Mormon Church President Gordon Hinckley just told the faithful gathered at a conference, “There is no basis for racial hatred from any member of the Church. If any of you have used such words, go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness” reports The Daily Herald of Utah.

Gordon Hinckley holds forthHowever, historically the Mormon Church itself is racist based upon the “words: within its so-called “Book of Mormon,” which was magically translated by its founder Joseph Smith.

This then begs the question should Hinckley “ask for forgiveness” for himself and his church?

He better do it quick. The 95-year-old Mormon leader doesn’t seem to have much time left. Appearing frail at the conference the anointed “prophet” had surgery to remove a cancerous growth from his intestine early this year reports Associated Press.

Mormons believe Smith’s supernaturally translated stories about “Nephites” that were “pure,” a word officially changed from “white” in 1981, and “delightsome.” Their adversaries were the idol-worshiping Lamanites that received a “curse of blackness,” turning their skin dark. And according to Mormonism it was the Lamanites that became the principal ancestors of Native Americans.

Due to this “curse” of color until 1978 the Mormon priesthood was for whites only, which essentially includes all the church’s male members.

Today millions of Mormons are not white and the church’s growth is largely outside the United States. But to date there has never been a member of its highest body, “First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles,” that was not white. And there have been few members of its elite governing bodies known as the First and Second Quorum of the Seventy that were not white.

In 1989 Native American George P. Lee, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy submitted a letter of protest to the First Presidency criticizing its President Ezra Taft Benson for encouraging “an attitude of superior race, white supremacy [and] racist attitude…”

Lee was subsequently excommunicated for “…apostasy and other conduct unbecoming a member of the Church,” reports Watchman Fellowship.

Arguably, racism remains enshrined within the “Book of Mormon,” through its bizarre mythology of wars between pre-Columbian American peoples that no credible non-Mormon historian believes ever existed.

Mounting scientific evidence continues to contradict the text sacred to Mormons and demonstrate that its historical claims are false. But for true believers, scientific evidence disputing their scriptures is sacrilege and an attack or expression of “bigotry” against their religion reported the Los Angeles Times.

However, science and history are not about faith, but rather based upon facts. And is not religious persecution to question the historical claims made by Mormons.

One Mormon academic Thomas Murphy, chairman of the Edmonds Community College Anthropology Department, was almost excommunicated for daring to dispute Mormon doctrine.

Joseph Smith 'lied'?“The Book of Mormon assumes that dark skin is a curse for wickedness. I’m trying to examine where that idea came from,” the anthropologist told the Seattle Post in 2003 amidst much controversy over his scientific findings based upon DNA evidence.

“Sin, Skin and Seed: The Mistakes of Man in the Book of Mormon” was the title of one of Professor Murphy’s lectures.

“The Book of Mormon is a piece of 19th century fiction, and that means that we have to acknowledge sometimes Joseph Smith lied,” Murphy told the Los Angeles Times.

This words must mean “heresy” to Mormon leaders, who would probably like to deal with the anthropologist the way the Roman Catholic Church once dealt with Galileo, whose writings were banned by the Inquisition.

Murphy insists, “The Mormon faith is going to survive one way or another. The Catholic Church survived Galileo, but they first had to admit they were wrong.”

Don’t expect President Hinckley to admit that, an admission though hard to avoid, would impugn the status of venerated church founder Joseph Smith.

If Smith “lied” than perhaps he wasn’t a “prophet.” And that begs this question; where does that leave Mormons?


4 comments untill now

  1. dougtheavenger @ 2006-04-03 19:44

    RACISM :
    Racism entered the English language in 1936 and now has two basic definitions. The original definition pertained to a system of beliefs wherein race, culture and civilization were linked and “blood” or biology was the determining factor. In essence, racism was defined by the views of Arthur de Gobineau in his signiture work, The Inequality of Human Races. The contemporary definition of racism pertains to racial discrimination. The vernacular definition requires some element of malice in the discrimination as well. In other words, many do not consider Affirmative Action as racism. It is also noteworthy that some forms of racial discrimination are not unique to humans.

    Now lets try another word

    One who is intolerant of the views of others when they diverge from his own.

  2. I’m confused…what has this to do with the subject? They are postulating that the Mormon faith have tenets based on a hierarchical perception of humanity, where non-whites are perceived to be lesser or punished for some reason and, thus, no longer have white skin. If it is present in the text somewhere, and can be openly contradicted with other historical findings, how does that make them bigots?

    BTW, I have several Mormon neighbors who are good friends. They are not racist, nor do they openly promote white supremacy. But like the Catholic Church doctrines, Mormon doctrines must be scrutinized for consistency between teaching and doing. The Catholic Church teaches sex is only to be shared between a husband and wife, but the recent scandals of pedophile priests would lead SOME people to think the Church promotes this activity. Scrutinizing the behavior versus the doctrine or writings is necessary and important. If the conscience of the Mormon follower is that racism is sinful, what is wrong with challenging a doctrine that teaches something that appears morally reprehensible?

  3. ottodidact @ 2006-04-15 22:39

    Regarding this quote:
    “Due to this “curse” of color until 1978 the Mormon priesthood was for whites only, which essentially includes all the church’s male members.”

    I think the article implies that Native Americans were not allowed the priesthood until after 1978. This is inaccurate. It was only African Americans who were explicitly denied the priesthood up until 1978.

    One interesting and disturbing addition to this topic…

    The LDS Church still stands by the doctrine that the black African race comes from Cain, the character in Genesis who slew his brother. Mormons believe that Cain was punished and ‘cursed’ in a similar manner as the Lamanites were for wickedness. Bruce R McConkie, a popular apostle in the LDS Church back in the 60s and 70s, taught that
    blacks were ‘fence sitters’ during the heavenly war with Lucifer and therefore unworthy of the priesthood on this earth. After 1978, the church leadership ceased actively teaching these doctrines, but any member acquainted with accurate viewpoints will acknowledge these beliefs to this day.

    The problem Mormons have is that once something is taught as doctine and revelation from God, they can’t easily reverse their beliefs once they become socially unpopular. So even non racist Mormons who aren’t really bigots will have to accept things as gospel truths because a prophet in the 1800s once taught such things.

  4. […] that you came up with that. Unbelievable in fact. There is nothing unbelievable about it at all. Mormonism is notoriously racist. Why should The Mitt be any different? After all, he ain’t concerned about the poor (black) people, […]