http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article

"For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding. We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

1) 'For a time' is somewhat disingenuous - it makes it appear that it was just a couple of years as opposed to circa 150.
2) Are we not all ultimately of African descent?
3) Why were South Americans restricted as well then? Why can't TSCC just use the word 'black'?
4) Isn't it true that black sisters were also restricted with regards to the temple? If so, why?
5) Isn't it odd that a church claiming revelation through God's only mouthpiece on earth doesn't even know why something as far reaching and damaging as this was in place? Isn't this also really insulting to those affected for many years?
6) Either prophets haven't deemed it important enough to bother asking Jesus (shame on them) or Jesus hasn't answered (shame on him). Neither come out of this well.
7) Does God feel that telling women not to wear two earrings is much more important than explaining previous racist attitudes?
8) Wasn't the insulting statements of past prophets doctrine? If not, why should we should heed any current leaders?
9) TSCC can blame individual (scapegoat) members for rascist comments, but a) they're only repeating the utterances of previous leaders b) can't TSCC see that by not providing doctrine, they only have themselves to blame when members try to explain troublesome issues.
10) Do they specifically condemn previous Apostles, Prophets and GAs, all of whom have made some very unsavoury comments about blacks in the past? Why was their understanding so limited?
11) Isn't apologising part of the repentance process? What a great example it would be for TSCC to just admit they were wrong in the past and apologise for the hurt. We all know why they won't do this of course.
12) Finally, the PH ban makes much more sense when you realise the church is false and prophets are just misguided and uninspired old men.

"Not known precisely why." I thought it was precisely because Mormon scripture states that they are sons of Cain. Precisely.

An excellent propaganda example. Joseph Stalin would be proud.

that made me lose total respect for them.

Hey, if they can lie, then so can I. I have no problem looking a Bishop or SP in the eye and not telling them what they want to hear.

LOL @ #7
Nice list. Thanks.

Excellent points

One of many problems with this statement is that previous prophets have clearly declared that it is doctrine. These official statements from the mid 1900s are especially damning:

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/FP.html

Also 2 Ne 5 is racist.

More:
http://www.mormonprobe.com/index.php?topic=Racism



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2013 03:47PM by bc.

Do you mean 2 Ne 5?
Or am I missing something racist in 2 Ne 2? (I didn't read it thoroughly, but I remember it pretty well & skimmed it, and didn't notice the racism... but maybe it's tied into the "opposition in all things" part?)

Sorry brain glitch - thanks for the correction - I edited above to correct it.

So are we going to hear about a new program of posthumous excommunications anytime soon?

Was Joseph Fielding Smith the prophet, seer or revelator or not? He said he stood by everything he had written in his silly books over the years when he got the top job. And in said silly books he did a lot of thorough explaining about these racial doctrines.

Shouldn't that trump any explanation given by the PR hacks in the newsroom?

Maybe these folks should spend more time in the church library.

If the church could, they'd burn every copy of anything written by them & their leaders pre-1978 (maybe even pre-the-late-90s)

You want to read the October 1970 Gen Conf? Too bad! They only let you go back as far as 1971:
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/conferences?lang=eng

They are embarrassed, and rightly so, of their past.
They try to sweep it under the rug & discredit it, but as long as it exists at all it will continue to plague them.

I am totally old enough to remember and I do recall that they teach that: Blacks were the Seed of Cain, less valiant in the pre-existence. The darker the skin the less worthy. Spencer W. Kimball said Lamanites' skins would become whiter as they were worthier. Totally racist.

It is 1963, and little Donny is in his Sunday school class.

Teacher: Does anyone know why people have different skin colors?

Megan: 'cause they got tans?

Teacher: No, Megan, it's because of the Lord.

Donny: Is it 'cause the Lord likes all different colors?

Teacher: No, silly. The Lord prefers white.

Donny: Then why are there Mexicans?

Teacher: Some people are not righteous. They have darker skins. During the pre-existence, Lamanites and negroes were not faithful to the Lord. So they were given darker skins.

Donny: I heard they steal.

Teacher: We should forgive their sins. It is up to us to be better.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2013 10:10PM by donbagley.