Black LDS Lives Matter Part 3: Black Jesus

The first noted objection to using the word “Negro” in connection with the “Negro,” came from Malcolm X, formerly Malcolm Little, eventually known by his enlightened moniker, El Hajj Malik Elportrait Shabazz, who always prefaced the use of the label with “so-called,” as in, “so-called Negro.” Brother Malcolm was a smart man, but self-taught, and admitted to have been deluded from his first introduction to the religion about the whole nature of Islam, the literal content of the Koran, and racial matters universally. This is because he learned everything he originally thought he knew about Islam from a Pakistani con-man and88750eb69c9f carpet peddler named Wallace Farad, or WD Fard, or Farad Muhammad and a couple of other aliases. Wallace vanished shortly after brainwashing one Elijah Muhammad (formerly Elijah Robert Poole, son of a sharecropper from Sanders Georgia) into believing the “black race” had been created by God, but the “white race” was the accidental offshoot of genetic experiments by a quasi-divine mad scientist named Yacub, who orbits the earth in a huge mothership, and the “white race” is literally the carnal manifestation of the devil as the result of Yacub’s failed experiments.

Fard had an East Indian appearance, and was a dapper dresser with perfect white teeth and dark eyes. He told followers he was born in the holy city of Mecca, and his light-skinned appearance, courtesy of his Russian Jewish mother, was “pre-ordained” so that he could more easily mix with white people. He claimed to have attended Oxford and the University of California, and then to have begun Wallace-Fardtraining as a diplomat for the kingdom of Hejaz (now a part of Saudi Arabia). He was drawn to the United States in order to liberate the African Americans from their “half-slave and half-free” condition. He arrived in Detroit’s Paradise Valley on July 4, 1930, in order to achieve this goal.

Fard worked the streets as silk peddler, but his real sales pitches were religious beliefs and dietary restrictions. He gained a4photos fard jp reputation as a healer when his customers, after having adhered to the pork-free diet that Fard espoused, began noticing improvements in their health. His main goal, he often stated, was to bring salvation to African-Americans, whom he often referred to as his “lost uncle in the wilderness of North America.”

Fard taught that approximately 6,000 years ago a black 41dnd57xBKL._SX320_BO1,204,203,200_scientist named Yakub conducted gene-manipulation experiments that resulted in the creation of the inferior white race. Their tainted, weakened blood was to blame for the white race’s immorality, which they frequently used to keep the black race in a perpetual state of half-freedom. His concepts attracted hundreds of followers to the Allah Temple of Islam (ATI), as he called his group.

Fard’s demise as the leader of the temple was brought upon him when, on Thanksgiving Day in 1932, one of his followers, Robert Harris, renamed Robert Karriem, committed a human sacrifice in order to bring himself closer to Allah. Karriem cited a quotation from a book entitled Secret Rituals of the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, authored by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad, which read, “The believer must be stabbed through the heart.” This quote, as well as another stating, “Every son of 75eb9598316e19249b97071c1e7cb7eaIslam must gain a victory from a devil. Four victories and the son will attain his reward,” convinced the Detroit Police Department — motivated in part by the anti-Muslim hysteria fueled by media coverage of the event — to seek out Fard in conjunction with the murder.

Karriem was found to be legally insane and was committed. 2ab6ccdf78a388a081cb7bdef162b402Fard, facing possible charges, confessed that his teachings were dangerous and that he would use his influence to disband the ATI. He agreed to leave Detroit forever in order to receive immunity, and boarded a train bound for Chicago on Dec. 7.

The ATI was disbanded as ordered, though in name only; as the 5454574_origNation of Islam, it continued to grow. Fard snuck back into Detroit in January 1933, but was identified by authorities, arrested in May and again ordered to leave the city.

He returned to Chicago, was arrested on charges of disturbing the peace through his preaching, and again returned to Detroit. After another brush with the law in April 1934, Fard left Detroit for good. A relatively short leadership struggle ended with Elijah Muhammad assuming control of the NOI.

The true origins of W. D. Fard remain mired in obscurity. In contrast to Fard’s 9eb53b10726bstory, Karl Evanzz, noted NOI authority and author of The Messenger: The Rise and Fall of Elijah Muhammad, has argued that Fard was born Wali Dodd Fard in New Zealand in 1893. His parents were Zared Fard (a New Zealander whose parents were from an area of East India that eventually became Pakistan) and Beatrice (of New Zealand’s minority British population).

Evanzz believes that Fard immigrated to the United States via Canada in 1913. He earned his living at various times as a restaurateur, gambler, bootlegger and traveling salesman. Before arriving in Detroit in 1930, under the alias of David Ford, he attained a high rank in the Moorish Science Temple, amsta.chicago vaguely Islam-like religion that disbanded that same year. Evanzz reported that Wallace D. Fard died in Chicago in 1971 at the age of 78.

To further muddy the waters, C.E. Lincoln, author of The Black Muslims in America, originally published in 1961, recounted a legend that described Fard as the black Jamaican son of a Syrian Moslem. Another story described Fard as Palestinian.

On the other hand, in a speech made on April 1, 2001, titled “The Greatness of Master Fard Muhammad,” the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan reiterated Fard’s origins in the Holy City of Mecca, and referred to him as the “Mahdi,” a man 11absolutely guided by God in the Islam faith. Farrakhan referred to the knowledge that Fard passed onto the NOI as “actual facts.” (The speech is at the Nation’s Web site at

It is important to realize that Farrakhan is the current leader of one of two main NOI factions that emerged after the Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s death on Feb. 24, 1975. Two days later, Elijah Muhammad’s son, Wallace Muhammad, was named leader of the NOI, and quickly distanced himself from certain aspects of his father’s teachings — most notably those denouncing whites as devils. Farrakhan, a high-ranking member of NOI at the time of Elijah Muhammad’s death, becameartim-20091201 disillusioned with the new direction and quit the NOI in 1978. After Wallace had renamed the group the World Community of Al-Islam (one of many name changes to follow), Farrakhan was able to reconstitute the NOI under his own auspices in 1979.

To make a long story short, Elijah Poole was born October 7, 1897 within a generation of the emancipation proclamation being signed, had no education at all, and Malcolm Little was a young thug who could have been a successful porter on the thbooming 30’s train lines except for greed and ambition that led him down the criminal path. In fairness, life for them as “black” men in the 1930’s was every bit as oppressive as Black Lives Matter and today’s generations of MoZoo Millennial whiners claim it is now. Little and Poole were both legitimately ignorant through no fault of their own, and the story being peddled to them by a Pakistani huckster struck home. WF, or “Wali” Farad however, it must be noted strongly, the founder of what became all variants of  “Black Liberation Theology” in America, wasn’t “black.” No, we wasn’t a “Negro” at all. And he wasn’t really dark skinned in any way. A nice tan maybe. But nowhere near “black.” Best guesses place him beingimages (6) born in either Mecca, Saudi Arabia, or more likely, an area of India that became Pakistan. He was either Semitic, or a nicely tanned Caucasian.

Think about that irony.

More importantly, Malcolm X, and Elijah Muhammad’s son, Wallace, after actually reading the Koran and meeting actual Muslims, retracted and repudiated their previous anti-“white” statements and sentiments, and began to preach a universal, peaceful surrender to the will of Allah–who made no distinction between races or “colors.”–bNAhUKVT4KHd5gB88Q6AEIbzAO#v=onepage&q=wallace%20muhammed&f=false

The current political revision of names associated with the “Negro” are not helpful. “Black” is A-Pakistani-woman-bleeds--012“Negro” in Spanish and Latin-based languages. It’s simply a political manipulation, a set of sophomoric semantics games with some agenda in mind to go about parsing the difference. “People of color” is now the pop-fad tag for “non-whites,” but frankly, the older term was “colored people,” it means the same thing. “Afro-American,” came and went, and now “African-American” holds that slot. For a while certain “black” academics tried to coin the term “Africoid” particularly in discussing the “Negroid” features of Egyptian paintings etc. But images (7).jpg “African Africans” exist in the United States and around the world, so “African-American” doesn’t work much in terms of being universal. The truth is, “Negro” has never been impolite, but now is considered to be old, stodgy, vaguely racist and stupid. But frankly, there is such a thing as a “Negro,” itpakistani_man_by_raeid-d3fixcp.jpg ain’t “black,” it’s an actual race, not a skin color. It’s a precise, scientific classification and it still holds up as the most accurate label, insofar as any racial assessment can be entirely “accurate.” Likewise, “Caucasian” still holds up pretty well over “white,” because there is no “white” race. Granted, modern researchHamza20Ali20Abbasi203-41-1442612855 concedes that the “white” tribes probably didn’t originate in the Caucasus mountains, but as a well-known tag it still serves a useful function. “Asian” has taken over the job of “Oriental” for some reason having to do with Mongol_amazing_facts_1some vague reference to British colonialism, but really, Indians, Sikhs, Pakistani’s, Mongols, Chinese, Japanese, aren’t all the same “race.” “Asian,” is a continent, not a race.

This little dissertation isn’t really about Black Lives Matter, the Nation of Islam, or any specific group of “Negro” liberation movements through the ages. It’s really about the notion of race itself, and where races come from, and what that means, and what it matters in the end–and this from an LDS point of view. Or, to a lesser extent, from a basic Judeo-Christian point of view. The Mormon faith however, has a few more difficulties than its religious predecessors in resolving longstanding doctrinal, scriptural racial and skin-color concepts. The latest statement on the matter from the Brethren, “Race and the Priesthood,” basically says it doesn’t matter at all at this point. Still, it’s curiously rewarding on both a spiritual and intellectual plane to ponder how modern science and anthropology and archaeology figure into LDS theology. It’s problematic how past dark-skinned and “Negro” LDS doctrines conflict with longstanding Christian, Jewish, Islamic and general Western world views, even if we do agree to “forget all that stuff about the Negro.” Forgetting all that stuff about the “Negro” that we now confess was never true is one thing, but re-writing the entire history of the “Negro” just so the “black community” can feel better about the whole mess is another thing entirely–and some are determined to do it.

From the early days of American “Negro” slavery, the victims of this dehumanizing download (11)institution began a close religious identification with the Old Testament plight of the ancient Israelites, who became  enslaved by the Egyptian Pharaohs. This, contrary to what you will now be told, was a religion introduced to them by the “white” man, not some ancient cultural heritage reaching back into the dawn of ancient Israel. Fairness has nothing to do with it. That’s just the way it went down. So, what has to be admitted first thing, in order to follow the degeneration of this originally purely metaphysical identification with the Hebrew slaves of ancient Egypt in the beginning, into cultic fables and the invention of a revisionist history about the very lineage and nature of the primarily western African “Negro” slaves who endeddownload (10) up in the US, is that they came across the pond not as civilized, practicing Jews, Muslims, or Christians. Sorry. No, they were never a single, unified clan of practicing Jews, Muslims, or Christians in West Africa before they got rounded up and sold. They were a disparate, random collection of “savages.”

American “Negro” slaves came across the Atlantic already in their second stint at bondage–first as the pagan, animistic prisoners of largely Muslim, “civilized” fellow “Negroes” who rounded up their grub-eating, varmint scavenging, subsistence-level, stone-aged neighbor village citizenry by the thousands, from all over the continent, and sold them on to the Portuguese and Spanish et cetera. No, the ADasdAunfortunate reality of actual, well-recorded history concludes that American “Negro” slaves were not Pharaohs, Torah-Canting High Priests, or disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ keeping the True Faith in Godly harmony, minding their own business in a closed community in West Africa. Neither “white” men nor “Hamites” or Arab or “Negro” Muslims came out of nowhere and dragged them away from their faithful worship and brainwashed them into forgetting who they really were. (Yes, that’s the gist of the actual fable now being spun.) They were not the kings and queens of Africa. They were not the movers and shakers of a continent. They were not the best and brightest. If they were “God’s Chosen,” you’d have to wonder, “chosen for what?” and ask yourself what “god” chose them. That’s simply fact. They were savages even by images (13)“civilized,” technologically, and intellectually advanced Muslim, Christian, and Jewish standards of the region. That is specifically why they were enslaved.

More to the point, even assuming you could go back to Kunta Kinte’s village now, some hundred, two-hundred and more years later, you would still find them chasing down lizards for lunch and digging download (8)grubs and berries, hopping around with penis cones and grass skirts. His allegedly more “advanced” “Negro” neighbors with their AK-47’s and Western knowledge, would be only slightly better off, raping, pillaging, shooting up, torturing and maiming each other in traditional, tribal fashion. Whatever ills befell Kunta Kinte as a slave and captor of American, “Western” society, his offspring and descendants faired farimages (12).jpg better in America, under, through, and after slavery, than did his kinfolk back in Africa. In fact, as a modern African American, I hope you feel free to move back to Liberia any time you want, which began as a repatriation effort of president James Monroe and political associates generations ago, who felt it would be a good idea to offer to return former slaves to image002their “homeland.” Oddly enough, most of the the noted “educated” ex-slaves and early Civil Rights pioneers wouldn’t go. They said America owed them everything guaranteed in the Constitution like any other American. Those who went back “home” to Africa almost immediately became a permanent upper-images (14)class, ruling over the “natives” who as I say, were still chasing locusts for a snack and worshipping trees and wood-sprites. Monrovia, and Freetown Sierra Lione, another freed-slave re-colonization attempt, suffered through generations of civil wars and wars of “liberation,” and corrupt dictatorships–and still do.

There’s no particular shame in wanting to believe that you’re the progeny of Kunta Kinte, the brave Mandinka warrior, who as a free man from some proud, strong, and mighty civilization was unrighteously bound and opressed by the great White Villains. But even assuming that’s true–at least in your own mind–and you manage to prove that your venerated ancestor really was the Mighty Nimrod of some isolated, backward, micro-culture like Kunta Kinte’s back-bush little village, you are still left to admit that Kunta Kinte was by world-standards, outside of that little circle of grass huts, in all fairness, a images (21)failed Mandinka warrior who got his ass whupped and became enslaved by other “black” tribes who were bigger, smarter, stronger and braver.

What’s happened in large factions of the “black community” in the US is a sort of shame and self-denial that has so overwhelmed all sense of logic that the “Negro” has first emotionally, and then schizophrenically, changed historical, genetic, and cultural places with “God’s Chosen” as a form of mental defense mechanism, and automatic excuse for failure to achieve. In this re-invention of African-American history, the “Negro’s” suffering and status at the bottom of the social heap is a “sign” of “chosenness,” not a sign of cultural backwardness, and certainly not an indication of personal sloth or ignorance. It’s a sneaky, mentally-creeping self-loathing thatimages (19).jpg emerged after a few generations from its dark place of hiding in the “black community’s” psyche, a rebuttal from the socially oppressed and intellectually crippled “Negro,” who, seeking  a defendable premise for a race-wide self-image improvement, went about appropriating an extreme pride in being the oppressed, and embracing membership in a race, a culture, they never were–a people they’d rather be. It was a “feel good,” highly romanticized history, a genesis you’d be happy to be yours–even if it clearly wasn’t.

All that you and I know to be good, smart, wise, powerful, organized, orderly, influential, artful, beautiful–everything that makes the Western World what it is today, a modern “civilized” society, came primarily through the drive, direction, leadership and inspiration of “white people.” Even if you argue that they travelled the whole world and stole every good thing from every culture they encountered, it was in the end, a bunch images (20)of plain dumb white guys who put it all together and called it “Western Culture.” If you want to reject “whiteness,” you have to in effect reject all of modern civilization. Then you have to figure out what you’re going to replace it with–and even given what is usually no more than “micro-irritation” at “micro-aggressions,” you have to ask yourself  if there’s really anything better out there.

The Church, from Abraham to Jesus Christ came to us today, for the purposes of this exercise, through “white people.” You can go back past all the Romanization, and the Hellenization to try to prove the Biblical Hebrews were really well tanned, but they were clearly Semitic, Western, non-“Negroes.”They were not “black” in the American sense of the word, meaning “Negro.” And even if they were pitch-black, that’s simply a skin tone, and in “scientific” terms, or even Brigham-Young’s early LDS “Curse of Cain” theology, they still wouldn’t be “Negroes.”And more to the point: The LDS restoration and American Protestantism came through some seriouslydownload (16) “white”people. I can’t help you argue one way or another if that’s good, bad, a mix, or all down to “God’s will” and Manifest Destiny. It just happened that way. It’s a fact. It’s reality. If you believe there is a God who guides His Church–well, He seems to have guided it from some very “white” nations, through some very “white”clergies, and that arrangement has pretty much conquered the world. So you’re stuck with it.

