Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 24, 2014 01:25AM

A question for faithful Mormon bigots everywhere: Why doesn’t the Mormon God change the skin color of "de-cursed" dark-skinned Black people to white?

Some ignorantly earnest LDS racists have tried to answer that query but, in the process, have only managed to reinforce the rank reality of their poisonous prejudice. It might actually be be funny if it weren't so awful.

--Why Blacks Don’t Turn White but Indians Do: The White-God Mormon Response

Here's some white supremacist skin-spin from an LDS apologist website:

“[Question]: ‘If the Book of Mormon is true and God is at least consistent (if not unchanging) . . . why don't Lamanites turn white and delightsome within one year after accepting the gospel, as they did in 3 Nephi 2:11-16?’ . . .

“This question is based on [a] fallacious [assumption] about God's consistency and unchanging nature.

“[That assumption is that] . . . [s]ince God removed the ‘skin of blackness’ within one year of the Lamanites' conversion and they became white like unto the Nephites (3 Nephi 2:15), God must likewise turn the skin of modern Lamanites white within one year of their joining the LDS Church. . . . [I]s the critic's [assumption] warranted? No. . . .

“The critic fails to mention that Nephi, prophesying about the latter days and the events to take place among ‘the remnant of his seed,’ says that ‘many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and delightsome people.’ Nephi makes it clear that while God removed the curse of a ‘skin of blackness’ from the repentant Lamanites of 14 A.D., in the latter days, if such a skin color change occurs at all, it might take much longer--possibly generations.” . . .

“The change in skin color . . . from black to white (3 Nephi 2:11-16) are specific incidents. The Book of Mormon says nothing to suggest that for God to be consistent, the specific punishment and blessing that He applied in these two situations must be applied in any other situation.”

(“Question 3: A White and Delightsome People,” by Stanley D. Barker and Malin L. Jacobs, at:

In other words, Mormon apologists want everyone to believe that the Mormon Church is based on eternally-established truth, yet its OK for their Mormon God not to be eternally consistent.

--Playing Racist Favorites: The Mormon God is Glad to Turn the Skin Color of Indians from Brown to White

The tortuous efforts (so typical of Mormon apologists) to defend the racist roots of their bigoted and bogus faith are clearly evident in the teachings of Mormon Church “prophet, seer and revelator” Spencer W. Kimball who, from his own “white-and-delightsome” lips, declared that cursed, dark-skinned people were turning white right before his very eyes. At least the Indians were:

“The work is unfolding, and blinded eyes begin to see, and scattered people begin to gather. I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only 15 years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME people. (2 Ne. 30:6)

“In this mission alone there are 8,400-plus members of the Church. As I visited this area 15 years ago, there were 94. ‘Are they faithful?’ I am asked. And the answer is, ‘Not all of them. They are just about like their WHITE cousins in the stakes of Zion.’ ‘Are they making headway?’ And the answer is, ‘Yes. Perhaps relatively greater headway than we ourselves.’ . . .

“The day of the Lamanites is here! Young WHITE missionaries throughout the Church are happy in the service, glad that they were called to this special mission, some planning to change their college majors when they return from their missions so they can work among the Indians.

“I see a dependent people becoming independent; for example, I see them coming in their pickups to meetings, whereas a decade ago they needed to be picked up by the missionaries, fed, and coddled. Some still must learn, but they are making progress; for instance, a party was arranged by two missionaries—the Indian people to bring the food, the elders to furnish the punch. When they assembled, they had only punch to drink. Later another party was arranged—the Indians to bring the food and the elders to bring the punch. They had both food and drink. They are learning.

“We called for a picture of the Indian elders. 20 of them came,—five full-blood Navajo boys, and 15 who were part Navajo and Apache and Ute and Sioux. One of the Navajo elders whose mother and family lived less than a hundred miles away in the same mission had not asked for leave to go and visit them, and he had served eight months in the mission. One Indian elder said: “The first missionaries planted a tree on the reservation years ago. Now the tree is bearing fruit—Navajo elders. The young tree yielded little fruit, but the aging tree more fruit—more elders.

“There was the Navajo elder who testified of his happiness and said that when in battle—I think it was in Korea—he had dreamed one night that he was with his parents back on the reservation, but he awakened to find himself in mud and water and fire. Now he is in the midst of another dream, a dream so glorious, he said, that he hopes he will never awaken from it.

“These Indian elders are well-groomed, neat, smiling, and equal to their WHITE companions—handsome and sincere—some struggling in the acquisition of the difficult English language, and others coming through the Utah Placement Program speaking perfect English and displaying the best of our own culture. WHITE elders feel fortunate when they are lucky enough to have a Navajo companion.

“I see these Indian youth praying and preaching and administering to the sick, and I remember the statement of the Prophet Joseph: ‘Take Jacob Zundell and Frederick H. Moeser . . . and send them to Germany and when you meet an Arab send him to Arabia; when you find an Italian send him to Italy; and a Frenchman, to France; or an Indian, that is suitable, send him among the Indians. Send them to the different places where they belong.’ (DHC 5:368.)

“At last the Indians ARE SUITABLE. I heard them bear their witness, saw them shed tears of joy, heard them express their affection for loved ones. I saw Indian boys actually coming in to the president to offer their services as missionaries. That couldn’t have happened a decade ago. As we look into the future, surely we shall see thousands of Indian missionaries, for through our various agencies we are now training probably three thousand little Indian boys in our various departments who are growing toward missionary work. Very soon there will be an Indian boy paired off in missionary work with each WHITE boy, and this will happen in the other Lamanite missions, I am sure.”

(“The Day of the Lamanites,” Spencer W. Kimball of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, “Conference Report,” October 1960, pp. 32-37, at:, emphasis added)

We're not done yet:

“In the same October 1960 LDS Church General Conference talk, Kimball declared that ‘[t]he [Indian] children in the home . program in Utah are often LIGHTER THAN THEIR BROTHERS AND SISTERS in the hogans on the reservation.’

