuracy and integrity. I swear half the stuff they taught to us growing up they flat out deny they ever taught.

... they love women as special creatures endowed by heavenly father with a very important task in this dispensation, namely to clean up after their husbands, brothers and sons. Oh, and they love gays and lesbians, as long as they don't get uppity and are content to sit at the back of the bus.

Here is a link to source references. There are tons.

http://www.mormonwiki.org/Racism

Please post these references far and wide. Especially to press representatives. The stupid cult is just lying their asses off on this matter.

Hallelujah. No sweeping under the rug or lying their way out of this one. Though no doubt they will keep trying.

Well Rodolfo, your Mormon wiki link led me to some apologetics (guess I wanted a headache today). These apologists just throw words out there. I'm not seeing much of any actual argument based on anything other than assertion. Here is John Tvedtnes's effort to clear the BoM of its inherent racism. Brace yourself oh reader:

>>
Nephi described how the Lamanites, as a result of their consistent rebellion against God and because of the hardness of their hearts, were cursed by being "cut off from the presence of the Lord" (2 Nephi 5:20). This curse also resulted in the Lamanites being separated from God's people with the departure of Nephi (2 Nephi 5:1—7). In connection with the curse of separation, the Lord is said to have set a mark upon the Lamanites. The purpose of the mark, according to the Book of Mormon, was to distinguish the Lamanites from the Nephites so that the Nephites would not intermarry with them and accept incorrect traditions. After Nephi had led away those who would follow him, he wrote:

And behold, the words of the Lord had been fulfilled unto my brethren, which he spake concerning them, that I should be their ruler and their teacher. Wherefore, I had been their ruler and their teacher, according to the commandments of the Lord, until the time they sought to take away my life. Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence. And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey. (2 Nephi 5:19—24)

A change in skin color would obviously not make the Lamanites "idle" or "full of mischief." These were cultural, not racial, traits. To the Nephites, who followed the law of Moses (Jarom 1:5), the Lamanite practices of "drink[ing] the blood of beasts" (Jarom 1:6) and "feeding upon beasts of prey" (Enos 1:20) would have been abhorrent, being forbidden in the Mosaic code (Leviticus 7:26—27; 11:13—20).

>>

What?! Non sequitur much Mr. Tvedtnes? The curse and the mark are different? So? It must hurt to do so much such self-injury to one's brain and one's scholarly dignity. An argument like this would have no place in a legitimate, real world, fully peer reviewed scholarly journal.

----

Of course, below is the link and the original publication information as well as the statement for plausible deniability:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=508

The Charge of 'Racism' in the Book of Mormon
John A. Tvedtnes
FARMS Review: Volume - 15, Issue - 2, Pages: 183-98
Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2003
The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2012 04:44PM by derrida.

I'm unclear of the date of the Statement for sure and have seen it as Aug. 17 1949 and Aug. 17, 1951. Text is the same in either case.

Makes me laugh that the Church Press Release says much of the folklore surrounding the reasons for the ban is incorrect and yet this official statement manages to employ an number of these items specifically.

What a bunch of liars.

Posted this on my Sammy Blake Facebook page. A number of people chimed in right away on this one.

Here's a link to it from By common consent:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2004/04/21/a-statement-from-the-first-presidency/

Rodolfo, you take the post of the day award for this one. I'm saving this. Thank you.

I really feel bad for professor Bott, he said what he had been taught, had he said it in private he would have been praised, his mistake was he said to an outsider. But you know, it is things like this that make some members think why is this professor being punished for speaking the truth? At least we can hope.

D

"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"

1978 - holy revelation
1989 - Berlin wall comes down

OK I guess this means that if I ever get my testimony back that I'll have to first accept that the Russians weren't really children of God. Hmmmm.