There is no “white privilege.” There is only “privilege.” And this emanates from the completely racially neutral fact of who got there first. “White people” got there first, so sure, from your “Afro-centric” social justice perspective, you’re probably biased and ego-centric enough to think this has something uniquely to do with “whiteness.” In reality however, the remarkably and increasingly diverse  world-dominating force of “Western Civilization” encountered the “Negro” some couple of hundred years ago first in Africa, images (23)as a technologically helpless, powerless, ignorant regional type of savage. And yes, Western Society exploited them as a resource just like anyone or anything else it encountered across the globe. That’s just the way it happened, that’s how the modern, Western “Negro” came to be incorporated into the present, ongoing wave of Western culture and “Enlightenment.” Now, you can either accept that, or, as many have chosen to do, invest generations of mindless, wasteful, counter-productive mental and physical energy trying to prove to yourself that this history isn’t fair, it’s all backwards, and the way to fix it is to inflate the “Negro” input into our modern world until it seems “balanced”–and then some. You can go so far as to convince yourself it was the “Negro” who founded all of that, and “white people” stole it. Or, you can acknowledge the trueimages (24).jpg time of your bloodline’s entry point into the modern social system, stop whining about who got there first, who built it, and conquer it, own it, make it your own, and prosper.

African American “Reparation” activists run around claiming the entire American nation was built on the backs of their slave ancestors. The truth is, even at the height of American slavery less than 1.4% of the US population owned slaves. Some 3000 free “Negroes” owned roughly  20,000 slaves, or 28% of all free “Negroes” owned slaves, compared to only 1.4% of “whites,” and of course, all of these only in the southern states where it was legal.

“Reparation” activists will tell you that Washington DC was built on slave labor. download (17)Washington DC was however, actually built by skilled Irish, British, European and other “white” craftsmen and Scottish masons. Slave labor was used mainly to supplement unskilled construction cleanup and menial labor largely done by “whites,” like cutting stones. Sure you can say slave labor “helped” construct Washington DC, but that’s a few buildings in one city out of thousands in the US. The notion that slave labor built the entire infrastructure of our modern United States is just silly. At best, slave labor played a hit-and-miss role mostly at menial and semi-skilled labor, as a supplement to the vastly larger bulk of the non-slave workforce. Slave labor, even in the south, played only a part of building the nation. The fantasy that slave labor was the make-or-break engine of the American founding is patronizing and insulting. Nobody “owes” the American nation’s success to slave labor, not even in the construction of its capitol city.

Hidden Facts about Slavery in America

Michelle Obama Claims the White House Was ‘Built by Slaves’… But There’s One HUGE Problem

images (16)

All my Scots buddies think they’re descended from this or that great Laird of the Highlands. My Norwegian cousins all think they’re descended from Leif Erickson. In Norwegian circles, nobody’s great-great-great-great-great-great Viking grandfather ever just un-dramatically spent his life shoveling dung in some obscure fjord for a subsistence living, or lived in a simple, longhouse shed with the pigs to stay warm allimages winter. They all set out from huge farmsteads with massive great halls, in finely crafted great longships, to merrily go raiding England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, inbetween discovering America and slaying dragons. In any case, likewise, in the “black community,” especially since actual geneology is so unknown in most cases, speculation was allowed to run rampant. And even the most “respectable” attempts to dig out the “true” story of the American slave, have been less than candid. For  one, that whole Roots book and the two TV series that spun off of it are entirely fake, and Alex Haley’s been debunked and discredited as a plagiarist.

“Virtually every genealogical claim in Haley’s story was false,” Nobile has written. None of Haley’s early writing contains any download (12)reference to his mythic ancestor, “the African” named Kunta Kinte. Indeed, Haley’s later notes give his family name
as “Kante,” not “Kinte.”

And a long-suppressed tape of the famous session in which Haley “found” Kunta Kinte through the recitation of an African “griot” proves that, as BBC producer James Kent noted, “the villagers [were] threatened by members of Haley’s party. These turn out to be senior government officials desperate to ensure that things go smoothly.”

Haley, added Kent, “specifically asks for a story that will fit
his predetermined American narrative.”

Historical experts who checked Haley’s genealogical research discovered that, as one put it, “Haley got everything wrong in his pre-Civil War lineage and none of his plantation ancestors existed; 182 pages have no basis in fact.”alex-haley-fraud-roots-22.1.2013

Given this damning evidence, you’d think Haley’s halo would long ago have vanished. But – given this week’s TV tribute – he remains a literary icon. Publicly, at least.

The judge who presided over Haley’s plagiarism case admitted that “I did not want to destroy him” and so allowed him to settle quietly – even though, he acknowledged, Haley had repeatedly perjured himself in court.

The Pulitzer Prize board has refused to reconsider Haley’s prize, awarded in 1977 – in what former Columbia President William McGill, then a board member, has acknowledged was an c5231d70509b6efdb4b92685674e11bcexample of “inverse racism” by a bunch of white liberals
“embarrassed by our makeup.”

Yet the uniqueness of “Roots” is that it was presented as factual history, albeit with fictional embellishments. Haley himself stressed that the details came from his family’s oral history and had been corroborated by outside documents.

But Professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard, a Haley friend, concedes that it’s time to “speak candidly,” adding that “most of us feel it’s highly unlikely that Alex actually found the village from whence his ancestors came

What really happened in America with the “Negro” however, was that after being introduced to the Bible, fisksingChristianity in general, and hearing the stories of ancient Israel, the American slave caste became increasingly more invested in identifying with the captivity, and eventual Godly liberation of the House of Israel. Excluded for the most part from Christian worship with “whites,” this identification became a strong metaphorical theme in all black churches, hymns and literature. Eventually, this theme has evolved into a literal belief that the “Negro” and specifically the very “Negroes” captured in west Africa and taken in slavery to America–specifically the US–were in fact the actual ancient Israelites who were driven from prophets2Jerusalem, and the contention that God’s own word makes this clear. Or so proponents of this revisionist fable will tell you.

(It must be noted that contrary to African American propaganda, the US received a very small portion of the slave trade, the bulk of African slaves being destined for South America, and countries like Brazil.)

Now, the Nation of Islam, and its revived version under Louis Farrakhan has a different screen-shot-2015-03-13-at-3-22-56-pm.pngspin on this whole theme obviously, but like the Christian and Jewish versions of this modern “Negro Israelite” theory, the Old Testament, and sometimes the New Testament, are relied upon heavily to justify these claims of “Negro” choseness. (The Nation of Islam in fact doesn’t use much of the Koran at all.) It’s this seemingly “logical” or “reasonable” warping of familiar Bible verses that makes the whole bogus notion of a “Negro” based Jewish or Christian legacy palatable to some. It can be a potential pitfall for any “black” LDS member who feels compelled to affiliate with Black Lives Matter, or any number of affiliated “Social Justice” crusaders.

While not necessarily bound by formal, written, organized central documents and dogmas, invariably, BLM and most other Black Hebrew Cult“black” protest groups are riddled with persons and factions deeply committed to a number of “black” pop-liberation doctrines allegedly traced to the Bible or simply “science” intended to “prove” the spiritual, genetic, cultural, or moral superiority of the “black race.” The first error of course in that, is that there is no “black race,” because they really mean “Negro race,” but refuse to say so, or have twisted scriptures into “proving” that the “black Africans” who sold them into slavery weren’t really “Negroes,” but “Hamites.” Only “real Negroes” were captured and sold to the Americans, and it is these whom they claim to be the real, original Israelites. True hard core proponents of the movement not only embrace the word “Negro” and

make the same arguments I might make for using that designation in terms of identifying the race itself–but then turn around and deliberately ignore the cultural and genetic connection between themselves, and a whole bunch of other “Negroes,” for alleged Biblical reasons. They arbitrarily divide one “Negro” tribe from others, calling them “real Negroes,” while claiming others who look like “Negroes,” aren’t really “Negroes,” meaning that only “real Negroes” are descendants of ancient Israelites. Of course, how they justify their “Negro as the ancient Israelite” claims in the first place, get to be rather circumstantial in a hurry and often it comes down to randomly pointing at Egyptian hieroglyphs and labeling people depicted there however it best suits their theories. And most of the time, they point to pure-fresh-off-the-boat African “Negroes” and segregate themselves from these so-called “Hamites,” by pointing out their own smoother facial features and lighter skin tones. (Never mind the DNA at this point.) They try to overlook the fact that they’ve been in the country for 400 years inter-breeding by force or by choice with “white” folk, and maybe that’s why they look different than African Africans…


Nubian Afros-man&wombman

And this couple is supposed to “prove” African Americans are ancient Israelites because they have nappy hair and beards like the Egyptian cartouche to the left.

11 (1)

This is supposed to be ancient Israelite slaves in Egypt, and it’s supposed to prove they are “African American.” I’m not seeing it.

The above carteuche is supposedly labeled “ancient Israelites in Egyptian captivity.” adamfalls2The light skin of these so-called “Shemites”is dismissed by the Negro-as-ancient-Israelite theorist as a “variant.” Honestly. They don’t look very Negroid to me. Particularly the noses. They look Semitic. If this is the best evidence they’ve got, I don’t even see the “Shemites” looking very black at all, much less “Negroid.” And these other very black depictions the author calls “Hamites,” and dismisses them as worthless savages. The very white guy he calls, er, a “white guy.”images (5);wap2

In the most Christianized versions of the “Black Israelite” cult of course, they take this revisionist strategy up to Jesus of Nazareth, whom they accept as the Savior, the 12965696_210948272614934_1381375287_nMessiah, but not a “white” fake-Jew, like they claim inhabit Israel today. Jesus they assert was “black,” and for the most part by this they mean a “Negro.” He is the Negro Messiah, who died to save the Negro–the true House of Israel. Oddly enough, most of the cranks linked above have also decided that dark-skinned Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and a bunch of other dark-skinned races are also originally ancient Israelites. They come to this conclusion by reading Bible verses, and looking at pictures. One of the most transparently stupid claimsdownload made by some of these characters, is that American “Negroes”–descendants of slaves, never came from Africa. They were kidnapped by Africans after being driven from their homeland in Israel, and sold into slavery and then stripped of all memory of their true Hebrew culture and religion.

Again, so much for the DNA studies.

Under all of these theologies lies the claim that the “white race” or “races,” were all barbarians who came down from the north and “took all our stuff.” “White” tribes these hyper-“Negro” theologians claim, are uniquely evil by nature and persecute God’s chosen not because the Negro is inferior maxresdefault (1)culturally, militarily, intellectually, or spiritually, but by guile, cunning, and one sort of dirty trick or another, by sheer force of stupid numbers, or sometimes as a punishment from God for the Negro Israelites being weak and wicked. The specifics don’t even matter in terms of the desired effect: “black” separatism, a dependence upon the ministry preaching it, and the mindless hating of all “white” people. Eventually these world views all culminate in the destruction and subjugation of the “white race” by God’s chosen “Negroes.” This is not considered racism, because “racism” has been dumbed-down and re-defined to mean anything that a “white” person does that annoys a “black” person. This is a specifically “black” subset of the several “Social Warrior” mentalities, which as I say, range all over the Leftist social cause map. It is maintained that “black” people are incapable of being “racist,” because they have no power in the society so they can’t be an oppressor.

I’d summarize this overview of “black social justice” theories, by saying that at one level or another you will find yourself surrounded by and associated with all of these “black” belief systems at nearly any gathering of any brand of “Social imagesJustice” activism. Though not terribly up-front in discussions across the whole “black community,” these attitudes are very prevalent in those elements who have chosen to form BLM-type coalitions. (As I’ve said before, the term “Social Justice” is also used to label a whole Leftist gamut of LGBT/feminist/income equality movements that may also be incorporated into your attempts at “black activism” whether you like it or not.)

Where did this “black” Jesus, “Black Hebrew Israelite” gibberish come from? Clearly it originated in the Nation of Islam (which I remind you has nothing whatsoever to do with real Islam) and was then permutated by one or two spinoffs into its Christian and Jewish forms directly to the credit of one Hulon Mitchell Jr in the late 1970’s and early ’80’s.

Hulon Mitchell Jr, a son of a Holiness Pentecostal preacher and former NOI member. He later proclaimed himself to be God and had a cult following of nearly 20,000 members in 45 cities. Michell was a handsome, charismatic speaker, known for his flowing white robes and jeweled turbans. He controlled a asdfasdfmultimillion-dollar business empire that included schools, grocery stores and real estate. His message of black empowerment and black superiority resonated with his supporters. The ranks of his cult were not only made up of the poor and the uneducated, but many of his members were college educated, professionals and even in law enforcement. Membership was as diverse as fraternity boys, sheriff’s deputies, grandmothers, and ex-cons fresh out of prison. Mitchell claimed that he was the “Original Jew,” and taught that blacks were the “true Jews.” He taught his followers that African Americans were one of the missing 12 tribes of Israel, driven

The National Law Journal, February 10, 1992 -- "Florida Jurors Hear Tales of Sex, Religion, Death" November 25, 1986 press conference -- Yahweh ben Yahweh was the adopted name of Hulon Mitchell, Jr. (October 27, 1935 Ð May 7, 2007), founder and leader of the Nation of Yahweh, a black supremacist new religious movement founded in 1979. Born into a family affiliated with the Antioch Church of God in Christ in Enid, Oklahoma, his father, Reverend Dr. Hulon Mitchell Sr. was the minister and his mother, Dr. Pearl Mitchell was the pianist. In 1991, Mitchell was convicted of conspiring to murder white people as an initiation rite to his cult, as well as former members who disagreed with him, in one case by decapitation. He was released on parole in 2001 on the condition of not reconnecting with his old congregation. He died of prostate cancer in 2007. CONTACT Carla Hotvedt at SILVER IMAGE Photo Agency and Weddings 352.373-5771 or

The National Law Journal, February 10, 1992 — “Florida Jurors Hear Tales of Sex, Religion, Death” November 25, 1986 press conference — Yahweh ben Yahweh was the adopted name of Hulon Mitchell, Jr. (October 27, 1935 Ð May 7, 2007), founder and leader of the Nation of Yahweh, a black supremacist new religious movement founded in 1979. Born into a family affiliated with the Antioch Church of God in Christ in Enid, Oklahoma, his father, Reverend Dr. Hulon Mitchell Sr. was the minister and his mother, Dr. Pearl Mitchell was the pianist. In 1991, Mitchell was convicted of conspiring to murder white people as an initiation rite to his cult, as well as former members who disagreed with him, in one case by decapitation. He was released on parole in 2001 on the condition of not reconnecting with his old congregation. He died of prostate cancer in 2007.
CONTACT Carla Hotvedt at SILVER IMAGE Photo Agency and Weddings 352.373-5771 or

from their homeland. He taught his flock that God was black, as were the heroes of the Old Testament. He proclaimed himself as the black messiah. He named himself Yahweh ben Yahweh, Hebrew for “God, son of God.” He would lead the Black Hebrews back to the promised land of Jerusalem so they could establish their kingdom on earth. He soon focused his religion on a hatred of white people and urged his followers to murder “white devils” and bring him back body parts, a sliced-off ear, finger, or head, as proof of the kill.

So then, was Jesus “black?” No. But more importantly, why does Jesus have to be “black” in your world view? Why is this such a compelling need? Anglo-Europeans drew andimages (23) painted Him the way they thought people of great stature looked–like Europeans. OK, so obviously he wasn’t Anglo-European. He wasn’t a “white guy.” You win. Leave it at that–He was whatever He was, and it definitely wasn’t a “Negro.” That entire silly notion was invented in the disturbed imagination of a failed Nation of Islam convert who, looking for his own race-baiting franchise, fabricated his own shtick to gain converts to his own independent cult images (22)operation in 1979. Then he went around killing “white” people.