“(‘Improvement Era,’ December 1960, pp. 922-23,)”

Moreover, Kimball referred to a 16-year-old Mormon-born Native American girl who, he proudly noted, was "SEVERAL SHADES LIGHTER than her parents. . . . “ He further observed, "These young members of the Church are changing to WHITENESS and to delightsomeness. One WHITE elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.’ (emphasis added)

--No Mention in Officially-Canoized LDS Church Scripture of the Black Skin of Africans Changing into the White Skin of Mormon Believers

Notice that Mormon Church scriptural doctrine refers to the skin color of religiously-righteous Native Americans morphing from brown to white--with virtually no mention made of the skin of LDS-converted African descendants turning from black to white.

For example, the Book of Mormon teaches that, in the case of those among the Nephites cursed with a dark skin by the Mormon God, it took them a mere quarter of a century to get their groovy whiteness back:

“According to 4 Nephi 1:6, 25 years had passed away since Jesus ascended back into heaven, from there to visit all the other lost tribes of the house of Israel. In 4 Nephi 1:10, we learn that all the people of Nephi had become ‘an EXCEEDINGLY FAIAR AND DELIGHTSOME people.’ In other words, they became white-skinned. (See [also] . . . 1 Nephi 13:15, 2 Nephi 5:21 and Mormon 9:6)”

(“LDS Learning,” under “Curse of Dark Skin,” at:, emphasis added)

To be sure, the official doctrine of the Mormon Church, as embedded in the its institutionally-endorsed Book of Mormon, espouses the racist notion that “bad-turned-good” people will see their skin accordingly changed from the color of “bad black” to “good white.”

At least, that's the case for Indians, but not in the case for Africans:

“For much of its history, the Salt Lake City-based LDS Church edition of the Book of Mormon taught that dark-skinned Lamanites (Indians) would eventually experience a change in the color of their skin should they embrace the Book of Mormon. Except for a single edition (1840), 2 Nephi 30:6 has read:

"’ . . . [T]heir scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a WHITE and a delightsome people.’”

The LDS Church has since tried to scrub even that skin-based racist bigotry from the Book of Mormon but still hasn’t managed a clean sweep:

“In 1981, the LDS Church decided to change what Joseph Smith called ‘the most correct of any book on earth’ by reverting to the wording of the lone 1840 edition. The word ‘WHITE’ was replaced with the word ‘pure.’

“Some Mormons insist that this was a clarification since the word was never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would magically turn white based upon a conversion to the Mormon gospel; rather, it is claimed that the change referred to a cleaner state of heart. This assumption fails to explain (or counter) other passages in the Book of Mormon that still make a connection with ‘iniquity’ and skin color. For example, 2 Nephi 5:21 still says:

"’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, and 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.’

“’3 Nephi 2:12-15 continues to teach that dark-skinned Lamanites who converted unto the Lord had their curse ‘taken from them, and their SKIN BECAME WHITE like unto the Nephites.’

“’That the context refers to skin color is verified by a number of LDS leaders including Joseph Smith. Mormon author George D. Smith notes that Joseph Smith was given a revelation which foretold of a day when intermarriage with the Lamanites would produce a white and delightsome posterity. George Smith wrote:

"’This unpublished 17 July 1831 revelation was described three decades later in an 1861 letter from W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young quoting Joseph Smith: `It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity, may become WHITE, delightsome and just.' In the 8 December 1831 Ohio Star, Ezra Booth wrote of a revelation directing Mormon elders to marry with the “natives',”’

“(‘Sunstone,’ November 1993, footnote #5, p. 52)

“Second LDS President Brigham Young stated in 1859 that Lamanite skin color was related to transgression:

"’You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the ABORIGINES OF THIS COUTNRY ARE DARK, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation. . . . When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a WHITE and delightsome people"

“(‘Journal of Discourses,” vol. 7, p. 336) . . .

“Elder Eugene J. Neff [in a 1927 LDS General Conference sermon referring to Hawaiian members of the Mormon Church] . . . stated:

"’The first missionaries went from this section around to another little town on the east side of the island, and there they gathered in a grass hut one hundred people to hear the message of these strange white men, As they all sat around the mat and heard the voice of this missionary from Utah, they were transfigured before George Q. Cannon, and HE SAW 97 OF THEM WHITE AND THREE OF THE REMAINED DARK. He did not understand. He did not know why it was that three of them would remain dark and all the rest should become light. He received a partial answer to this manifestation when it was learned that ninety-seven of those people in meeting at this time joined the Church, became devout members, lived and died Latter-day Saints, while three of them never did. It is said that they will become a WHITE and delightsome people. They are delightsome at present, and I BELIEVE THEY ARE GOING TO BECOME WHITE. THEY ARE GROWING WHITER FROM YEAR TO YEAR. I have said to myself and to some of my intimate friends that I thought the Hawaiian people would become WHITE and delightsome, through intermarriage. I do not know whether that is according to the doctrines of the Church or not, but they have married the oriental races and married white people on the islands to such an extent that today there are more half casts than there are pure Hawaiians.’

“(‘Conference Report,’ April 1927, p. 49)

“LDS writer George Edward Clark gives a similar account in his book titled, ‘Why I Believe.’ On p. 129 he wrote:

"’The writer has been privileged to sit at table with several members of the Catawba tribe of Indians, whose reservation is near the north border of South Carolina. That tribe, or most of its people, are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). Those Indians, at least as many as I have observed, were WHITE and delightsome, as WHITE AND FAIR as any group of citizens of our country. I know of no prophecy, ancient or modern, that has had a more literal fulfillment.’

“It has also been taught in Mormonism that opposite repercussions could result when a white person abandons their Mormon faith. For instance, the ‘Juvenile Instructor’ (vol. 26, p. 635) reads:

"’From this it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was A SKIN OF BLACKNESS, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, 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 extend as to excite the comments of all who have known them.’

“In 1857, Brigham Young declared that apostates would ‘become gray-haired, wrinkled, and BLACK, just like the Devil.’

“(‘Journal of Discourses,’ vol. 5, p. 332, emphasis added)
“To say 2 Nephi 30:6 was altered merely for clarification, and had nothing to do with skin color, is certainly not supported by comments from past LDS leaders, or from current readings in the Book of Mormon.”

(“White and Delightsome or Pure and Delightsome?: A Look at 2 Nephi 30:6,” by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, at:, emphasis added)

--Why No Mormon Church Doctrine of Blacks Turning White?

It appears that, according to a long history of racist LDS Church doctrine and practice, the Mormon God has cut Native Americans who join the Mormon flock a sin-skin break by turning the righteous among them white--but has not bestowed the same bigoted “blessing” of a colorized make-over upon Blacks who also join the Mormon folk. In reality, the Mormon Church does not teach that Blacks will become “white-and-delightsomely”-skinned; only that they will become “pure and delightsome” (again, according to that singular word change in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon, found in 2 Nephi 30:6).

Thus, this still leaves the supposedly “de-cursed” Blacks sinly-saddled with their “cursed” black skin:

“. . . [I]t appears that the curse of Cain still remains on the Negro race even though the Mormon Church extended the Priesthood to them in 1978. According to the published declaration, there is no mention of the curse being removed-- for their skin is still dark.”

(“LDS Learning,” under “Curse of Dark Skin,” at:

The deeply-rooted anti-Black bigotry of the Mormon Church courses so deeply in its veins that, even to this day, Mormonism still officially applies a different standard to those of black-African descent than it does to Native Americans.

Granted, early Mormons believed that both Blacks and Native Americans who came to the Mormon Jesus would get their skin changed to righteous white in LDS heaven:

“Although the LDS Church allowed people of various races to join, there was an underlying belief in the superiority of the white race. Indians and Blacks were seen as ‘cursed’ by God with a dark skin, but given the hope that in the hereafter they could become white.”

(“Curse of Cain?: Racism in the Mormon Church, Part One,” by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, [Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 2004], at:

Indeed, it has been acknowledged that although “[i]t's not a popular belief in Mormonism anymore, . . . many of them [Mormons] used to believe that Blacks and Indians would become ‘white and delightsome’ after they converted to Mormonism.”

(“Why Do Some Mormons Believe That If You Have Dark Skin and Convert to Mormonism, Your Skin Will Turn White?,” at:

But, in the end, in the skin, and in the perverse and twisted realm of perpetual Mormon racism, the LDS Church teaches that brown-skinned Native Americans who join its ranks can become white-skinned. Too bad, however, for black-skinned people who also join up. There is no official LDS option for the latter to remain other than their “bad-person” black color.

Now, time for an Earth-to-Kolob reality check on the actual, scientific reasons for differences in human skin color.

--It’s Melanins, not Sins, that Account for the Color of Human Skin

In other words, the skin color of human beings is based not on religious attitude but, instead, on geographical latitude:

“Human beings come in a glorious spectrum of different colors: light, dark, plain or freckly skin . . . .

“Melanins compose a class of compounds that serve predominantly as a pigment. These pigments are derivatives of the amino acid tyrosine. There are at least three types of naturally occurring melanins: eumelanin, pheomelanin and neuromelanin. Both the chemical composition and the physical properties differ for the various types of melanin, suggesting that their chemical and biological responses may behave differently when exposed to light. . . .

“Melanins seem to be heterogeneous, with some small regions of order at the nanometer scale. The optical properties we can see depend on the ability of monomers and oligomers (made up of small numbers of monomers) that make up melanin to absorb light, and the ability of melanin particles to reflect and scatter incident light for different wavelengths. Melanins seem to have some semiconductor properties, and none of the proposed band models adequately account for this.

“Eumelanin and pheomelanin play key roles in eye, hair, and skin color. . . .

“[As to its relation to skin color], [m]elanin reduces ultraviolet induced DNA damage by absorbing or scattering the ultraviolet radiation that otherwise would have been absorbed by the DNA. This prevents the development of melanoma, a potentially deadly form of skin cancer, as well as other health problems related to exposure to strong solar radiation. The amount of UV radiation that is absorbed or scattered is determined by a number of factors: the size, shape, and distribution of melanosomes, as well as the wavelength of the incident ray.

“Skin color depends upon the size, number, shape, and distribution of melanosomes, as well as the chemical nature (level of activity) of their melanin content. There are 6 different skin types that are defined by dermatologists. . . .

“ Type 1: Always burns, never tans. Very fair skin with red or blond hair and freckles.

"Type 2: Burns easily, tans minimally. Fair skin.

"Type 3: Sometimes burns, gradually tans.

"Type 4: Minimum burning, always tans. White, with medium pigmentation.

"Type 5: Seldom burns, always tans. Medium to heavy pigmentation.

"Type 6: Never burns, but tans very darkly. African Americans, Africans, or dark-skinned individuals with heavy pigmentation. . . .

“The darkest skin tones are found in tropical latitudes with open grassland, while areas further from the equator that are forested tend to favor lighter skin tones.

“There is a striking correlation between geographic conditions, particularly exposure to sunlight, and skin tone. These differences have evolved to find the balance between the benefits and the dangers of the ultraviolet (UV) radiation we absorb from the sun.

“Early humankind living in the sun-soaked savannah plains of Africa developed a dark-toned skin, rich in the pigment melanin. Within the skin cells, melanin concentrates above the nucleus, shielding the vital DNA from radiation damage. In an environment where there is little to break the path of sunlight onto the skin, this barrier is a great advantage.