Jesus was a Semite. He was Semitic. Semites had a fairly wide range of facial features and skin tones. Some are pretty dark, but the ancient Israelites were not “Negroes,” they were Semites. One of the telling proofs against the whole asinine Black Jesus/Black Israelite fable is that when you dig up 2000-4000 year-old bones from crypts around the area, (and they’re all still there, all still full of dead ancient Israelites,) you don’t come up with any Negroes. You come up with Semites, like the ones reconstructed in the associated photos here.

Where did the Semites come from? Good question. Supposedly the offspring of Shem, son of Noah, who begat Arphaxad, who is also noted in some Jewish traditions to have become Melchizedek, King of  Salem. He’s not listed in the Bible as carrying a pedigree from Africa, however. Here’s the best discourse I have on that, including a map of where the Semitic language group has been spoken:

The original homeland of all ancient Semitic peoples, including Hebrews, was not northern Arabia, as is currently believed, but northwestern Mesopotamia. Around 6,0004,000 years B.C., an ecological catastrophe in the Black Sea area forced the IndoEuropean tribes to migrate outward in all directions. On 2000px-Semitic_1st_AD.svgtheir way to the south and the south-east, the Indo-Arians displaced and partially mingled with the Hurrians of Eastern Anatolia. In turn, arianized Hurrians first displaced the Eastern
Semites (Akkadians) from the upper courses of Tigris, and then, at the end of the 3rd millennium B.C., occupied the land of Western Semites (Amorites) in the upper courses of Euphrates. The referencing by the Bible of Harran as the original birthplace of Abraham is the indirect evidence of these ethnic changes. The last wave of Western Semites (Arameans) in 12-11 centuries B.C. was also caused by the movements of Hurrians and Indo-Europeans in northwestern Mesopotamia.

The Bible concretely designates the fatherland of the Jewish patriarchs, specifying the region surrounding the city of Haran which was situated approximately 30 km to the southwest of today’s Turkish city Sanliurfa (ancient Edessa), not far from the border with Syria. The biblical texts unambiguously showabe_emigration_map that the city of Ur in Sumer, from which Abraham came into Canaan (Palestine), was never his place of birth. Moreover, on the way to Canaan, the family of Abraham and his father Terah, stopped for a long time in the place of their birth, Haran.3 This is where Terah died and the clan leadership was transferred to his son – Abraham. Later, the Bible again recalls that the native land of the ancient Jewish forefathers was not Canaan, but Haran, in northwestern Mesopotamia

–Dr. Igor P. Lipovsky
Where did the Ancient Semites come from?

Just for reference, Adam was not a “Negro” either. The argument that would make him download (13)one comes from a mix of revisionist fantasy and secular science. It’s nothing to do with the Jewish, Christian, or even Islamic canon, and nothing to do with ancient traditions connected with any of these three religions, even though the proponents of the “Black Jesus,” “Black Abraham,” “Black Adam” cults would have you believe all three were founded by “Negroes,” (“True” Negroes that is,) and the scriptures and prophets of all three clearly support the notion. I’m not going to argue my way from Adam to 1979 when it’s just simpler to say that the whole theory was made up, pulled out of some religiousdownload (12) huckster’s backside in 1979 and its origins are clearly documented in above arguments, and easily found in a net search.

We must admit however, Biblically, and even in modern LDS canon, the whole race thing gets very murky. Was the Garden of Eden in northern Mesopotamia? Daviess County Missouri? I just don’t care, so I won’t argue that further. But either way, it was not, Biblically speaking, in Africa. Did races get supernaturally designated when the languages were scrambled at the Tower of Babel? Who knows?

And likewise, Biblically speaking, all the “Africans” and everyone else got killed off in the Great Flood–Negroes or not, so it’s just Noah and his immediate family we have to pinpoint. Which brings us back, Biblically speaking, and LDS Standard Works-speaking, to that one genetic line through Ham, son of Noah:

 21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

 22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of thedownload (11) Canaanites was preserved in the land.

 23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

 24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

 25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

 26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

 27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

As Latter-day Saints then, I guess we agree canonically with the secular consensus that images (2)at one time, and in our case, originally, the Egyptian empire was founded by “Negroes.” Or at least, that has been the universal LDS belief to date–assuming it has not been quietly changed by a memo on’s news bulletin page. This line of Pharaohs came through the maternal line via Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, a “Negro.”

21 And it came to pass that the Lord showed unto Enoch all the inhabitants of the earth; and he beheld, and lo, Zion, in process of time, was taken up into heaven. And the Lord said unto Enoch: Behold mine abode forever.

 22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

 23 And after that Zion was taken up into heaven, Enoch beheld, and lo, all the nations of the earth were before him;

You could fairly say then, that 4000 years ago the “Negro” of Egypt was sitting in the cat-bird’s seat of civilization. But I’m not going to wade through all of that againdownload (7) either. It’s just a fact. There is nothing inherently marvelous about it one way or another. The question is: What have you, as a self-boasted, “chosen,” “Negro” race done since ancient Egypt? If you are indeed God’s chosen, descendant from this self-professed great race of world-conquering “Negroes,” OK. But really, it’s been more than 4000 years. Are you still blaming your woeful fall from world domination on GW Bush?

Therefore, if you’re going to argue that all of modern science says all mankind and all civilization began in Africa, and that’s what you’re going to go with to prove Adam and Eve were “Negroes,” and Abraham was a “Negro” and so forth, then don’t be disappointed when I don’t buy your quasi-Biblical arguments and pseudo-science when you’re well off the mark of all the empirical evidence, unanimously disproving your other wacky theories, like the abundance of DNA evidence that soundly mocks your “Negro” Hebrew Israelite nonsense. Because in some cases, the science is pretty clear. The fact is, the genealogy, the histories, the DNA, the records of priesthood ascension in the existing “Jewish” communities around the world are very conclusively indicative of a very non-“Negro” homeland, religion, culture, and family tree.

So let’s instead get to something thoroughly entwined in the “Black Israelite” theology that’s more recent, really stupid, and a myth we can actually verify scientifically. Are “white” European Jews “real” Jews, with bloodlines to their Abrahamic forefathers, or are they images (4)the descendants of the so-called “Kazar” converts in the 8th to 12th century or so? This is largely an anti-Zionist political argument, because the so-called Palestinians would lay claim to Israel by “right of return” and deny these “fake” Jews by the same blood-connection rules. It’s not strictly a religious question of faith. But I would remind the Latter-day Saint that as Mormons we’re pretty much “Zionists” and absolute boosters for the modern state of Israel. So, can we as Latter-day Saints even toy with the notion that half the population of Israel, the “Ashkenazi” or European Jews, could be “fakers” with no valid, blood-right to the Promised Land?

Basically, no. Short answer.

DNA studies trace “Jewish” bloodlines throughout all of these “fake” Jews, concluding that they all had at least a mother or more commonly a father, of original Semitic/Hebrew/Israelite heritage all along the family tree. These are not just “white” converts with no blood connections to father Abraham. They intermarried, yes. That doesn’t cut them out of the bloodline.

The theory that all or most Ashkenazi (“European”) Jews might be descended from Khazars (rather than Semitic groups in the Middle East) dates back to the racialism of late nineteenth century Europe, and was frequently cited to assert that most modern Jews aren’t descended from Israelites and/or to refute Israeli claims to territory also sought by Palestinians. It was first publicly proposed in lecture given by Ernest Renan on January 27, 1883, titled “Judaism as a Race and as Religion.” It was repeated in articles in The Dearborn Independent in 1923 and 1925, and
popularized by racial theorist Lothrop Stoddard in a 1926 article in the Forum titled “The Pedigree of Judah”, where he argued that Ashkenazi Jews were a mix of download (2)people, of which the Khazars were a primary element. Stoddard’s views were “based on nineteenth and twentieth-century concepts of race, in which small variations on facial features as well as presumed accompanying character traits were deemed to pass from generation to generation, subject only to the corrupting effects of marriage with members of other groups, the result of which would lower the superior stock without raising the inferior partners.” This theory was adopted by British Israelites, who saw it as a means of invalidating the claims of Jews (rather than themselves) to be the true descendants of the ancient Israelites, and was supported by early anti-Zionists.;id=14622

And the science:

Not only did the genetic researchers corroborate the oral history of an ancient Jewish priestly caste, but they also confirmed the genetic link between both Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations, indicating that before the two populations separated, those who shared the CMH also shared common Israelite ancestry.  Today, the CMH is considered not only the standard genetic signature of the priestly Cohanim, but also the yardstick by which all Jewish DNA is compared for determination of Israelite genetic ancestry.  Thus, if a haplogroup is not shared by both Sephardim and Ashkenazim at a similar frequency, then it is generally not considered to be of Israelite origin.

Part of the problem of “Jewishness” has to do with the tradition of passing the religion download (6)along via the maternal line, not the paternal. That’s a recent invention. In the case of the Ashkenazi Jews, it seems their particular diasporatic pattern of community and family centered around a male Israelite, usually Sephardic, (from around Spain) taking on a local European wife. So on the one hand, if you’re a neo-NAZI you can argue that this is not a valid claim to being a “real” Jew relative to any offspring of this union because of a “Gentile” mother. On the other hand, scientifically speaking, it’s a completely valid, genetically verifiable bloodline. According to the Torah, and the earlier Aaronic Priesthood tradition, priesthood authority is passed down the bloodline father-to-son. So in any case, the priesthood claim of authority would be more than valid amongst the Cohanim, the priesthood line of the Ashkenazi. And also please note that this particular study definitely disproves the bogus “Kazar” fake-Jewish convert lie.

Overall, we estimate that most (>80%) Ashkenazi mtDNAs were assimilated within Europe. Few derive from a Near Eastern source, and despite the recent revival of the ‘Khazar hypothesis’16, virtually none are likely to have ancestry in the Northdownload (9) Caucasus. Therefore, whereas on the male side there may have been a significant Near Eastern (and possibly east European/Caucasian) component in Ashkenazi ancestry, the maternal lineages mainly trace back to prehistoric Western Europe. These results emphasize the importance of recruitment of local women and conversion in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and represent a significant step in the detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history.

Khazarian myth

The Khazarian theory–which historians and scientists now believe should more accurately be called a myth—was more recently recycled (to great applause by anti-Israeli activists and some pro-Palestinian groups) in no less convincing form by Israeli French historian Shlomo Sand in The Invention of the Jewish People, published in 2008—a book panned by both historians andgeneticists.

Elhaik reengaged the controversy late last year when the Oxford journal Genome Biology and Evolution published his study, “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses.” The young Jewish researcher challenged the so-called “Rhineland hypothesis”—the broadly accepted genetic and historic evidence that about 80 percent of Jewish Ashkenazi males trace their ancestry to a core population of approximately 20,000 Eastern European Jews who originated in the Middle East. Elhaik wrote that the Khazars converted to Judaism in the eighth century, although historians believe and genetic evidence confirms that only a fraction of the population converted, including almost certainly royalty and some members of the aristocracy.

A paper published in 2000 by geneticist Harry Ostrer, a professor of genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and University of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer showed that most Ashkenazis, Italians, North Africans, Iraqi, Iranian, Kurdish and Yemenite Jews share common Y-DNA haplotypes that are also found among many Arabs from Palestine, Lebanon and Syria.  Only a small percentage of the Y-DNA of Jews originated outside of the Middle East—some in the Caucuses.

The competing Rhineland and Khazarian theories were most recently discussed by Ostrer in two studies published in 2012 and in his well received book, Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People. He found that geographically and culturally distant Jews still have more genes in common than they do with non-Jews around them, and that those genes can be traced back to the Levant, an area including modern-day Israel. “All European [Ashkenazi] Jews seem connected on the order of fourth or fifth cousins, Ostrer has said.

The concept of the “Jewish people” remains controversial. The Law of Return, the Israeli law that established the right of Jews around the world to settle in Israel and images (15)which remains in force today, was a central tenet of Zionism. The DNA that links Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi, three prominent culturally and geographically distinct Jewish groups, could conceivably be used to support Zionist territorial claims —except, as Ostrer has pointed out, some of the same markers can be found in Palestinians, distant genetic cousins of the Jews, as well. Palestinians, understandably, want their own ‘right of return’.

That disagreement over the interpretations of Middle Eastern DNA also pits Jewish traditionalists against a particular strain of secular Jewish ultra-liberals who have joined with anti-Israeli Arabs and many non-Jews to argue for an end to Israel as a Jewish nation. Their hero is the Austrian-born Shlomo Sand—and now Elhaik. His study gained buzz in neo-Nazi websites and radical anti-Israeli and more radical pro-Palestinian blogs.

And then in the same article I found this little LDS faith-promoting nugget:

Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism is not solely a faith-based religion. Its origins, as is the case with the other prominent surviving ancient religion, Zoroastrianism, are tribal. The blood connections mentioned endlessly in the Hebrew Bible are not just symbolic; the Jews of ancient Israel were a clan of connected tribes who coalesced over hundreds of years. While Jesus and later Mohammad transformed the notion of “blood” into “faith”—one could become a Christian or Muslim through faith alone—Judaism has always retained an ancestral component.

In the Torah, that blood link is patrilineal, passed on from father to son. That tradition is preserved today in the Jewish priesthood, known as the Aaronite line. According to the Bible (and we have no way to know if this is historical or apocryphal), Aaron was anointed as the first Jewish priest and his sons and their descendants became the seed population of the Jewish priesthood. Jewish Cohanim—the word means ‘priests’ in Hebrew—supervised the inner sanctum until the destruction of the Second Temple in the first century, after which the Aaronite line was preserved by tradition, with Cohanim having special privileges and responsibilities to this day.

Are present day Cohanim descended from Aaron? That question download (21)is unanswerable; we do not even know for certain that Aaron or Moses even existed. However, DNA studies of the Y chromosome have determined that a majority of self-proclaimed Cohanim (it’s an oral tradition) has a set of genetic markers that trace back approximately three thousand years to a single common ancestor. In other words, if there was no Aaron, there was certainly a High Priest early in the Jewish tradition whose ancestors have retained evidence of that tradition in their DNA.

DNA Tester: 75 Percent of Jews Trace Ancestry to Middle East Founder of U.S.-based company says that anti-Jewish polemics can’t hide the science proving that Jews did indeed originate from the region.

“We’re not interlopers who came here from Eastern Europe, and we’re not Serbs or Kazars,” says Greenspan. “You can use whatever polemic you want to discredit the Jews or discredit the nation, but saying that we weren’t here is a lie.”download (18)

Greenspan was referring to the controversial book written by Tel Aviv University historian Shlomo Sand, which asserts that the Jews of today did not originate in this part of the world and that a “nation-race” of Jews never existed. Most of today’s Jews, he argues in “The Invention of the Jewish People” (2008), are the descendants of people who lived elsewhere in the world and were converted to Judaism. However, a major study published two years later by Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, claims that many contemporary Jews do, indeed, have a distinctive genetic signature and can trace their ancestry back to the Middle East.

Greenspan delivered a guest lecture in Israel on Wednesday at the Netanya Academic College on the DNA of the Jews. Nothing download (19)more than a bit of saliva, insists the entrepreneur and genealogy enthusiast, is required to prove the similarities in the genetic make-up of most Jewish men and women, and that’s because their ancestors once lived the same place. In response to a question from Haaretz, Greenspan said he estimates that “No less than 75 percent of Ashekanzi, Sephardi or Mizrahi Jews, their ancestors came from what we call the general Middle East” – an assessment which he says is based on his company’s database.

read more:

And a formal paper:

I was going to wrap this up with a list of false religious and social beliefs spread through these perverted “Black Supremist” religious cults into the “Social Justice” and “Black Community Organizer” cultures. You know how it generally goes:

1–All white people are racist.

2–All white cops are racist, and even black cops aren’t “black,” they’re “blue,” which is also “white.”

3–Jesus was black. All the prophets were black. All the Hebrews were black.images (27)

4–White people are just as racist today as they ever were and it’s just as bad in America as it ever was.

5–Black people are forced into violent criminal lifestyles by the “white power structure” that prevents them from any meaningful achievement, political, or social power.

6–There is a war on against black males. Cops and white people kill black men by the hundreds every day.

7–Jews are the worst of all “white” people.