“There are other benefits to having a high concentration of melanin in the skin and other parts of the body. Melanin boosts the immune system, and darker-skinned groups have been shown to have a lower incidence of a number of serious diseases, including Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, and spina bifida. Darker-skinned individuals also age better, as their skin is better protected from sun damage.”

(“Causes of Color: The Color of Our Eyes, Hair and Skin," at:


Time, indeed, for Mormons to get out of their racist black-and-white world and on to the planet of human diversity.

Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2014 02:10AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: January 24, 2014 09:45AM

A friend of mine was on a mission in Virginia shortly before the
"revelation" on Blacks and the priesthood.

He and his companion had tracted out a Black man. His companion
gleefully told the man that he would be white when he was
resurrected. His companion was puzzled that the man wasn't
happy to hear that bit of "news."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2014 09:46AM by baura.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Argonaut ( )
Date: January 24, 2014 12:05PM

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.


2 Nephi 5:21 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.

So I guess Nephi, Mormon, and also Pogp Moses and Abraham are hereby condemned for advancing theories in the past?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anonough ( )
Date: January 24, 2014 12:18PM

And lets not lose sight of the fact that the god of the book of Mormon himself, in all of his omniscient splendor, created(within the BOM) the very racism the church is now disavowing.

If they are going to throw BY under the bus for his past bigoted railings, they may as well throw the progenitor of that racist dynamic under the bus as well.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: cynthus ( )
Date: January 24, 2014 12:36PM

I did learn from the parental units that black skin was the mark of Cain and then I learned about melanin in science classes. I think the "mark of cain" theory has been disproved by the DNA migration pattern because if we go back far enough we all have ancestors from Africa-- or maybe all of us have the mark of cain. *snort

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elbert ( )
Date: January 24, 2014 12:38PM

The explanation about the 'critics' demand for god to be consistent: does the church acknowledge such explanation or are they saying "this is not official" policy--as usual, letting the underling do the dirty work while staying aloof?0

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: donbagley ( )
Date: January 24, 2014 09:46PM

If Cupid's bow had Steve Benson's precision, the whole world would be in love.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: moose ( )
Date: September 16, 2014 03:55PM

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: madalice ( )
Date: January 24, 2014 10:00PM

I remember the talk given about the indian kids turning white. My thought was, of course they are! Anyone who used to spend all of their time working and playing out in the sun will turn lighter when held hostage in the church several hours a day!

At that time I was spending time at church every single day. Seminary, mutual, dances, 3hrs on Sunday, sometimes more. I couldn't have gotten a tan if I wanted one! I was always in that stinking building.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2014 10:00PM by madalice.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Heartless ( )
Date: September 16, 2014 08:17PM

I agree.

My wife was deeply tanned to a nice bronze from her many years of being the the tropical sun of Brazil.

Once we came to the states and she encountered winter, she became lighter and lighter.

I have seen this many times over the years.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Peter Selby ( )
Date: September 16, 2014 07:18PM

Thanks Steve!!

You point out that dark skin is indeed protection from the sun drenched savannah, not a curse.

It also proves evolution: a direct contradiction to Mormon doctrine.

Just think how all breeds of humanity are adapted to their environments and how those adaptations disprove the horrid doctrine of the Curse of Cain!

Consider how Brigham Young's list of Cain's curses are merely adaptations to the African savannah

- Dark skin: protection from the sun

- Wide nose: won't heat up the warm air and overheat the body

- Poor intelligence: Africa is not a cognitively demanding environment and a large brain is metabolically costly

- Low habits: neither social cooperation nor attendant fathers nor future-oriented thinking are necessary in Africa hence the inhabitants never evolved morality, family structures, or self-restraint

It's just beautiful!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Susan I/S ( )
Date: September 16, 2014 08:26PM

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 01:20AM

. . . simply underscores the blatant racism in the long-time, historical and official doctrines, practices and mindset of the Mormon Cult. Congrats on superbly pointing that out (whether you realized it or not).

Now, be an obedient little White supremacist and come up with another board name to hide your racist rants.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2014 01:22AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Peter Selby ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 01:39AM

You misunderstand. There is no bigotry involved. Nor am I a Mormon, so saying that my post underscores Mormon racism makes no sense.

See you pointed out, correctly, that dark skin, one of Brigham's curse of Cain traits, is not a curse, but protection based on adaptations to an environment. I took the rest of Brigham's curse of Cain traits and pointed out that they're not a curse either, just other adaptations to the African clime.

We're right on the same page here Steve. Calling my comments prejudiced is ridiculous because I didn't say anything not as well established as the reasons for dark skin.

Here is a book you should read-- it's by a New York Times author who agrees with us

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 01:54AM

I didn't say that you were a Mormon but your comments critical of, for example, Black intelligence and brain size (with your explanation being that the African environment is not conducive to the development of either) do, in fact, underscore the racist elements of Mormon Church doctrine, practice and history (again, whether you realize it or not).

May I recommend a book for you: Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man."

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2014 02:10AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Peter Selby ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 02:11AM

Already read it. BTW, it's the "Mismeasure", not "Mismeasurement".

The Brethren lie for the Lord, but Gould lied for ideology.

In the embarrassingly dishonest "Mismeasure of Man" Gould launches an attack on the idea of measuring intelligence and lies about scientists lying. Basically what one would expect of someone whose only scientific achievements was to give fancy names to already known phenomena -- such as 'punctuated equalibrium -- and get scientific illiterates to swoon over it. He wasn't respected in academia.

Link below to Gould lying about science in the book. He even attacks IQ, the most predictive metric for just about anything in life, saying that it has no value-- yet another lie.