Bla bla bla bla bla….

But frankly, I’m tired of typing to myself. If you haven’t bothered to read deeply enough into my work, or if you just can’t see the folly and self-destructive nature of these sorts of social-failure, self-justifying fables, or if you can’t even admit or see that you’re surrounded by them every time you’re in a group of “Social Justice Warriors,” I’mimages (8) wasting time for both of us. And all you’re doing for yourself is perpetuating hate and insuring you’ll be on the losing side of a race war you’re starting on yourselves.

If you can embrace any of these intellectually and spiritually dishonest central principles and still call yourself LDS, I guess that’s between you and the Lord and I’ll leave it at that.

God bless.

Liberal elite school separates white students; teaches them they’re “born racist”

How Anti-White Rhetoric Is Fueling White Nationalism


Rumors, Accusations and Fear Roil Dallas’ Black Lives Matter Community







Posted in Black LDS Lives Matter: Part 3 Black Jesus | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Black LDS Lives Matter: Part 2 Mormon Doctrine

A black LDS Facebook group called, “Latter-day Saints for Social Justice,” which seems todownload (19)
have gone black now, (no pun intended) prompted my first investigation into black LDS Facebook activity with its lead post or header, posing this question:

Should the Brethren speak out more openly about Social Justice?

The answer to that is: NO.

Why not? “Social Justice” relative to the Black Lives Matter movement, is Newspeak for a quagmire of spirit-sucking, life-draining far-Left social, political, cultural and religious world views that are for the most part download (17)dogmatically and un-negotiably anti-LDS. It’s also millennial code for such a tangled, convoluted litany of self-hating white, ultra-liberal guilt trips so far off the Mormon track that it’s not worth setting out on that path in the first place. In an “ethnic” sense, it’s made up in part by a club driven by black, career, professional race-baiters determined to make a living off playing the victim and defending strawmen of color from the worldwide “white”CUREauthors conspiracy to oppress and deny the “black” race any power or influence at all in any sphere of international culture, industry, politics or society. You will not enlighten those who preach it, and the only possible involvement you can have successfully with it, is to confess your sins, bow down, and download (18)obey the mandates of its ministers.

Really, you retort? How could you say that about “Social Justice?” It sounds so “fair.” So “just.” How could you be against that? Well, believe me, if it were down to just those two words and their common dictionary definitions, I’d be all for
it. But aside from the naïve do-gooders tripping alongside, the central heart of the “Social Censorship-1160x457Justice” crowd wants very little to do with “Justice,” and everything to do with “Social Engineering” and censorship. (In fact, the white on-campus version of the movement is centered around championing extreme interpretations of political correctness that has shut down any pretense at “learning” at the university level any more.)

The current Pope may drewsheneman-wagesbe all for “Social Justice,” whatever that means to him. But he’s a self-confessed communist from a third-world background where his entire political and social experience is centered around poverty, ignorance, political despotism, oppression and corruption. That’s his world-view, that’s all he knows. It
may even be correct throughout the third world. If I lived in Argentina or Bangladesh or Venezuela, his observations might be entirely applicable. But the “socialism” or “workers of the world unite” element of download (12)the movement, the “world peace and prosperity” spiel is but one facet out of the jewel of the movement, held out into the sun at just the right angle to proudly sparkle and distract you from the streaks and weird stuff amalgamated all around it. The movement incorporates factions of gay, or more modernly, LGBT activists, priesthood feminists demanding equal clergy representation for women in LDS and all other clergies, and a host of other fringe social causes. For instance, and not surprisingly, Black images (62)Lives Matter and other American “Social Justice” champions, are claiming that their experience in the United States as a “black community,” in present day context, is exactly that experienced by His Holiness: a miserable subsistence centered around poverty, ignorance, political despotism, oppression, and corruption.

Black Lives Matter and the “Social Justice” movement in the United States (and probably2ab6ccdf78a388a081cb7bdef162b402 everywhere else) literally believe that there is an exact social and moral equivalent between the way the “black community” in America is treated by the “white privileged classes” and the golden age of European colonialism, the aristocracies, monarchies, the slave trade, and at best, the Jim Crow south. They hold that nothing substantial has changed at all for them in the post-Civil Rights Era.


BYU student poll placing Bernie Sanders (avowed socialist) at the top of the poll

The so-called “Social Justice” movement in America that I observe, is often more about revolution, and a cry for heavy-handed, imposed socialism, true, state-owned-everything socialism, “Marxism,” or “Communism,” to be clear about it. And Mormons are buying into it along with everyone else. You can call it “Democratic Socialism,” but again, that’s code for “Just Plain Socialism.” “Social Justice” in this context means taking by force the capital and property of the rich, and giving it to the poor, regardless of the merits of either party’s claim on said wealth and property. The lazy, the stupid, the wasteful, get the same “fair” portion as those who images (34)actually produce, perform, earn, create, manage, and benefit society and culture. You can parse it out all you want into little clauses intended to prove its “fairness,” IE: Just how much money you let a rich guy keep out of “fairness,” or just how much you take from him and give to a layabout because of “fairness,” or just how much in-between those two a real producer, worker, creator should get out of “fairness,” but the bottom line is, it’s all about white-privilege-meme1you and your mob hand-picking winners and losers, arbitrarily defining rewards of merit and awards of payment, through ideological biases, and attempting to manipulate and regulate the economy and marketplace of goods and labor, so that you and your mob are happy with what you’ve gotten out of the “rich,” and you’re personally satisfied that the “rich” have been put in their place.

Now, Glenn Beck-haters in and out of the Mormon church will argue that the “United Order,” or the Book of Mormon as a whole, is a study in the Christian mandate to take care of the poor. That’s the “go-to” argument. They neglect to continue the lesson into just how this was accomplished in either case. CaptureThe easy answer is, voluntarily, and on an individual basis, or as a collective “church” congregational effort. They also never mention that the United Order failed miserably as a human institution, and the official stand of the church is that it would have to be overseen and administered by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself, to work properly and fairly.

Of course, half of my lifetime ago, simple John Burch, cultural isolationist, anti-Communist paranoia would be sound enough argument for most Latter-day Saints to avoid BLM affiliation like the plague. (That of course, and we still had the Civil Rights Movement being depicted as a mixture of Communist plot to overthrow the US images (100)government via race riots, and the whole notion that the “Negro” was a troublesome creature to begin with in any case.) In the modern “enlightened” LDS church, it’s now true that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is being preached through a worldwide organization that functions in many fully socialist, even Communist nations, and all over the “darkest” of Africa, as it used to be termed. It should be noted however, that even Russia and China, the two big “Commie” states have deconstructed images (64)their Marxist model economies and political organization out of necessity, to create sustainable, healthy economies and ensure productivity and wealth in their “workers’ paradise.” African wannabe Communist satellites have descended into permanent tribal warfare, abject poverty and misery, after a bankrupt Soviet Union stopped propping them up. Bernie Sanders is wont to keep citing Denmark as his ideal of “democratic socialism,” but Denmark recently asked him to stop defaming their free-market economy by implying they were socialists.

Denmark Tells Bernie Sanders It’s Had Enough Of His ‘Socialist’ Slurs

The official policy of the church in this country or any other, is to try to stay politically neutral, with the occasional exception of some particularly “moral” questions that arise in images (60)the political forum, such as gay marriage et al. What I hear demanded from BLM and other “Social Justice” groups however, is a governmentally enforced “stick it to the rich” political revolution, straight down a decidedly far Leftist path. I have no deeply held moral or philosophical disagreement in principle with the sentiment of sticking it to the “rich.” I’d be a Kennedy Democrat, conservative-ish blue-collar Democrat, if there really was such a thing any more. It’s just that skewering the “rich” just for the pleasure of it is usually counter-productive, and destroys wealth, the very thing you’re pretending to images (95)guarantee for all.

There’s an academic word for this: Social Darwinism. Another word for it is: Mob Rule. We saw how that went in both the Russian and French revolutions. The average BLM protester of course, knows nothing about either. Suffice it to say, the Russians found out that the “Party” was just a czar who was less fair or productive, that Yuri the tractor mechanic knew nothing about running the tractor factory no matter how loyal he was toimages (48) the “Party,” and the French discovered like the Russians, that the neighborhood busybody was now a local officer with a guillotine, the “people’s” cops, and an army behind him to enforce his petty demands for your compliance with his personal whims. They both discovered that after you kill off or chase out the “rich” and the educated, the professionals, your country is being run by “community organizers” who’s only skill is rallying a mob to go demand food, jobs and images (67)money from “The Man.” But of course, “The Man” is now dead and gone, along with all his loot, food, employment opportunities and goodies.

More specific to the Black Lives Matter emphasis of my admittedly center-right postulating about the merits of “socialism,” is the implicit and sometimes express demand of these movements for “reparations,” and other direct compensation believed to be owed the “black community” in America, due to slavery and “white privilege.” If only on a subtextual level, these concepts are almost universally incorporated into the philosophies of these sorts of groups’Slavery-Reparations membership. Simply put, these folks believe all black Americans are “owed” a living in perpetuity for work their ancestors did in bondage hundreds of years ago. This they contend, is “Social Justice,” and anything short of that is a justification for perpetual riot and retribution. (No I’m not reparations2exaggerating.) This attitude is extended into police relationships under the guise of “Nigga’s got a right…” arguments, which translated means, “you cops have no right to hassle me in any way.” Why? “Nigga’s got a right…” They look upon the police as an unrighteous imposition upon whatever it is they feel like doing at any given time, including robbing, stealing, or killing each other, and this because they are “owed” for generations of slavery and oppression. Some of the more violent and organized factions of this world view have made a point of spelling it out for you far clearer than I could ever invent or fake on my own, so I’ll let them speak for themselves:

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC], the National Black FootSoldier Network is a black separatist group that is active in the following states: AL, AR, CA, DC, FL,GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, SC, TN, VA, WA.The National Black Foot Soldier Network (NBFSN) identifies white families whose descendants actually owned slaves as “Direct Trans Atlantic Slave Trade Reparationsreparations Offenders” and calls robberies against them “reparations protests” Based on propaganda posted on their websites, the National Black Foot Soldier Network seems to adhere to belief systems stemming from various extremists groups such as the Black Hebrew Israelites and the Nation of Islam.

The dominant theme in their propaganda is anti-White and anti-Jewish rhetoric, along with a strong hatred of “white Police” and the U.S. military. Their websites display disclaimers stating that the NBFSN does not advocate black on white crime pasc-f4rc2d_t4_d2f2nd_s2lfor violence against white police; however, all of the individuals honored or memorialized on their website have successfully carried out or planned to carry out acts of violence against military personnel or law enforcement officers.

So, when I say the “Social Justice” pond is actually a “quagmire” I mean “quagmire,” and why would the Brethren knowingly wade into this fetid pool of slime?:

ALL WHITES R REPARATIONS OFFENDERS;” Definition Of A Reparations Offender: Direct & Non Direct, Which R You? The pasc-b4w_cr3m2entire “Western world” profited and still reaps benefits from both that slave trade and the concept of white supremacy and the institution of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade. Therefore, the entire white world owes.

The Black Foot Soldier’s Network is one of several like it on the reparations bandwagon. They have absolutely no common sense or moral compass, as self-exposed by their own coded jargon:

Reparations Protest – This phrase essentially refers to the commission of a crime by a black person against a white person. This can refer to rape, torture, murder, assault, assault GBH, attempted murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances and any other sort of violent crime that you can think of – provided the victim is (22)
Generational Race Criminal –  someone who is white – whether their family owned slaves or not. This is usually the reference made when a white person refuses to kiss the ass of the black person attacking them or does not feel that they owe the black population a single damn thing.
Divine Racial Karma – This term was a little harder to ascertain the meaning of because its use was completely mindboggling to me at first. This basically boils down to the blaming of the VICTIM for the crime that was perpetrated against them. For example – white women are to blame for their own rape at the images (73)hands of black men. Whites are to blame for their murders by blacks etc etc etc…
The meaning goes further still to state that they are the victims of this crime not because the criminal was a racist psychopath but because at some point in the distant history (read 400 – 100 years ago) black people were taken as slaves and treated as slaves. In effect the blog’s author tries to justify the blatant malicious and evil actions of blacks against whites as the fault of the victim because they are racist. This assertion of racism is based solely on the images (70)fact that the victims had white skin (is this not racism in itself?? Or has my logic failed me?)
(In one article they actually blame a 12 year old girl that was gang raped and then murdered by 2 black men for what happened. They state that:

“Millions of our people were lured into slavery through the same duplicitous beguile by which brothers Justin and Dante Robinson, unknowingly driven by Divine Racial Karma, led this twelve year old devil to her appointment with this sacred cosmic principle that rewards races according to their generational images (71)deeds to other races,” NBFSN Divine Racial Karma translator Hallowed Yclept reportedly states in  a first network statement about the girls death.

“It is great and terrible that Divine Racial Karma says answer ‘yes’ when you ask yourselves did this so called innocent, twelve year old girl Autumn deserve this.” )

If I really wanted to rabble-rouse, I’d have to note here that Trayvon Martin was involved at least in pretend, with the Black Foot Soldier’s Network and the term “No Limit Nigga,” his Twitter handle, 22cef9b2fa4c22f4d091e8dd002136afwas code for a Black Foot Soldier who was ready to do anything for the cause. My only point here is not to comment on the Trayvon Martin case itself, but to point out that these sentiments have been central to the BLM genesis from the very beginning. If you do not see and hear them in your local Black Lives Matter protests, you Screen Shot 2015-09-06 at 11.43.06 PMaren’t listening or looking very hard. The fact remains that the stated purpose of BLM is specifically to defend these selfsame “Black Foot Soldiers,” whether literally part of that religious branch of the black criminal world, or just soaked andkill-whites-cops dripping in the sympathetic putrid essence of a similar world view. Black Lives Matter has openly declared that it exists exclusively to serve the legal needs of memorializing and avenging these black criminals, who at one level or another, act out their belief in the demonic nature of the “white” race, and their divine right to take or inflict anything they desire from it, or upon it.

The LDS church officially proclaims that the Constitution of the United States of America is an inspired document that has been the cornerstone of a divinely appointed government, built by divinely inspired men (and women) in order to prepare the chosen an-appeal-to-lds-voters-17-728land and God’s chosen people of the Restoration for the coming of the Kingdom of God on Earth. The physical construction of this kingdom is maintained to be taking place literally at some point, in Daviess County Missouri at a place called Adam Ondi Ahman. This is also billed officially as the site of the Garden of Eden. This American location and all the “whiteness” surrounding it diminishes somewhat the importance of all the Afro-centricness BLM and kindred crusaders would have us accept. All of this WASPY “chosenness” was determined to be Eternal Truth by the load of exclusively “white” guys who restored the church as British Isles, Scandinavian, and other “white European” immigrants. They put an official stamp of blessing on the same Constitution that Black Lives Matter and “Social Justice” advocates will tell you is an irrelevant old document scribbled out in sheer bigotry by a lot of racist, misogynist, slave-holding, rich, greedy old white men in order to enslave and oppress the “black” race while enjoying their “white privilege” in luxury forever, fueled by the broken backs of their slave-powered empire. (No time to parse the bits of “truth” out of that argument at the moment…)images (79)

While the church also believes in honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law under a host of worldwide kings, rulers, and other governments, communist, socialist, democratic and otherwise, the basic assumptions, the central LDS principles of self-reliance, combined with a very specific blessing upon the b909c6f6f361556f8c2e78378b901a79Constitutional principles of American free-enterprise, self-determination and self-government, which cannot be mistaken or misconstrued, leaves us with some serious conflicts relative to any attempt to embrace the so-called “Social Justice” movement, not just on political grounds, but on racial, social, ethical and moral grounds, particularly where this very broad movement blends into the mission statement of Black Lives Matter, which as I say, is almost singularly concentrated in defending the criminal class of the “black community” from alleged police abuse.