In the end, we're still on the same page Steve. Dark skin is not a supernatural curse, but an adaptation. Neither are Brigham's other curse of Cain traits a supernatural curse, just adaptations. They prove evolution and disprove TSSC.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 02:31AM

I have read Gould's book, as well, and have it in my personal library. That aside, leave it to me to point out to you what you subsequently left out from your initial reply to me: namely, your claims of low Black intelligence and small Black brain size. Skin color is a natural adaptation to the environment, to be sure. Your notions, however, that Blacks are less intelligent and lower brain-sized than Whites is straight out of the White Supremacist playbook.

My grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson, was president of the Mormon Church, and I found an especially vile and racist book in his personal library (among others, including one promoting White Southern segregation). It was titled, “Race and Reason: A Yankee View,” was authored by Carleton Putnam and was published in 1961 by Public Affairs Press in Washington, D.C. The book’s title was set in bold, black, capital letters against an orange and white background depicting shattering glass. My grandfather’s handwritten signature adorned its front cover, which was somewhat unusual. I had many of his personally-owned books and normally he would sign and/or stamp them on the inside. From the nature of the signature, I could tell that he was proud to have owned this particular book. He not only signed his name to it, he lavished his signature--“E.T. Benson”--upon its cover, above the title, in the upper right-hand corner, in a large, bold, looping writing style--where it could not be missed.

On its back cover were the following endorsements:

“A blockbuster . . . [A] book that ought to be read by every thinking American, North and South. It may be the opening gun in a literacy counterattack against ideas of race that have influenced the thinking of Supreme Court justices, Presidents, preachers and writers.”

“[This book is what] the South most needs now for its case . . . [It] is a ‘categorical imperative’ for Southerners . . . who know [the light’s] fullness will depend henceforth on their own intelligence, literacy, authority and self-control.”

“We predict that this book will be on the tongues of all informed Mississippians in the days ahead.”

“Incisive, authoritative, effective . . . Mr. Putnam has put all serious and objective students of the race problem in his debt.”

Really?, I thought. I did a quick internet search on the book’s author and title. Not surprisingly, it came up on a White supremacist website, along with several other like-minded works, accompanied by short explanatory texts:

--”Who Brought The Slaves to America?”

”The Jews did! And did they get upset when the Black Muslims incorporated this into their teachings. Shatters myth of ‘White guilt.’ Paperback. 30 pages. 14 illustrations.”

--”White Man, Think Again!”

”A. Jacob. The White man must rule or perish. Paperback. 348 pages”

--”Tracing Our White Ancestors”

”Frederick Haberman. Answers many questions. 185 pages.”

Links offered to other subjects included:

--“Adolf Hitler”

--“National-Socialism Leaders”

--“The Holohoax”

Then, at the bottom of the web page, was Putnam’s book from my grandfather’s library, “Race & Reason: A Yankee View,” with the teaser:

”Explains in-depth racial differences and the dangers of race-mixing. A must for all serious students. Paperback. 120 pages.”

Researching further, I discovered that Putnam’s book is part of an array of White supremacist literature housed at the University of Southern Mississippi under the title of “Citizen’s Council/Civil Rights Collection.”

The same collection also contains autographed photographs of one of my grandfather’s political mentors: George Wallace.


Digging deeper, I found that Putnam’s “Race and Reason: A Yankee View” is listed among “Selected Right-Wing Apocalyptic, Conspiracist, Populist and Racist Texts.” That list also includes Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kamp,” and two John Birch works: Alan Stang’s, “It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights and Birch Founder Robert Welch’s The New Americanism.”

(“The Public Eye,” sponsored by Political Research Associates, 1310 Broadway St., #201, Somerville, Massachusetts, 02144-1731)

I also learned that my grandfather’s personal copy of Putnam’s book was offered as recommended reading by none other than the “American Fuehrer” of the American Nazi Party, George Lincoln Rockwell, as a guide, he said, for ferreting out “left-wing Jews . . . [who are] . . . deliberately poisoning the minds of two generations of American students at many of our largest universities.”

(George Lincoln Rockwell, “From Ivory Tower to Privy Wall: On the Art of Propaganda,” circa 1966)

Most unsavory of all were excerpts from the book itself--a book, keep in mind, that was part of the personal reading material of a supposed “prophet, seer and revelator.”
Examples of its racist filth abound:

“[F]rom the horrors of Reconstruction through the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision . . . the North has been trying to force the black man down the white Southerner’s throat . . . “ (p. 9)

“[The Negro] may force his way into white schools, but he will not force his way into white hearts nor earn the respect he seeks. What evolution was slowly and wisely achieving, revolution has now arrested, and the trail of bitterness will lead far.” (p. 9)

“The essential question in this whole controversy is whether the Negro, given every conceivable help regardless of cost to the whites, is capable of full adaptation to our white civilization within a matter of a few generations, or whether the record indicates that such adaptation cannot be expected save in terms of many hundreds, if not thousands of years, and that complete integration of these races, especially in the heavy black belts of the South, can result only in a parasitic deterioration of white culture, with or without genocide. . . . The sin of Cain would pale by comparison.” (p. 27)

“There is no basis in sound science for the assumption, promoted by various minority groups in recent decades, that all races are biologically equal in their capacity to advance, or even to sustain, what is commonly called Western civilization . . .

“[W]hat great civilization of the kind we are seeking to develop in the West ever arose AFTER an admixture of Negro genes?. . [T]he question answers itself . . .” (pp. 36-37, original emphasis)

“The ratio of non-whites to whites in the United States as a whole . . . [is] about 10%. If completely absorbed, this would be a substantial admixture, with noticeable effects. More serious is the fact that a large part of the Negro population is concentrated in the South. Absorption in any of these states would be disastrous.” (p. 37)

“When white men marry Negro women in any numbers the trend is toward a gradual change in social attitudes of acceptance, and a slow infiltration of the dominant white society by the offspring, with the consequent changing of the standards of that society, as evidenced in various Latin American countries.” (p. 37)

“. . . [A] thorough study of Negro-white intelligence tests DOES reveal conclusive mathematical proof of the Negro’s limitations . . . .