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

images (81)Black Lives Matter, like the “Social Justice” movement, is a very large tent in a very 20160522_wadenegative way. There are many good people at least sympathetic or loosely involved with the hearty, wholesome supper going on inside of it. But there is also a whole herd of very smelly camels poking into it, mooching food and wandering about the buffet as well. There are far too many smelly camels to tag them all here. I have listed only a few of the smelliest so far. But I guess there will have to be a third installment to flesh out some of the other doctrinal problems the Latter-day Saint would run into right on the surface of the movement, without digging very deep at all into the crowd running with BLM.

images (89)10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

So far, you may have not been discerning enough, or I may have not really gotten to my point clearly enough, for you to realize that the LDS problem with Black Lives Matter is not a black or white, Left or Right, Republican or Democrat issue in the conventional sense. It is certainly not the case here that I’m simply making a partisan argument from some Glenn Beck/Tea5ee4e633b6f87920e8a795b8406b7680 Party/Conservative Republican point of view. I’m not going to pander to you Lefties by genuflecting with contrast or comparison writing about the KKK or Aryan Nations, the Christian Idententity Movement or the Brotherhood as proof of my journalistic credentials or in some sense of “fairness.” There’s no significant involvement with any of these white supremacist groups in the LDS church and never has been. You as fellow Saints don’t need to be warned about them, you know what to expect from them–with the exception of brother Beck, who’s running dangerously close to a bunch of “evangelical Christians” and other “Christian Nation Movement,” or “Patriot Movement,” folks who rub elbows with the truly dangerous, “Christian Identity Movement” and other white, Anglo-Saxon-based white supremacists. But that’s another lecture I’m planning to give soon.

On this issue of BLM however, there is much truth to be had from the center-right71e6247fc3b13b5c953ee8e55aa81bd8 perspective, though I don’t endorse about half of what the far right has to say about it. I believe the mass population of BLM is sincere, but the “leadership” and the funding of it ranges from those who are out to make a buck, those who are self-deluded “True Believers” of a self-crippling, “black” gospel that’s upside-down and backwards,  and a lot of people black and white, people of all colors, who are simply too stupid for their own good and buy anything proposed in the narrative because it “feels truthy” as pundit Steven Colbert would put it. The center-left, or old-school “liberal” perspective I think is just myopic and selective. It chooses to ignore the evils within, happily relives its liberal heyday where protesting really mattered and was truly “progressive,” because it was about actual Civil Rights issues, and the mainstream Democratic/Liberal base now only cares to see the surface glitter of a charming slogan. What I 87f2bd1f5e9af5f68959d8a47b73e174find unacceptable in an LDS context however, is to shut the mind instantly when one perceives that strange information is coming from an agreed-upon partisan, unacceptable source or a supposedly well known and personally or ideologically adversarial agent or agency. Got that off Fox News? Oh, they just make stuff up. Got that off CNN? Oh, they just make stuff up. Got that from Russia Today? Got that from those Tea Party whackoes? Maddow said that? Ignore it. You should only listen to information from people who already agree with you…”proven” sources. “Reliable” sources. “Acredited” sources (85)

That’s all a load of self-limiting, deliberate ignorance. From an LDS doctrinal stance it’s inexcusable. Even stuff from Alex Jones, the original “911 Truther” is occasionally factual and well reported. The conclusions reached, with Jones, Beck, Fox, CNN, or any other source, is an entirely different matter. Often the basic facts of a case are undeniable, but the spin, the interpretation, the proposed action or perceived causes creating the facts, are sometimes ideologically driven, and in dispassionate, rational examination, are revealed to be just plain crazy and counter to all logic, probability and reason, even self-defeating or deadly.


NY Times Finds Trump Threat to First Amendment, Yet Downplays Anti-Trump Free-Speech Denial in San Jose

First of all, we as Latter-day Saints believe that there is such a thing as an ultimate “Truth.” We go so far as to say that “Truth” does not exist simply because God decrees it to be “True,” but because it exists independently in its own sphere. Over and over again however, I have seen the Black Lives Matter mobs and their leaders demand “Justice,” yet when justice is served, when multiple, deep investigations, when lengthy court trials and hearings do not support their pre-conceived narrative, they refuse to accept the “truth,” or any single piece of evidence leading to it, and contend therefore that there was no “Justice” meted out. What this group is really saying then, is what it really wants, is a cop sent to prison because theydownload (25) have long decided as a mob that the cop is guilty and their poster boy of the day is not the violent criminal or self-defeating idiot the evidence clearly shows him to be, but rather, a fragile martyr and victim of systemic racism.

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

 25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

Which leads me to the first of a number of very anti-LDS, doctrinal reasons for being wary of entangling yourself with Black Lives Matter or any other “Social Justice” organization as a Latter-day Saint:

Black Lives Matter holds that all police officer-related deaths of black folks, particularly images (84)black young men, (meaning Negro, and almost exclusively African American Negroes,) are essentially due to systemic racism in the police force, and that even if these young black “victims” of police “murder” are indeed violent, ignorant, plain stupid or criminal sociopaths, this is all down to “white privilege,” and the culture of “white oppression” of the “black community” in general.

To be totally honest, this shouldn’t even deserve a comeback after reviewing the last four or five or more big screen, world-shaking national and international trials of the century put up by BLM proponents and attended with riot and mayhem and pillage. Trayvon Martin was a bust. Mike Brown was a bust. Freddie Gray is headed in that Captuppnredirection. [Update, 4 July 2016–a few days ago Caesar Goodson, the black driver accused of the actual “murder” of Freddie Gray, was acquitted of all charges.] Our own Nekima Levy-Pounds the local, Minneapolis NAACP chapter president, BLM cheerleader, and “Social Justice” advocate, is crying in her Chablis at this very moment over the recently returned decision of federal prosecutors not to pursue cee06dd72d8996d899b41a702ca9f1e8a civil rights violation charge against the officers who engaged and terminated her patron saint, Jamar Clark. I shouldn’t have to defend the notion that it’s obvious to all but themselves that their go-to narrative of “white,” systematic, police predation of the “black community” isn’t proving out. What is proving out, is a very clear indication that the “black community” has no universal common sense or civility when it comes to dealing with the police. That, and a giant, sometimes fatal chip on its shoulder.

In a bizarre but predictable turn, our ever-vigilant Nekima Levy-Pounds, who had been a frontliner in demanding that cops be issued body cameras and be forced to use them, spun around on bodycamher own long, vehemently and firmly wall-nailed point in favor of these cameras, when the Minnesota Legislature actually produced a bill to enforce that demand. I heard her but a week ago as of this writing, testifying before the legislature, and in a lengthy Minnesota Public Radio interview, demanding now instead, that this legislation be scrapped until, as she clearly put it on the radio, it could be worded in such a way as to prohibit the use of body camera footage to surveille or prosecute black criminals. In other words, camera evidence could only be used to prosecute or discipline cops. Also, she did not want cops to be able to review the footage to help them fill out a more accurate report of events. And why would she make such a demand do you think? Because as more and more cameras come online, as in all the “poster child” trials so far, imvvvagescamera footage has only served to back up the police version of events, and indict young black criminals. Likewise, as an attorney, she knew that police reports from memory, like any eyewitness recounting of events, were subjective, often contradicted other witnesses at least on minor points, and missed details that she could then use in court to discredit the police version if the audio and visual recording did not completely agree with the written report–and perhaps she could thus even make the claim that the cop or cops involved were “incompetent,” or “lying” or “falsifying” a report over these unavoidable, honest and completely routine discrepancies.

Dayton signs law governing police body cameras and footage

She was not interested in the “Truth.” She was not interested in “black lives.” She was only interested in indicting, suppressing, and taming the police force of Minneapolis and greater Minnesota.

324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years

But even humoring the validity of blaming “Whitey” for every criminal act committed by the “black community,” we as Latter-day Saints are not believers in the 635914973129134862-65594349_microaggressions everywherefiction that mankind is merely the product of its environment, or even its training and upbringing. The first LDS principle of mortality is the exercise of free-agency. So if “Whitey” is to be blamed for crushing the heart and soul of the “black community,” forcing it to turn evil and violent, there really has to be some overt, brutal suppression of the spirit going on. It should be blatant and obvious. Yet, one still has to wonder why Fredrick Douglass, Rosa Parks, or Dr Martin Luther King didn’t go running around robbing, killing, raping, burning and looting, inasmuch as they actually did experience an obvious, crushing, institutional racism.

 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed candownload (35) be.

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the download (36)condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

 32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

Frankly, evidence of this current vaporous, invisible-but-smothering oppression, alleged to be destroying all free agency of the “black community,” has been so thin that instead of showing us even shadowy whisps of it, Black Lives Matter and the “Social Justice” cabal have dumbed-down the concept of “racism,” to a thing so subtle that you might not even notice it unless you watch and listen very closely for “micro-aggressions.”

Yes, the current working definition of “racism,” or “bigotry” or “opresion,” is hearing anything that hurts your feelings, or seeing anything that makes you feel “unsafe,” however seemingly harmless or innocent it may be.

Truth is as truth does, and it’s just possible that all these black men supposedly being shot download (15)by the police are engaged in behavior, often criminal, and usually stupid, that brings a bullet their way all on their own, not even denying a cop who may for the sake of the argument, at least occasionally be every bit the racist BLM claims they all are, the chance to act out his bigotry because he’s got to shoot the fool either way. It’s just possible that African Americans, and blackimages (47) young men in particular, worship a culture, or sub-culture of thuggery, violence, and disrespect for the law. It may be that the entire “black community” itself behaves in a loud, hysterical, counter-productive and non-cooperative manner, quite unlike the typical “white” population generally does in police interactions. Perhaps that’s what explains at least most of any discrepancy between black interactions and white interactions with the police. Perhaps it’s the black population that needs to change its behavior around cops, and learn to cooperate and respect the authority of law enforcement officers. Cops already take courses in being polite, calm, and rational even in the face of shreaking fools. Who’s giving those same lessons to the “black community?”

It isn’t Black Lives Matter.

I hate to keep doing it. I end up reprising it in half the things I write on the subject, but Chris Rock is going to be linked again out of fairness and clarity…

The most inconvenient truth in the organization of Black Lives Matter however, is that if black lives really do matter, it’s not the cops who are shooting black young men. That accounts for something well short of 4% of all shooting deaths in the young black male population. It’s easier to concede my point by admitting, just to humor me, asdownload (12) BLM leaders have actually done repeatedly and openly, that nearly 100% of all violent deaths in the black community are down to black on black perpetrators, or other feats of self-ending, suicidal black bravado and stupidity. BLM has openly confessed this doesn’t matter to them. It’s just about the cops treating the black criminals they deal with on a daily basis with kindness and understanding, and BLM’s insistence that they should never ever kill one their criminal wards no matter what he’s doing at the time or how much risk the cop perceives to be present during his or her interchange with same.

Beyond all the above, next time you’re having a quiet think and maybe a prayer, ask images (86)yourself, Lord: is it just possible that, even entertaining the bold assertion that the police are “trigger happy” around the “black community,” that in this day and age, in the United States of America, outside of a few anachronistic pockets of hillbillies or flatland rednecks in some holler in Bumfork Tennessee, or Farkle Flats Alabama, it has far less to do with “racism,” and far more to do with anjoWTQXI accurate, professional profile of a likely violent perpetrator based upon experience with multiple similar encounters that have consistently led to serious injury or death of the officer or bystanders. Yeah, that’s “profiling,” even “racial” profiling. But it’s good police work and it saves lives. It’s “stereotyping,” but if it’s fair and accurate stereotyping, if it’s correct most of the time, that’s not “racism,” that’s a good guess based upon observed behavior. If that behavior was not predominant in that profiled group, images (91)it would be less than worthless for cops to apply the profile.

Cops don’t have the time to go through your whole life’s experience to scope out your true nature and worth as a human being. They can’t stand there for an hour and politely humor your demandsdownload (27) about what you think your rights are, or how you don’t have to comply with this or that, or can damned well keep your hands in your pockets if you want to. Everything goes into the profile, that cop is assembling in his or her head: race, customs of locality, demeanor, behavior, tone of voice. Everything. Profiling is a shortcut but a necessary one.

Here’s what happens when you don’t profile, when you try to give the suspect the time and comfort he needs to smooth out the encounter. You can tell by the perp’s behavior something is going to go down without any special training at all:

When “profiling” is applied in police work, it’s not’s because of “racism.” It’s because thedownload (29) profile is accurate most of the time.

Young black males and black folk in general are getting shot by cops at a statistically miniscule rate. Particularly compared to black-on-black shootings, there is no “war on young black men,” there is no “epidemic” of cop “executions” in the “black community.” And when young black men do get shot by cops, it’s almost always because they bring it on themselves. And that’s the truth. Most of the time. You may not see it that way. Young black men may not see it that way. But the other great truth to accept, is that you might be too personally ignorant, stupid, bigoted, biased or racist yourself to see it.

Truth exists in its own independent sphere, however you “feel” about it, however much you don’t want it to be true, however hard you try to pretend it isn’t true, or however many third parties, scapegoats, oppressors, social factors, or “systemic” persecutions you try to blame it on.


Bonus videos:

Posted in Black LDS Lives Matter: Part 2 Mormon Doctrine | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Black LDS Lives Matter: Part 1 Who are You?

What could possibly be wrong with an organization that calls itself images (30)“Black Lives Matter?” Of course black lives matter! Only a bigotty, mean-old racist could object to that. Right? It’s a great handle for a “social justice” movement, but then again, like “Black Lives Matter” itself, “social justice” is a beautiful example of what author George Orwell in his dystopian-future novel, 1984, called, “Newspeak,” or images (35)“Doublethink,” which is language designed by a manipulative nanny-state run by “Big Brother,” that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the actual, very negative meaning of the thing being described.

Some have parodied the mission of Black Lives Matter with the epithet: “Black Lies Matter.” Some very prominent “black” community spokesmen and women have done so. But, why would even some black Civil Rights leaders make this sort of negative dismissal of a movement founded to stop the images (42)universal, systemic culture of blatantly racist police brutality and murder, that is targeting young black males, and black people in general, putting the entire black community under threat of extinction? To answer this question fully, we first have to go back as best we can and try to uncover just who this group really is, and where it came from. The short answer for now is, critics are calling BLM “liars,” because there is no systemic, predatory vendetta by “the cops” to exterminate young black males, or the “black community” in general. This empirical reality has been amply established by the legal proceedings, the social and crime statistics related to every single “poster child” the movement has singled out as a clear example of their premise.

Many Black Lives Matter apologists will try to tell you that they are simply part of the garvey1ongoing Civil Rights Movement’s continuous struggle, as started by the likes of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and the Reverend Ralph Abernathy. The truth is, Black Lives Matter is a Millennial phenomenon made up of politically useful idiots who’ve been brainwashed by a variety of black race-hustlers and whiteimages (12) “progressive” academic dogmatists who’ve canonized a litany of quazi-Marxist, “black liberation” buzzwords and enabling rationalizations so the “black community” will remain dependent upon mainstream, liberal Democratic governmental handouts, “protected class” legislation and social programs, rather than become true, self-sustaining, self-actualized human beings and free American citizens with full self-determination.

Dr. King had a dream–a “color blind” society where children black and white grow up images (16)together to be judged by the “content of their character,” not the color of their skin. Malcolm X Frederick-Douglass-freedom-quotesgave up his delusions of black separatism and embraced the promise of America and demanded a full share of it for his people–as was their right as Americans. The precursors of these recently departed Civil Rights warriors, the original black Americans, who made their arguments as former slaves, actual full victims of “white” exploitation by actual, bona fide “racists,”(who believed they were fundamentally, spiritually, intellectually inferior creatures because of their race,) likewise argued against being returned “home” to Africa, refused to be separated from or independent of the greater “white” culture and American population, and did not preach of the eternal images (14)separation of “white” and “black” races as an unresolveable conflict. They demanded instead their full rights as American citizens.

The spoiled, “bougie black” grad students and self-hating white, neo-hippie/hipsterimages (25) Millennials that feed the power core of the Black Lives Matter movement, don’t know anything about Fredrick Douglas, or that Malcolm X morphed into El Hajj Malik El Shabazz–a man with a vision of all races and nations united under the peaceful surrender to Allah. If they’re lucky they have a rough understanding of the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, and unfortunately, the “Reverend” Al Sharpton, all  of whom were once well-meaning guys, but bluntly put, were not the movers and the shakers of the historic Civil Rights battles fought not so long ago. They amount essentially to mere hangers-on during the actual heart of the “struggle.” Many, like Sharpton, eventually devolved into blatant frauds and race-baiters who now openly fabricate  racial strife for a living. But the entire company of them images (32)at best, are vestiges of an obsolete, self-defeating “progressive” approach to solving the problems of poverty, education, and productivity in the “black community.” (Again “progressive” is Newspeak for “status quo.”)