“[T]here is not question that the frontal lobes of the typical Negro are smaller and the cerebral cortex less wrinkled than the typical white’s.” (p. 41, emphasis in original)

“When the chart of the Caucasoid race as a whole is laid besides the chart of the Negro race as a whole, in those attributes involved in our type of civilization, the Caucasoid will be found superior at each level except perhaps the lowest . . .” (p. 42)

“I am advocating a doctrine of white leadership, based on proved achievement . . . As far as the Negro race is concerned, if it is interested in such cultural elements as our white civilization has to offer, it should realize that to destroy or to debilitate the white race would be to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. It is a temptation as old as the human species, and always ends with a dead goose and no eggs.” (p. 55)

“. . . [O]ne thing is sure: crossing a superior with an inferior breed can only pull the superior down.” (p. 59)

“Almost all the great statesmen of our nation’s past have foreseen the danger of the Negro among us and have sought to remove it, even to the point of transplanting the race to Africa. The idea of making the Negro the social equal of the white man never entered their heads. Among those besides Jefferson and Lincoln who favored removal to Africa may be mentioned Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, and Henry Clay. The modern segregationist is in good company.” (p. 62)

“It may be too late to return the American Negro to his biological and spiritual home, but it may not be too late to redeem in America the heritage of the white race.” (p. 69)

“The Communists have made the integration movement a part of their conspiracy . . .” (p. 73)

“The white man who preaches to backward races a doctrine of equality not only demeans himself and his own race, but forfeits his opportunity to be of real service.” (p.76)

“Let us not suppose for a moment that the average African Negro is about to understand our ideals, or to fight or sacrifice or die for the principle of liberty. All he wants . . . is a greater and greater share of what white men have created, regardless of his ability either to protect, manage or pay for it.” (p. 80)

“The fact that it is wrong to bully, humiliate or exploit a Negro, does not make it right to integrate him.” (p. 91)

“. . . [T]he self-control and judgment . . . of the rank and file, including their willingness to contribute to, rather than drain, the common treasury, are the qualities which produce a stable, free civilization. These were the qualities which built the great Western democracies. There are few signs of them in Africa.” (p. 93)

“The greatest of all human rights is the right of a race to protect itself against genocide, and its culture against deterioration.” (p. 94)

“For the North to force him[ the Negro] on the white South is as blunt an act of hostility—of hate, if you prefer the word—as can be imagined. It has already damaged the Negro, indeed, it is damaging the whole country. The spirit of those back of the integration movement is not love.” (p. 96)

“To suppose that [the development of the Negro race] has reached the point where an infusion of color in government amounting to policy control, or to a balance of power, is an acceptable or healthy thing for a previously white society [is] absurd on its face . . . The inclination of Negroes in the mass to be primarily interested in spending rather than conserving their own or other people’s money, is but one of many aspects to this problem.” (pp. 98-99)

“Equalitarianism spells stagnation and mediocrity for both [the individual or of society] . . . [I]t is of the very essence of this ideology to build the inferior up by pulling the superior down, and the result is invariably the same. The inferior, in gaining what has not been earned, has lost the spur, and the superior, in losing what was well deserved, has lost the crown.” (p.103)

“Can you name one case in all history in which whites and Negroes in large numbers have lived together without segregation and have failed to intermarry? Can you name one case in all history in which a white civilization filed to deteriorate after intermarrying with Negroes? Can you name one case in all history of a stable, free civilization that was predominately, or even substantially, Negro?” (p. 105)


No, Pete, we are NOT on the same page, but I am quite sure you and the Mormon "Brethren" (as you refer to them) would find a comfortable place on the pages quoted above.

Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2014 10:04AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 02:31AM

Below is an example of deeply-embedded racist doctrines of the LDS Church, as taught from its earliest days. LDS General Authority B. H. Roberts included the following quotation from William Benjamin Smith's "The Color Line" in Roberts' LDS Church-approved priesthood manual, "First Year Book in the Seventy's Course in Theology" (1931, pp. 231-33). I/m sure you will enjoy it:

"If we sit with [N]egroes at our tables, if we entertain them as our guests and social equals, if we disregard the color line in all other relations, is it possible to maintain it fixedly in the sexual relation, in the marriage of our sons and daughters, in the PROPAGATION OF OUR SPECIES? Unquestionably, No!

" . . . [O]nce the middle wall of social partition [is] broken down, the mingling of tides of life would begin instantly and proceed steadily. . . . As a race, the Southern CAUCASIAN WOULD BE IRREVERSIBLY DOOMED. For no possible check could be given to this process once established. . . .

"The moment the bar of ABSOLUTE SEPARATION is thrown down in the south, that moment the bloom of her spirit is BLIGHTED FOREVER, the promise of her destiny is annulled, the proud fabric of her future slips into dust and ashes. No other conceivable disaster that might befall the south could, for an instant, compare with such miscegenation within her borders. Flood and fire, fever and famine and the sword - even ignorance, indolence, and carpet-baggery--she may endure and conquer WHILE HER BLOOD REMAINS PURE; but once TAINT THE WELL-SPRING OF HER LIFE, AND ALL IS LOST--EVEN HONOR ITSELF."

("Blacks and the Priesthood in the Mormon Church," in "The Truth: A Christian Perspective On Mormonism--Mormon White Supremacy," Vol. 2, No. 6, June 1997, at: , emphasis added)

Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2014 02:45AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Peter Selby ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 02:47AM

What do you mean "Nice try."? What do you think I was trying your Highness?

Now you accuse me of being a Nazi. Ad hominem for the win? Nice.

You're decades behind in your knowledge of human biodiversity.