During Barack Obama’s first campaign, Jesse Jackson for example, commented that he’d likeimages (43) to castrate Obama. (Basically as an “uppity Nixxer” who was talking down to black folks about not taking enough personal responsibility for their lives and communities.) He was photographed weeping, months later at Obama’s inaugural. Whether this is in joy of Obama’s historic election, or just in the sudden realization that he was out of a gig, is anyone’s guess.

On a bizarre note, Black Lives Matter elements have now even gone so far as to turn on Al Sharpton and his ilk, calling them “House Nixxers” and correctly identifying them as parasites manipulating the black community into relying on them for help, while all they do instead is to extort a handsome living from “The Man,” and revel in fame and fortune off the backs of their dailyimages (34) travails. While on the one hand this should be a positive development, on the other hand, it appears this comes not so much from a true understanding of things as they are and have been, but is a sign that the BLM congregation seeks an even more hysterical, violent, and disruptive mission statement, and constitutes an open rejection of the formerly central ideals of “equality,” and the guarantee of full Constitutional civil rights for all, in favor of the black supremacist, blackimages (15) separatist rationales that had been long dismissed as failed, lesser, fringe ideologies during the real Civil Rights Movement.

While openly  welcomed, even courted, on self-declared “liberal” college campuses, the Black Lives Matter culture is an intellectually dishonest, morally disingenuous, immature and sophomoric collection of spoiled black Millennial slave-fantasy live action role-play enthusiasts, and 60’s protest re-enactors. These catered simpletons equate 400 years of brutal slavery, the barbaric torture and murder of Emmett Till for merely whistling at a white woman, to Oprah Winfrey being shown an $18,000.00 production model images (41)designer purse in an exclusive Zürich boutique, instead of the clerk reaching up and handing her the one-of-a-kind, custom, $40,000.00 original she wanted to oggle. This insanity is enabled and sustained by a couple of generations of white-liberal images (40)guilt in both administrative and professorial academia, which has translated into the systematic production of the current generation of openly self-hating white Millenials who wake up each morning fretting  and weeping about how they can find some way to redeem themselves via a formal, public abdication of their “white privilege.”

A recent example of the BLM Millennial archetype at the University of Missouri, “Mizzou” (MiZoo as I call it) as thedownload (8) president of the Student Union, tried to get a campus-wide crisis going because of a “poo” swastika somebody smeared on a dorm bathroom wall. (This is apparently the only verifiable incident in the entire list of petty complaints that followed.) Payton Head, a near-graduate student funded by a wealthyCTgZgHfUcAAqw_0father, went on to claim that he’d heard someone call him a “nixxer” while listening to an outdoor choir. He then claimed he heard somebody going by in a pickup shout “nixxer” out the window. Not satisfied with the lack of a complete and immediate campus shakedown, AAEAAQAAAAAAAAYhAAAAJGIwOGI2OWZmLThhOTUtNGY4Ny1iMzEzLTA5NThmMTE3ODhmNwhe advanced his rhetoric to claiming there was a KKK death squad sneaking around campus, looking into dorm windows, and threatening to kill every black person they see inside. (He later confessed to making that one up.)

It might also be well to keep in mind, that Mr. Head, the much-oppressed black president of the Student Union, served on this esteemed body with 4 other black students and only one white member. How uninclusive that institution must be! I guess being homecoming king, like being the first black president of the United States, is download (9)just another sign of white privilege. Somehow.

(But then again, some of these folks will tell you that Barack Hussein Obama is not really the nation’s first black president–he’s not really the president at all, and the “white power structure” dances him around like a puppet to distract the oppressed black masses, while the “Man” does what he wants, and won’t let Obama do anything meaningful at all. Others will call him a sellout “Tom,” and “head nigga in charge.” The “house boy.”)

Bogus Bolitics: Dr. Cornel West Calls Al Sharpton “The Bonafide House Negro Of The Obama Plantation”

After weeks of silly Mizzou campus demonstrations, which culminated in things like black mobs throwing white students out of the library because they didn’t feel “safe” withdownload (7) white kids in there, and a central-square mob led by a green-clad, ginger-white pixie woman from the media studies department, who rallied a gang over to threaten away reporters, the president of the university resigned. There followed a list of asinine demands which as far as I know are currently being humored by the subsequent management.

If there’s no connection to or continuous social or organizational legacy download (10)connecting past civil rights agencies, personalities, leaders and traditions, where did Black Lives Matter come from then? That’s the question of the day, because it didn’t come entirely from one source and at best is very loosely organized, if coordinated or organizationally connected at all from one local version of this group to another, all across the nation. It gets funding from professional mob protest enthusiasts from the Left, Democratic Party donor bases and other liberal corporations like Google. But apart from taking money from wherever it can get it, Black Lives Matter is truly a “grass roots,” phenomenon. Or “gutter roots.” This is not to say there aren’t professional figureheads involved and background funding foundations with agendas both open and camouflaged.

Following the money funneling into it is far easier than discerning the organizational chart of Black Lives Matter. It’s a bit like the Tea Partydownload (12) Movement. There is no “The Tea Party.” It’s a “Movement,” its affiliates use the moniker “Tea Party” in common as a sign of unity in purpose, but in reality it’s just a bunch of separate clubs doing each its own thing with no national or overall governing body.

There was no known “big meeting” to kick it off, but there were a couple of precursor national events that set the tone and indirectly led to the formation of the Black Lives Matter movement. One notable preview of what was to come, was when Professor Henry Louiseht_gates_in_cuffs_090721_wmain (1) Gates threw a hissy fit when a neighbor reported a man breaking into his house, the cops arrived, and found Gates breaking into his own house. Gates got arrested for disorderly conduct. Barack Obama took political advantage of the situation to say, “The Cambridge police behaved stupidly.” The fact is, the Cambridge police behaved calmly and quite (13)

professionally in that encounter, and it was Louis Gates who lost his cool, pissed off probably more that the cops didn’t recognize him from his world-famous PBS series on genealogy, than their “racist” suspicion that he was breaking into his house because he was seen breaking into his house. Obama never backed off, but he moved to effect a conciliatory, and very staged “beer summit.” It’s fairly clear from the cop’s demeanor that he attended the president’s invitation only because his police chief ordered him

President Barack Obama, Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sergeant James Crowley meet in the Rose Garden of the White House, July 30, 2009. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

President Barack Obama, Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sergeant James Crowley meet in the Rose Garden of the White House, July 30, 2009. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

to go meet with Gates and Obama in the rose garden for a drink to kiss and make up. (And probably clinch that federal purchase of war surplus heavy vehicles and automatic weapons.) But that set the tone from the top down—the president had 2851836300000578-3068224-Watts_right_insisted_she_was_just_kissing_her_boyfriend_in_the_c-m-58_1430795521919your “black” back. At long last the “black community” had a champion in the White House. This seemed to embolden the next series of racial “discrimination” claims that suddenly sprayed forth from all directions. With the blessing of the first black president, a media eager to advance the liberal agenda, and the proven effectiveness of what became known as the “race card,” it was open season for claims of racial discrimination. Every black thug, crook, cheat, bad driver and socially retarded idiot was pulling it with pride as trump for any situation dealing with white folk, especially white authority figures. For example,  Danielle Watts, a featured performer in Django Unchained, claimed she’d been 1413928572798_wps_2_1410962575377_wps_15_MINIarrested and roughed-up for merely kissing her white boyfriend in public, and called a “whore” because the cops thought her boyfriend was a “John.” That incident naturally, turned out to be entirely bogus, as the whole thing was videotaped and she’d been photographed from an overlooking office having vigorous sex half-in-half-out of her car. Eventually she was court-ordered to issue an apology to the LAPD.

On the white, ultra-liberal, loonie Leftie side of the BLM movement, the precursors were images (82)first, the “anarchists,” who protested the World Trade Organization and tore the hell out of Seattle, played silly buggers all duringimages (52) the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, and then fizzled or drizzled into the Occupy Wallstreet movement, which Petered out into a general “Occupy…..” whatever movement. (I think all they needed was a good bowel movement.) When all these Renta-Mob hobby protests lost their immediacy, their devotees were redirected and absorbed into the various “Justice for Trayvon,” and then “Hands up Don’t Shoot,” sorts of mobbery, and ultimately into Black Lives Matter, which emerged as the premier protest family.

The first real, African-American-based, serious practice run for what became Black Lives Matter was the “Justice for Trayvon” campaign started by theimages (49) estranged parents of Trayvon Martin. This produced the “hoodie” as a cute, symbolic protest medium. “No justice, no peace,” started to re-emerge from the dim memories of the Compton riots in the early 1990’s. Rodney King was a complete stranger to Trayvon’s contemporaries, but Tracy Martin, his father, and all his gang-banging homies were right there in the thick of the “Thug Life” and “Gangsta Rapper” era. These elder statesmen led the way for their kids and grandkids, showing them how to seek a “Do the Right Thing” solution to what they considered to be a serious threat. What threat was that? At the time it wasn’t the cops. Itimages (39) was roving white rednecks chasing down little black children and gunning them down for daring to be black in a gated “white” community.

The narrative spun by Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon’s mother, to an almost orgasmic media that lapped it up with relish and conviction, was that little baby Trayvon was coming back from the store with Skittles and Arizona Ice Tea when the evil white racist George Zimmerman chased him down and shot him dead on his father’s front porch. And, for as long as the gleeful media, a host of lawyers and hysterical “black community” was allowed to spin that tale, a good month locally, andimages (48) then for nearly two years when the local prosecutors told her she didn’t seem to have a case, so her crisis production team took the fairy tale national in a huge way. The president responded: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” And the rumors, the innuendo, the desperate, racially-charged emotional frenzy was thus legitimized.

After a year of milking every cent they could get out of T-shirts and download (11)donations, shaking down the home owner’s association for something like three million bucks, a million each for mom and dad, and a million for the lawyers, the verdict came in. George Zimmerman was not guilty.

Oh yes, there were multiple, deep, probing, local, state, and federal investigations. The attorney general of the US was all over Zimmerman like black on a bowling ball. Nothing. Not a hint of racism. No racial elements of any kind in the whole trial. Purely self-defence.

How could that be? Because the Fulton narrative was a load of wishful thinking and horsepucky. George Zimmerman was a brown-skinned Hispanic, not a “white redneck.” He went to his senior prom with a black girlfriend. He was the resident-appointed and much respected night watch chairman for a very much mixed-race non-gated community. At the time heimages (54) fired the fatal shot, according to several eye-witnesses, and later admitted by Trayvon’s girlfriend, Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon Martin was straddling his chest, pinning his arms, beating him in the face and bashing the back of his head against the concrete sidewalk. Jeantel described this as opening up a can of “whoop ass.” Trayvon wouldn’t have killed George she said on national TV, he’d just “whoop his ass.”

Turns out Trayvon Martin was a large, very fit 17-year-old, not the cute third grader shown in all the pictures in the media by the Fulton legal team and images (59)liberal propagandists. He was into mixed martial arts and enjoyed “street fighting.” He wasn’t coming back from the store, just desperately trying to get back “home,” he was milling around in the dark and rain for almost an hour, skulking near buildings and doorways, talking to his girlfriend on the phone. He was nowhere near his “daddys porch,” and made no effort to run or walk there. In fact, he seems to be the one who approached Zimmerman, who by that time was hanging around waiting for the cops to arrive in a minute or two. In order to do that, Trayvon would have had to double back, actually moving away from his alleged “daddy’s porch” destination and towards the man he was alleged to be terrified of. But then, that wasn’t his “daddy’s porch,” anyway. That was the porch of the condo of his father’s married girlfriend, and he’d only been there a few weeks. Trayvon had only just arrived that day. It wasn’t Trayvon’s neighborhood and he didn’t belong there at all—certainly not skulking around in the dark and rain. To anyone, especially a night watch commander, he was conspicuously out of place. He’d actually just been expelled from school and thrown out of his mom’s house because she couldn’t handle his misbehavior any more. At best this is a case of some sort of cockfight with one or the other of these guysimages (58) escalating a mere observation into physical confrontation. Sybrina Fulton herself suggest this on national television, saying it was probably some sort of tragic misunderstanding–until her lawyers got to her and shut her up about that likelihood for purposes of getting more cash out of the deal. This was never a case of some white redneck shooting down a helpless little black baby boy for “walking black” or just wearing a hoodie.

(Although, the neighborhood had indeed been the victim of a string of crimes, thefts, robberies and rapes, perpetrated by helpless little black 17-year-olds in hoodies, so in fairness, if you’re wearing the official uniform of a local thug, it’s going to make you look like a local thug. So people might be suspicious of you sneaking around their housing complex in the dark on a rainy night.)

The Trayvon Martin media and “black community” narrative was so fundamentally dishonest that to this day nobody even knows he was not headed to the store for ice tea, butimages (60) was carrying a big can of watermelon punch when he met his end.

After the trial of the century, Zimmerman was pronounced “innocent,” but after more than a year of Facebook and YouTube hit lists, New Black Panther execution orders, and celebrities like Spike Lee handing out (erroneously) George’s home address with an invitation to go finish him off, the beasts of what would soon be BLM had become emboldened, more organized, and were actively seeking the next excuse for street-theatre and riot. They found it in Ferguson Missouri. Out of the death of one Mike Brown at the hands of aimages (50) police officer, evolved the “Hands up. Don’t Shoot” myth. (I say myth, but I really mean “lie.” Hence, “Black Lies Matter.”) The predictable narrative was that of a happy high school graduate, skipping down the street, minding his own business, eager to start community college in a few weeks, shot down for jaywalking, begging on his knees to surrender, hands up and trembling in fear.

Of course Mike Brown, the emerging BLM movement’s first “cop execution” download (15)poster boy, was not a “gentle giant,” as he was billed by his friends and family. He was a thug caught by a police officer who was just rolling by, as Brown was walking brazenly down the middle of the street after pulling a strong-armed robbery of a nearby convenience store, with an armload of stolen Swisherdownload (16) Sweets, probably headed home to load up a blunt or two with his partner in crime Dorian Johnson. When ordered out of the street onto the sidewalk, Brown basically told the cop to piss off, and when the cop cut him off with his cruiser, and tried to get out, Brown slammed the door shut on him, reached inside and tried to grab the cop’s gun. The gun fired once in the car, and after a scuffle the cop got out and resumed firing, as Brown first fled, then turned back and charged the officer, whereupon he was shot dead. download (17)Naturally, that’s not the story Dorian Johnson told. After lawyering up, Johnson went crying to the willing and waiting media with the now famous “He had his hands up, begging that cop not to shoot, begging to surrender,” lie. Later interviews feature the popular line, “He shot him down like an animal.”

Now, you don’t have to take my word for it, because this once again was investigated by numerous local, state and federal agencies, including a follow-up investigation for political reasons by the nation’s first black attorney download (18)general, on the insistence of the “black community” and under the direction of America’s first black president. All of these investigations concluded, based on the witnesses, many whom are black, who actually saw the incident, that the cop’s version was pretty accurate, and Johnson’s “Hands up. Don’t Shoot” scenario never images (65)happened. This of course flew in the face of the “black community” narrative, originally authored by Dorian Johnson, and embellished by himself and thousands of hysterical fans who never saw a thing, but had no moral or ethical problem riffing off of Johnson’s fable, retelling it as if they had seen it all.

Eventually, even the “black community” of Ferguson had to give up the catchy mime act the “Hands Up. Don’t shoot.” download (19)gimmick afforded them. By the time Freddie Gray was killed in transit after being arrested in Baltimore Maryland, the “black community” was looking for an equally clever slogan, a thrilling chant, a catch phrase they could rally under in its place. Somewhere in there emerged the phrase “black lives matter,” probably first as a hashtag on Twitter. It made a great poster. And it was more media friendly than its contemporary jingles like, “pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon,” “burn this mutherfuxxer download (21)down,” or “kill the cracker-ass pigs.”

As I type this, of the six cops involved in the death of Freddie Gray, three white and three black, are still going through the “justice” system. One has been through a hung jury trial, and a second acquitted of all charges. The only cop actually being charged with “2nd degree depraved-heart murder” is the black driver of the van, the apparent “murder” weapon, wherein it is alleged that Gray wasdownload (20) negligently not strapped into the back, and then deliberately “rough rided” around the neighborhood, allegedly resulting in stoving his head in with some sort of protruding bolt on the wall or floor of the metal interior.

The mayor, the city council, the police commissioner, and roughly half the police force of Baltimore are all black. It’s a liberal Democratic state, a liberal Democratic city, and the neighborhood images (71)where Gray was “cleaned off the streets” was slated by all of the above for “urban renewal” and the spending of 1.8 billion dollars gifted to that city out of “Obama’s stash.” Oddly enough, this “black power structure” that had deliberately set about improving its own city by making an extra effort on the part of the police to take criminals like Freddie Gray off their streets, as a result of their own well-planned program, in the end, demanded a federal investigation of itself to determine if they were institutional racists. images (68)Figure that one out.

In any case, with Freddie Grey, once again what became the Black Lives Matter movement coalesced in making its case for sainted black martyrdom at the hands of the police, in the person of a well-known criminal, a local drug dealer, one of many like him the police had actually been specifically ordered to clean out of the neighborhood for the good of the “black community,” itself. And again, it’s unlikely that the officers charged withimages (69) Gray’s “murder” will be convicted of anything, and certainly not the inflated, entirely political charges wielded against them by the showboating city prosecutor in an effort to pander to and placate the BLM rioters that give the mayor her marching orders.

I have the most direct experience with Black Lives Matter devotees in the two local, Saint Paul, and Minneapolis Chapters. The Saint Paul chapter is run by images (37)a young, up-and-coming grad-student caliber race hustler who seems to have sold out to the mayor and DFL (Democratic Farmer-Labor Party) powers-that-be, sort of extorting whatever concessions he’s getting under-the-table from the liberal establishment, in exchange for not shutting down the Mall of America or the airport again, and backing off shutting down the Twin Cities Marathon, probably in part due to somebody telling him it was always the Kenyans and other Africans who fly over who win it, and he’d be screwing up their qualifying times for entrance into the Boston Marathon. (And also in part due to the mayor and police chief making a very stern public declaration that theyimages (72) would not be handling BLM with kid gloves if they made the attempt.) The Minneapolis chapter has backed one of its chief fans, one Nekima Levy-Pounds, into election as the president of the local NAACP—much to the dismay of the plain, dumb, traditional liberals and old-school “black community” leaders. Her chief claim to fame in a neighborhood that was burned down in 1968 simply because they heard Detroit was rioting, and they figured they ought to have one of their own, is the nearly two-week siege of the 4th precinct station, shutting down a major access thoroughfare into work, food and hospital via public transit, and download (25)turning the neighborhood into a hobo camp and garbage dump, in between throwing Molotov cocktails at the cop shop and hurling long, filthy epithets and accusations at the cops guarding the fences.

True to form, the big 4th Precinct protest and most of the other anti-social mischief Levy-Pounds has sponsored have been on behalf of one Jamar Clark, a local man known for beating on his girlfriends, who was interfering with the paramedics who’d arrived to treat his latest victim. When the police arrived hejamarclark refused to take his hands out of his pockets, he was taken down to forcibly handcuff him, and in the struggle managed to grab the officer’s weapon, attempting to yank if out of the holster. Clark was shot by his partner after the cop pleaded for him to do so, saying, “He’s got my gun! He’s got my gun! Shoot him! Shoot him now!”

The “black community” narrative contended that Jamar Clark was handcuffed and shot in the face at point blank range, execution style. Rather than argue yet another load of BS I’ll just say that none of that was true as proven by the video, DNA, forensic, and witness evidence. Both officers were just exonerated of any wrongdoing in the incident.

Innekima summary, from my personal observations, what Black Lives Matter has proven itself good at is obstructing the business and peaceful, productive activities of normal American citizens for no obvious reason, with no clear relevance to its stated goal of protecting “black lives.” The “black lives” it chooses to protect from police interference, have been thus far almost exclusively criminals. The methods itimages (73) chooses to employ include bullying, threatening with riot and mayhem, cursing, staging disruptive mob scenes to shut down or delay public and private activities ranging from  airports, shopping malls, ball games, marathon races, winter carnivals, political rallies on both sides of the political aisle, and of course, actual riot and mayhem, including rock, battery and bottle throwing at police and counter-protesters, hurling firebombs at police stations, and the download (23)occasional potshot at the cops. I will also include nationally, the execution of several police officers. You can argue all you want that it wasn’t Black Lives Matter operatives who did these murders, but you can’t prove that it wasn’t, and any time I see a mob firebombing a police station, lighting up cop cars, looting and pillaging storefronts shouting BLM slogans, wearing BLM T-shirts, waving BLMimages (75) banners, it’s a fair bet that one or two of those hysterical, filthy-mouthed, cursing animals is not above sneaking up to a cop minding his own business in his squad car, and putting a bullet in the back of his head to “even up the score.”

But the bottom line is, Black Lives Matter has it bass-ackwards. Their entire images (74)effort is concentrated on justifying and enabling the criminal class within the “black community,” while neutralizing the police agencies dedicated to keeping it under control. The numbers, the cold, hard statistics, just don’t support their singular emphasis on police interactions in the first place, nor their insistance that it is law enforcement, not the “black community” that needs to modify its behavior and mental attitude to fix the problem. Furthermore the problem illustrated in the statistics isn’t generally the cops at all–it’s theimages (47) black criminal class that’s the biggest threat to the “black community,” not the cops. Why any Latter-day Saint of any color would want to even try to defend, much less run with that crowd, puzzles me.

11 Major Misconceptions About the Black Lives Matter Movement

Posted in Black LDS Lives Matter: Part 1 Who are You? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Black LDS Lives Matter: Introduction

For some time I’ve been exploring the relationship between scientific, sociological and black-lives-matter-lolhistorical notions of “race” and LDS theology. This has led me into some pretty sketchy church history examinations and evolved into a cathartic look at LDS doctrines regarding “Curse of Cain,” or “Curse of Ham” traditions from Jewish, orthodox or “historical” Christian, and “Mormon” or “Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ” perspectives. This culminated in a series of essays published elsewhere on this site I’ve here called, with tongue firmly in cheek, “Mormonism and the Mythical Curse of Cain.” The summary of which could be:

“Never mind all that stuff about the Negro.”

This casual dismissal of generations of “doctrine” about race and skin color, when download (3)proposed as it seems to be, as an “ultimate” answer isn’t very satisfying. Not that is, in terms of clarifying the status of over 160 years of LDS interpretation of a canon that is still current, and still contains numerous passages that imply troublesome conclusions about race and skin color. Nor does it do anything to mitigate what clearly has to be the bigoted mindset of a whole string of “prophets” still billed as “infallible,” inasmuch as at one time they were all in locked harmony, condemning the “Negro” to a lesser pre-mortal and sometimes post-mortal existence on one now admittedly lame “doctrinal” excuse or another. But what this research has really taught me, is that it will be a good long time before the Brethren deem it worthy of their immediate involvement to directly address this whole obvious doctrinal screw-up and put the whole mess of inspirational implications in coherent, justifiable order.


The above map comes from the 1975 Ensign article titled, ” Who and Where Are the Lamanites?” By Lane Johnson. More quotes from the article below.

And the skins of the Lamanites [Native Americans] were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

Book of Mormon, Alma, chapter 3, verse 6

After the people again forgot the Lord and dissensions arose, some of them took upon themselves the name Lamanites and the dark skin returned. When the Lamanites fully repent and sincerely receive the gospel, the Lord has promised to remove the dark skin. The Lord declared by revelation that, ‘before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as a rose.’ The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts and delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord. Perhaps there are some Lamanites today who are losing the dark pigment. Many of the members of the Church among the Catawba Indians of therace_headers1 South could readily pass as of the white race; also in other parts of the South.

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, v. 3, p. 123, 1953

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation…. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl-sixteen sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents on the same reservation, in the same Hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Churchextremely-racist-mormon-apostle-quote are changing to whiteness and 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.

Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, Oct. 1960

The Lord has never indicated that black skin came because of being less faithful. Now, the Indian; we know why he has changed, don’t we? The Book of Mormon tells us that; and he has a dark skin, but he has promise there that through faithfulness, that they all again become a white and delightsome people.

Apostle LeGrand Richards, Interview by Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos, Aug. 16, 1978, Church Office Building, available online at:

How much, if any of this previous Book of Morman-based understanding of “darkness of skin” cursing remains valid LDS doctrine? (And mind you, this is quite apart from, and a separate doctrinal issue than the “Negro Question.”) It is all apparently cast aside by the new statement on Race and the Priesthood which ostensibly refers to all previous LDS traditions of skin color or racial distinctions as being irrelevant and repudiated as “folk tales,” born of personal ignorance and bigotry. But Book of Mormon and other ostensibly binding and divine canonical quote-shall-i-tell-you-the-law-of-god-in-regard-to-the-african-race-if-the-white-man-who-belongs-to-the-brigham-young-280058references to skin color and “cursings” isn’t addressed at all either there or in any followup statements.

If it is not in the “program” for the “prophet” to lead the church astray, the fact remains that on this one subject, a whole history of “prophets” have done exactly that. Apostle Mark E Peterson, in the quote photographically highlighted just above these paragraphs for example, takes a second or third generation stab at the “Negro,” and claims with all the authority of a “Special Witness of Christ,” that this entire race at best is only eligible to shine shoes and clean toilets in the Celestial Kingdom. That was not down to Brigham Young being the product of 19th century ignorance. That was the stance of the LDS Brethren in 1954 at the swelling height of moral and civil enlightenment in the United States of America now known as the “Civil Rights Movement.”

By not now taking an open, over-the-pulpit stance of condemning this whole train of leadership for lack of “inspiration” if nothing else, at least in this one issue, then current “prophets” are essentially allowing the general membership to fend for themselves until such time as it all blows over–or so they apparently hope. Throwing Brigham Young under the bus and laying all the blame for this 160 year-long “doctrinal” faux pas exclusively upon Young’s personal Mark-E-Petersen-racist-quotepolitical biases does nothing whatsoever to excuse the ensuing train of “prophets” who embraced and amplified his now officially confessed false “doctrinal” pronouncements on the subject of race and skin color. More importantly, it does nothing to redeem either Brigham Young or the train of “prophets” who followed him from the charge of falling short of the much-touted promise of Declaration 1, which is so fondly offered by the Brethren to church membership as an absolute guarantee against any one or all of them “leading the church astray.” The current official Moyle-antimiscegenationstatement on Race and the Priesthood should, if nothing else, once-and-for all put away the popular notion that there is a Mormon version of papal infallibility that applies universally to all issues, pronouncements, and matters that flow from the lips of church leadership, the “prophet”in particular. It should be apparent that President Woodruff’s Declaration 1 obviously applies as a promise pertaining to the single issue of halting the practice of plural marriage, as clearly implied by the actual text when read in its actual context. The Brethren however, continue to use this promise of absolute fidelity to God’s will in a universal context, on its own, and removed entirely from it’s intended subject matter. This they do, I can only assume, out of a combination of authoritative convenience and the need for ongoing self-validation:

  • President Wilford Woodruff declared that we can have full confidence in the direction the prophet is leading the Church: “The Lord will never permit me or5d046 any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration 1, “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”; emphasis added).

  • President Harold B. Lee taught this same principle: “You keep your eye upon him whom the Lord called, and I say to you now, knowing that I stand in this position, you don’t need to worry about the President of the Church ever leading people astray, because the Lord would remove him out of his place before He would ever allow that to happen” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 533).

images (5)I’ve dealt with the matter of “papal infallibility” in depth in other essays published on this site so I won’t go here into that whole broad aspect of the current official flipflop on LDS racial “policy,” or “doctrine” on the “Negro Question.” For the purposes of my present musings I’ll simply remind the reader that the terms, “policy” and “doctrine,” or for that matter, anything said or published by the current leadership, in LDS applications are functionally identical and there is no practical difference between them all.

At any rate, it’s not all just going to blow over. “Forget all that Stuff about the Negro” download (4)isn’t a magic reset button for the whole love-hate history of Mormonism and the “Negro” and other racial minorities in this “white,” Anglo-Saxon Protestant, American-founded religious endeavor. There’s always somebody, some enemy of the church or some innocent but logical and curious investigator, who’s going to keep on stumbling into it or have it thrown at them in a big messy heap. It’s all on the cloud, and it’s all an anti-Mormonists’ dream. So, I continue to address the issue in my own clumsy way. In this regard, I spent some months recently following the three LDS “black” Facebook groups currently available. I was hoping for insight into “black” LDS concerns about past LDS teachings about race, how it has affected them as “black” investigators or young members, and how they perceive the latest statements about “Race and the Priesthood,” ostensibly the most “authoritative” position of the Brethren on the matter. (Albeit, published as a news release, rather than an official proclamation, signed, read over the pulpit, and headed for canonization.) What I found instead quite took me aback.

For one thing, “black” African American Latter-day Saints seem to know even less about the history of LDS Curse of Cain mythology than “white” Latter-day Saints do. This is particularly true images (36)of younger, or newer members. Indeed, they seem to take it as a badge of faith to pretend it doesn’t matter anyway. Ignorance is bliss. There’s a clear sense that if you go poking around in there it’ll only damage your testimony. What you don’t know can’t hurt you. Until it hits you in the face I suppose.


Powder horn inscribed “Warsaw Regulators, The end of the Polygamist Joseph Smith kilt at Carthage Jail June 27, 1844.”

Also, and this is quite unfortunate, African American Saints, by ignoring the long history of specifics in LDS policy/doctrine on the “Negro Question,” are all too subject to being sucked into the prevailing notion outside the church, that Latter-day Saints used to hold all the same views that the KKK or orthodox, “historic” Christianity has held concerning dark skin and the “Negro Question.” The black Saint surely has much to forgive concerning past “policy” and the Brethren’s many now-condemned explorations of images (46)Curse of Cain, Curse of Ham theology as represented both in the Bible and the current LDS canon. But the Saints were driven out of Missouri by good “Christians” who called them foul animals and heretics for inviting “free Negroes” to move in, work, live, and worship with them. Joseph Smith ordained several of these “free Negroes” to the priesthood, and in the end was murdered by the “Warsaw Regulators,” precursors or co-conspirators associated with the “Knights of the Golden Circle,” who also murdered Abraham Lincoln, and went on to become the “Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.”

Generations of the KKK listed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as their mortal enemy. That might be good to know if you’re black and LDS. I think, anyway.

Mormons and the Ku Klux Klan

Actual “black” African members, all of which can be considered “new,” members, generally have almost no common experience with African American sentiments about images (45)“black-white” or any other “racial” issue. The notion of “white privilege” or “reparations” for the whole slavery thing is of no interest to them at all in terms of affecting their daily lives and aspirations. It’s not that they don’t often believe it’s a personal reality, it’s just that since, if true, there’s nothing to be done about it, they tend to just get on with succeeding in life anyway. African Americans on the other hand, deem “white privilege” to be so debilitating and systemic that their entire mentality revolves around being compensated for it one way or another, and preaching the oppressive evil of it to all their brothers and sisters in the “struggle,” citing it as their single reason for all life’s trials and failures, regardless of how high they might rise socially, politically, or financially in the culture and government. But that’s another rant I’ll have to write some day.