Humans are not immune to evolution. How do you suppose that all traits, save melanin quotient, remained the same after tens of thousands of years between populations separated by continents?

Do you know that Ashkenazim have the highest IQ of any population? Hardly a White Supremacist viewpoint.

Do you know that Blacks are stricken with sickle-cell anemia more than any other group? Evolution?

Do you know that Amerinds have poor insulin sensitivity and that it accounts for the epidemic of diabetes among Hispanics?

You know that dark skin protects from the sun. You're just too self-righteous to acknowledge that the other curse of Cain traits noted by Brigham are likewise merely adaptations to an environment.

We're on the same page: what TSSC attributed to fence-sitting in a pre-existence is just a healthy, environmental adaptation.

BTW, thanks for bumpin the thread. Really appreciate it!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 02:58AM

You've been outted as a bigot, Pete. The racist Mormon Cult would be quite proud of you. Your blatant prejudice is readily and proudly paraded here (by you, of course) and, truth be told, is quite in line with the pattern of race hate evidenced in the traditional teachings of Mormon prophets. Please apply for baptism into the "rank" ranks of the LDS. It is the kind of white-and-delightsome crowd you are clearly seeking as soul mates.

Meanwhile . . .


And thanks for bumping your head against this thread. Much appreciated!

Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2014 03:32AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 03:22AM

I'm sure you've heard of James D. Watson (co-discoverer of the DNA helix), who wrote the following in his book, "Avoid Boring People: Lessons From a Life in Science":

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically," he writes. "Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." Back on 2007, Watson, then-79, in an interview with the London "Sunday Times," lamented that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa," claiming that "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours--whereas all the testing says not really."

Watson should stick to his DNA helixes and stay away from his racist hooey:

"Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University in Britain, was quick to dismiss Watson's comments.

"'This is Watson at his most scandalous,' Rose told the "Times of London." 'If he knew the literature in the subject, he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically.'

Woo-woo Watson is the same guy who, 14 years ago, claimed in a lecture at the University of California (Berkley) that one's sex drive is related to sun exposure. As reported by the "San Francisco Chronicle," Watson explained, "That's why you have Latin lovers. You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

Even conservative-leaning FOX News reports that, according to mainstream science, Watson is, well, wacked out:

"Most sociologists, geneticists and psychologists reject the notion of racial differences in intelligence, pointing out that economic and social factors clearly influence IQ test scores."

( )

Back to the back of the class, Pete, where you belong.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2014 03:27AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 04:07AM

. . . Whitey Makes Righty, do yourself a favor and read the following:

"Defending Stephen Jay Gould’s Crusade against Biological Determinism"
by John Horgan,
published in "Scientific American"
24 June 2011

( )

"I used to be tough on Stephen Jay Gould, the great evolutionary biologist, who died in 2002. I found him self-righteous and pompous, in person and on the page. In an August 1995 profile of him for 'Scientific American' I summed up his worldview, which emphasizes the role of randomness, or 'contingency,' in shaping life, as 'sh*t happens.'

"But I admired Gould’s ferocious opposition to biological determinism, which he defined as the view that 'the social and economic differences between different groups—primarily races, classes and sexes—arise from inherited, inborn distinctions and that society, in this sense, is an accurate reflection of biology.' I loathe biological determinism, too, and so I must defend Gould against charges that he was a fact-fudging 'charlatan,' as the anthropologist Ralph Holloway of Columbia University put it.

"Holloway’s slur is based on a critique by him and five other anthropologists of Gould’s famous 1981 work, 'The Mismeasure of Man' (W. W. Norton & Co., 1981), in which Gould exposed case after appalling case of scientists in the past two centuries 'proving' the biological inferiority of certain races as well as criminals, the poor, 'imbeciles' and women. One chapter focused on the work of a 19th-century physician, Samuel George Morton, who amassed a collection of almost 1,000 skulls from around the world. Morton estimated the brain size of different racial groups by pouring seed and lead shot into the skulls. He concluded that Whites have larger brains on average than Blacks, confirming his suspicion that the races did not do not share a common ancestry but stemmed from different evolutionary roots.

"Defenders of slavery embraced Morton’s work. After he died, an editorial in the 'Charleston Medical Journal and Review' declared, 'We in the South should consider him our benefactor, for aiding most materially in giving to the Negro his true position as an inferior race.' In 'Mismeasure,' Gould reanalyzed Morton’s skull measurements and concluded that the average sizes of Blacks’ and Whites’ skulls were roughly equivalent. Gould suggested that Morton’s racial bias had led him, probably unwittingly, to 'discover' results consonant with his beliefs.

"In 'The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias,' published June 7 in 'PLoS Biology,' Holloway and five colleagues from other institutions stated that Gould’s own analysis of Morton 'is likely the stronger example of a bias influencing results.' The group reported that its re-measurements of the skulls in Morton’s collection support Morton’s conclusions more than Gould’s.

"Commenting on Gould’s claim that bias often influences science, an unsigned editorial in the 'New York Times' snidely remarked, 'Right now it looks as though he proved his point, just not as he intended.' The anthropologist and blogger John Hawks claims that the 'straightforward' analysis of Holloway et al. shows that Gould clearly engaged in 'utter fabulation.' Hawks added, 'Some of Gould’s mistakes are outrageous, with others it is hard for me to believe that the misstatements were not deliberate misrepresentations.'

"Some caveats are in order here. First of all, Holloway and his colleagues analyzed fewer than half of the skulls in Morton’s collection. Second, their analysis, far from being 'straightforward,' was highly technical and based on many judgment calls, as were those of Gould and Morton. The divergent results depend in part on whether to include or exclude certain skulls that could unduly skew estimates of brain sizes. Third, neither Morton nor Holloway et al. corrected their measurements for age, gender or stature, all of which are correlated with brain size.

"Finally, at least one of the 'PLoS authors,' Holloway, is obviously biased against Gould. The 'Times' quoted Holloway saying: 'I just didn’t trust Gould. I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme.' Holloway faulted Gould because he 'never even bothered to mention" a 1988 paper by John S. Michael that found Morton’s conclusions to be 'reasonably accurate.' But Holloway and his co-authors stated that the paper by Michael, written when he was an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania, 'has multiple significant flaws rendering it uninformative.'

"Maybe Gould was wrong that Morton misrepresented his data, but he was absolutely right that biological determinism was and continues to be a dangerous pseudoscientific ideology. Biological determinism is thriving today: I see it in the assertion of researchers such as the anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard University that the roots of human warfare reach back all the way to our common ancestry with chimpanzees. In the claim of scientists such as Rose McDermott of Brown University that certain people are especially susceptible to violent aggression because they carry a 'warrior gene.' In the enthusiasm of some science journalists for the warrior gene and other flimsy linkages of genes to human traits. In the insistence of the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne and neuro-scientist Sam Harris that free will is an illusion because our 'choices' are actually all pre-determined by neural processes taking place below the level of our awareness. In the contention of James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix, that the problems of sub-Saharan Africa reflect Blacks’ innate inferiority. In the excoriation of many modern researchers of courageous anti-determinists such as Gould and Margaret Mead.

"Biological determinism is a blight on science. It implies that the way things are is the way they must be. We have less choice in how we live our lives than we think we do. This position is wrong, both empirically and morally. If you doubt me on this point, read 'Mismeasure,' which, even discounting the chapter on Morton, abounds in evidence of how science can become an instrument of malignant ideologies."

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2014 07:15AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Peter Selby ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 08:36AM


I'm sure it's a cool story, but could you bless us the Reader's Digest version? It's easy, just respond to the post instead of hitting Lex Nex for copy n' paste material.

BTW, you didn't answer my question about what I was "trying". Nevermind, you didn't answer anything. Ignoring what people write and responding with thesis length Red Herrings is your forte: much like Stephen J. Gould, the notorious charlatan who lied and falsified data to suit his pre-conclusions.

Now James Watson, one of the world's eminent scientists and the discoverer of DNA, is unfit to express an opinion about how DNA manifests? Strange that a great scientist is unable to do science.

Think about buying "A Troublesome Inheritance". It's light years ahead of Gould's lying nonsense.

Do you always get away with lying about and insulting people here? You must have friends in high places.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 09:39AM

Bitter racists, insecure in their own skin, so to speak.

Don't be paranoid, Prejudiced Pete. Watson can speak; But he can also be wrong. Just like you.

And if all you can handle is Reader's Digest, well, that doesn't surprise me. (It was a short article, by the way, just like your tolerance level for people of color).

And do you always get away with lying about Blacks and insulting them here? Well, now you're being called out on it, so you might as well get used to it.

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2014 09:44AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ain't got no name yet ( )
Date: September 16, 2014 07:30PM

On NPR they were talking about the Catawba Indians in South Carolina and how they are all or at least predominantly Mormon. My jaw kind of dropped over that. I found this on Wikipedia:

In approximately 1883, tribal members were contacted by Mormon missionaries. Numerous Catawba were converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and some migrated to Colorado and Utah and neighboring western states.[10] The first Branch President was John Alonzo Canty, after a move to Spartanburg, James Patterson was appointed Stake President. Some of the Catawba converts stayed in South Carolina; however, 26 of them, nearly half the tribe, went west. LDS church membership remains high among the tribe.

I think, what's wrong with these people??

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: verilyverily ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 02:27AM

On the way home from a gig two days ago, my black friend mentioned that he had been pulled over several times by the police in one white neighborhood (which was near where the gig was) for no reason. I believe him. He is a law abiding citizen through and through.
I popped out with "join the Mormon church and you will turn white and your problems will be over!" Then of course, we were both laughing hysterically.

He said WTF? basically. I told him all about their racism. He had trouble believing that it is taught that darker skins are going to turn white! He was shocked that anyone would believe that. I told him that many cult members were obviously not playing with a full deck and that some of their deck's were so deplete that Jokers were all they had left, Jokers like JS.

Now he another reason on his list of WHY I HATE THE CULT!!!!!!!

Let's face it.... a real GOD would not put a curse on anyone. Silly rabbit curses are for Satanists!

To the tune of "I Put a Spell On You," here is God singing to all non-white people "I put a curse on you, because you were bad (in the pre-existence)." PA-LEEZE.
How does this insane cult continue to stay alive and seemingly well?

"If Cupid's bow had Steve Benson's precision, the whole world would be in love." - AGREED! Steve, keep informing us. We appreciate it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2014 02:29AM by verilyverily.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dorothy ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 04:08AM

When I posted my top five racist Book of Mormon scriptures on Facebook (no commentary, just quotes), one of my TBM friends came unglued. She yelled, "The church is not racist! You know this is not taught. These verses are symbolic, not literal."

So there you have it, we can all go back to church because we've just been interpreting it all wrong. Sigh...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 04:13AM

Defend their bigoted scriptures by claiming that what's contained threrein is nothing more than symbolically racist?

Question: Why isn't the Mormon God capable of revealing scripture that contains no symbolic racism?

Answer: Because Joseph Smith was a racist and was the guy who literally invented the Mormon God in the first place.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2014 04:14AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dorothy ( )
Date: September 17, 2014 04:36AM

I must have touched a nerve with her. I think that shows there is hope, but I just unfriended her, and, while I was at it, every other TBM, family included. I think a lot more of her than of the second counselor who made the get-me-back-to-church visit. I told him I couldn't believe in a God who would change someone's skin color based on their righteousness. "Well Sister Dorothy, you've been listening to the Devil." At least my former friend had an attempt at logical thought. This guy--the devil made her think that. Yep. Best buddies.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In

Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.