I was most surprised to find that what seems to go on mostly in these “black” LDS online groups, or at least a good part of the motivation for these groups, based on the sorts of blatantly anti-“white”prophets links posted from almost exclusively African American “alleged” Saints, is a lot of bitching and moaning about “white people,” in general, along with the specifically LDS hope-filled casting of lots on, and cheerleading efforts supporting the urgent need of the Brethren  to call this or that next general authority out of “black” or other “ethnic” options rather than “white.” This, as I pointed out to the contributors of these groups more than a few times, struck me as very odd, since, as I reminded them, the presidents of the church have all been “white.” Joseph Smith was “white.” Thomas S Monson, our current president or “prophet” is “white.” It’s a “white” church by and large up till this point, led by “white” leaders. That’s just a fact, not a judgement of worthiness. If you first-presidency-2011believe the church to be true, you have to accept the validity of its “whiteness,” it’s long train of “revelation” through “white” leadership, and the notion that these “white” folk were chosen out of all the earth to reorganize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and so must be sanctioned by God, even for all the 20-20 hindsight of their ignorance in this or that compartmentalized social matter. You have to accept the divine wisdom of over 160 years of God calling these hunkered-down, isolated, exclusively “white” leaders selected for generations from a very “white” and sheltered pool of candidates along the Wasatch Front.

Quorum12_1510_resizedThis observation for some reason, did little to make friends and influence people among my “black” brothers and sisters of Facebook.

Two of the three black LDS Facebook groups I found at the time were administered by one particular contributor who simply did nothing but share far Left, black, very militant activist propaganda from Black Lives Matter and other social-justice, socialist, black liberation theology and other revolutionary sites dedicated to preaching against “white privilege” and demanding compensation of one sort or another from “white” America in download (17)general for “400 years of slavery.” This included sites and propaganda connected to Nation of Islam narratives, “Reparations Movement” arguments, and “Black Jesus” or “Black Israelite” theology. A rundown of other groups he was engaged in did not include a single LDS related web page or blog, and there was no hint of LDS membership, theology, philosophy or language in his contributions to any of them. A number of other like-minded administrators and contributors dominated the first two groups I investigated, and I found little or no LDS-specific analysis or content in either, but the third was administered by an obviously LDS host and contained some very obviously LDS content, but like the other two, was also more than welcoming of boilerplate postings shared daily en-masse  from all the aforementioned, militant, black-Leftist organizations, including those propagating the notion that all of mankind came out of Africa, and “inferior,” genetically mutated white races were barbarians who usurped “God’s Chosen,” and spread misery and oppression in a unique fashion over all the “chosen” dark races of the world. (Who we are led to believe by these proponents of divine “blackness,” were peaceful and images (71)civilized and Godly, before they were torn down and repressed by these freaks of nature, the “White Devils.”) The “black race” they claim would have clearly remained a shining example of genius and human kindness, but for “white” oppression.

In fairness, yes, one has to accept that to one extent or another these extremist, “black supremacist” cults are a counter-reaction to longstanding, and equally deluded “white supremacist” traditions, but ultimately they are just as deluded, self-crippling, and un-Christ-like as the precipitating Christian Identity Movement, the KKK, Aryan Nations, and any of the Neo-NAZI cloister fairy tales about the “Pure Aryan Race.”

Regarding the first “black” Facebook group I engaged, after opening a few comments, I was without warning or ceremony cut off (it being a closed group) for first raising the question of the actual LDS status of the aforementioned contributor/moderator who’s postings seemed so out-of-harmony with LDS principles. Furthermore, I observed openly that the only “white” contributors to the group seemed to be those overtly eager to apologize for being “white,”images (70) and cathartically grateful for the opportunity to repent and apologize for the incursion of “white” men into dark-skinned cultures in general–which I pointed out, seemed paradoxical, as again, any such confession would have to include the LDS church, inasmuch as it’s been until recently an all white phenomena, and thus God must certainly have been OK calling a load of all-“white” “prophets” to restore His church. In the course of debating this general theme over a handful of posts, and therefore delving into the validity of Black Lives Matter as an effective and LDS-friendly organization among other things, I was referred to snidely as “White Savior,” by a “white” Hispanic guy, criticized by a number of “white” LDS contributors who said, “Can’t you see that your posts are entirely different than all of the others?” and then blocked.

The second “black” Facebook group I investigated had very few “white” contributors, and I found, the slightest un-supportive observations about BLM led quickly into a lecture on Black Lives Matter objectives, it’s superior world-view and totally justified tactics, in which it was claimed that LDS perspectives were irrelevant to essentially any “black” issue, by the very selfsame main contributor/moderator I found so off-the-LDS-mark in group one, who was also administering this second group. (Goes by the name of Darron Smith.) At one point I observed that BLM was in fact founded upon a lie, dedicated images (38)nearly 100% of its efforts to defending the very criminals who were committing some 94% of all murders of young black men and black people in general, and that I didn’t see how anyone could join an allegedly LDS group and dictate the tone and content of it when they clearly weren’t LDS, and had no respect for or interest in LDS ethics, doctrines and morals. After a few comments along the lines of, “White images (39)folks aren’t ever going to do anything positive for black folks,” and the predictable denunciation of my observations as a “crazy white conservative,” I was promptly shut out by a co-administrator of this also closed group, who announced from his mobile device that he couldn’t wait till he got home to do so.

The third “black” LDS Facebook group I explored, I hung with for a couple of months, and had a number of lengthy, fairly heated but fair discussions with a number of contributors. Its moderator was obviously LDS, quite reasonable, and open to a wide range of discussion, in and out of LDS context. However, I also found that the same sort of Leftist, BLM propaganda made up a goodly portion of this forum as well, posted by the usual suspects from the other “black” LDS Facebook groups, including our own “Darron Smith,” not a moderator there, and a few other black-centric group-specific regulars. I ultimately withdrew from this open group voluntarily, almost exclusively on the issue of one contributor in particular, who had a few supporters, all of whom were apparently LDS, who kept insisting Jesus was “black” (meaning Negroid) and that the ancient Israelites we all “black,” (again
images (73) Meaning Negroes.) Furthermore, the general consensus of this almost exclusively “black” group seemed to concede that all of mankind came from Africa and was “black” meaning Negroid–and that the northern “white” tribes were the product of genetic mutations. Secularly speaking, skin color is irrelevant to either me or “science,” it’s not a “race” and a lot of “black” people from, in, and out of Africa, aren’t “Negroes.” Religiously speaking, well, there’s the Bible, the Pearl of Great Price and the lingering identification of a clearly very separate “black race” historically labeled “Hamites,” or “Negroes,” and that whole Adam Ondi Ahman thing to figure out. The whole issue isn’t clear from the standpoint of science even at this late date, nor is it clear from LDS or “Judaeo-Christian” orthodox traditions. What I found far more troubling and ignorant, certainly when entertained in an LDS forum, is a second line of reasoning in these black supremacist liturgies, where they are incorporating recent DNA discoveries that the “white” tribes were the descendants of Neanderthals, to claim that “whites” were thus less “human” or “less evolved” than the “black” tribes. (A sophomoric reversal on the Aryan purist’s claim that God made Adam and Eve, and Negroes evolved from apes, or in more “scientific” circles, that Negroes were simply less evolved than “white”download (10) men.) I’ll have more to say on the idea of the “white” Neanderthal sub-race theory in later BLM installments here, but the back edge of that particular propaganda sword is that you are thus effectively admitting that your brilliant, Godly, “pure” Negroid ancient ancestors and their “superior” civilizations had the crap kicked out of them and got enslaved worldwide by a bunch of stupid, grunting, hairy-arsed, stone-axe-wielding, pasty-faced cave men from the northern wilderness.

288646972ded028b0d30086d080497eaThe last streak of posts I recall in this final group were claiming “Mass Resignations” from the church due to protests over the recent policy change on baptizing children of same-sex “marriages” or partnerships until the children in question are of the age of majority, and a long sermon about how un-Christian this move was. Other threads included predictions that gay and lesbian “discrimination” was the next thing to be eliminated in the church, and women were on track to receive the priesthood soon–based upon the new-found “enlightenment” of the Brethren in the “black” question.

Basically I bowed out and said I couldn’t stand to continuously read what was essentially heresy at worst and bad science at best from a group of so-called Latter-day Saints who Human-originscouldn’t even see how problematic it was to justify those beliefs in light of modern
scripture, modern prophecy, and the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. And more so, I didn’t see how a group of so-called Saints could have an almost militant disinterest in even discussing the relationship these sorts of secular propositions had to LDS canon and doctrine. IE:

If Adam Ondi Ahman, the Garden of Eden, was in Jackson County Missouri, how could all of mankind have come out of Africa? Any Latter-day Saint of reason who runs across this net-nonsense should think of the so-called “LDS” propagators of this silliness: While you are online, typing your little heart out, spouting a load of “black” supremacy patter about the “black African master race,” should this LDS canonical reality not automatically occur to you? Shouldn’t at least the plain dumb “white” folks, born and raise in the church along the Zion Front, at least note the doctrinal dilemmas that follow this whole line of reasoning?

Apparently not.

On more than one occasion I was told I sounded like a racist for using the “N” word, and it images (41)took me a while to figure out this meant “Negro.” Replies to my previous essays on other blogs and forums on the matter likewise found more than one otherwise favorable response, claiming they wouldn’t share my blog even though they’d love to, because I would only be dismissed as a racist for using the term “Negro.” The “black” Latter-day Saint apparently doesn’t by-and-large even know that there is a difference between the two terms, “black” and “Negro,” or that “Negro” is and always has been the correct scientific designation of the “black African” race. But then again, there are a lot of “black Africans,” who aren’t “Negroes,” so “black African” or “sub-Saharan African” doesn’t do the same genetically descriptive job as “Negro.”

“Black” is not a race. “Blackness” is not even a reliable indicator of a race. “Negro” is a race. That this not-very-subtle difference would be an important distinction in discussing the history of race and LDS doctrine is beyond today’s “black” Latter-day Saint apparently, and has been replaced with an intellectually and spiritually damaging sense of double-talking, superficial, political correctness from popular, secular, left-leaning political forces, that should be shameful in a church that proclaims “the glory of god is intelligence.”

And make no mistake, there is nothing “Liberal” or “Democratic” about the forces behind either “Politicaldownload (31) Correctness,” or Black Lives Matter. These movements, and organizations connected with them are about shutting down opposing ideas. They are not at all about higher criticism, logic and reason, or a free exchange of ideas. They are not about either uncovering, exposing, researching, or preaching the “Truth.” They exist to prepare and propagandize a financially, politically, and personally advantageous narrative in order to profit and gain power and influence to effect a strictly self-serving agenda.

Several local and national Black Lives Matter “officials” or “leaders” have even admitted their goal really isn’t to save young black men from the mass annual self-slaughter of black-on-black crime. Their only focused object is to harass and persecute police officers who are forced to deal with their own “black” criminal element–which constitutes less than 4% of incidents according to a number of purely statistical surveys, that end up leading to fatalities in America’s “black” population.

“For every black man — criminal or innocent — killed by a cop, 40 black men were murdered by other black men. The, at most, 2.5 percent of the problem generates relentless rage.”

Crime expert releases SHOCKING new statistics about black men killed by cops

I trust I’ve already proven my willingness to harshly examine and criticize the LDS church as a whole and its leadership in particular in a fair, truthful and accurate manner regarding racial history and any lingering related issues. But, the fact is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even under the now-admitted 19th century ignorance and bigotry of our recently bus-thrown president Brigham Young, has never restricted priesthood ordination or temple ordinances based upon the color or “blackness” of a person’s skin. This probably seems like a dumbfounding lie to today’s “black” Latter-day Saint, and even more probably like heresy to the plain,images (45) dumb, “white” general LDS membership. That’s because nobody, not even those most interested in the issue, the “black” Latter-day Saint, has an understanding and command of the basic language, science, or genetics of race any more.

While we have no control over the schizophrenic mind-games of the ultra-politically correct, the academically-manipulated general population, of any or all races, we as Latter-day Saints owe it to ourselves and our posterity to scrape off the feel-good Millennial mind fluff from our grey matter, and get back to the basic, hard-core doctrinal issues of moving the church into a world of diverse peoples, races, and cultures–otherwise we are dupes, suckers, and self-defeating victims of our own spiritual and intellectual laziness, just waiting to be walked all over, shut up, shut down and manipulated by the loud mouths and bullies of pop-sociology and permissive politics or bigotry of the Right or Left extremes of our society.

And the worst of this cultivated, deliberate, racial stupidity and ignorance, is concentrated in a movement known as, “Black Lives Matter.” Have a look and listen. Tell me I’m wrong.

TV Host ANNIHILATES ‘Black Lives Matter’ Protester To Her Face

Posted in Black LDS Lives Matter: Introduction | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mormonism and the Mythical Curse of Cain: Overview

Welcome to my online Mormon non-fiction novelette. It started out as a priesthood lesson, and has blossomed into what I now believe to be the most honest and thorough exploration of the history and mystery of the download (30)recently abandoned legacy of Mormon “Curse of Cain,” theology ever perpetrated by an actual, active member in good standing of the LDS church. I will be examining all the canonical, and attendant justification theories connected to the one-time LDS ban on the ordination of black African male members to priesthood offices. And of course, Mormon “dark skin” curse theology in general.

One peculiarity of a blog is that it insists on posting my last input first rather than in the order I want it. This means I’ve written four chapters of this tome already and this introduction is actually posted last so far. I don’t know what I’m going to do if I decide to post an epilogue. Go find the menus and follow the essays as numbered in order. It will make more sense but actually, they’re also self-contained enough to read randomly or browse.

If you haven’t yet read the most current statement by the Brethren on Race and the Priesthood, you can find it here: The more you know about the issue and its history the better, I can’t explain every character in the play and every piece in the puzzle. I’ll cover most of them, but please, stay here and read on a bit first. I’ll get you to the meat and potatoes of it soon enough. And I should caution you that I’m going to focus on process and politics a lot more than the typical LDS writer would, and if you’re naïve enough to think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is immune to either, stop reading right here. Nothing I have to offer is going to matter to you.

Prayer, Pondering, and Revelation. That’s the process and order of the Church. For the present exercise, I will be representing the “pondering” part of that formula. Make of it what you will.

And who am I to undertake such an exploration, you might well ask?RacePriesthood_thumb.jpg

I’m the guy who wrote this. That’s pretty much the deal. No more, no less. Well, that and I have the magical power to communicate with small furry animals.

I’m not primarily setting about offering you my answers to  Mormonism’s “Negro Question.” I’m just trying to sort through both the origin of the question itself, as well as the answers so far “officially” given by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over the last 161 and more years now. As I say, for the moment I’m still a member in good standing of the church, so I’ll be doing it from I an LDS perspective. Definitely not the LDS perspective. But certainly AN LDS perspective.

This is not a conference talk. This is not a Sunday school lesson. This is definitely not a sacrament meeting talk. And for those of you who’ve never tripped the white fantastic out in Provo, I assure you for all my lunacy, this is no more crazy than anything going on in a BYU religion class—I’m just poking UAH_Oct2009 (1)my doctrinal probe in a slightly different direction from the “Earth has wings and the 12 Lost Tribes are living on them”Al-Gore-AIT-Index-Vol-233 school of Mormon theological ponderings. (Yes indeedy, this is a theory advanced by some unnamed BYU religion professor around the mid-1970’s, according to my Utah-born and raised better-half.)

I’m certainly not very sorry to disappoint you rabid anti-Mormonists out there, all of whom are probably rubbing your palms together hoping for some real “inside” dirt. This extended essay, even at my most emboldened  isn’t going to come close to a trashing of the Mormon religion. However, I’m sure you will find me helpful to the cause of Mormon-bashing anyway. It’s going to be easy enough to takeimages (32) away from my musings a nasty spin here and an-out-of context quote there…but you guys are going to do that Gores-10-yr-warming-8-yrs-laterno matter how carefully I write anyway. So do your worst.

One of the most underrated LDS precepts is the notion that Truth exists in a sphere entirely independent from all other forces and considerations. That’s a double-edged sword. As a modern descendant of actual Vikings and Norsemen, I certainly understand that analogy. The Viking sword cuts in two directions: don’t hurt yourself on the backstroke Oscar. Or, as that pathological hoaxer Al Gore tried to say once: Yes, sometimes there’s such a thing as an “Inconvenient Truth.” In his case unfortunately, his “Truth” was surrounded by so many now exposed lies that download (15)whatever merit his argument had to begin with has been nullified by his own hyperbole. In short: According to Gore’s alarmism, as of this writing Manhattan should be under water and all the polar bears should be dead. It isn’t, and the bears are actually pulling statistically higher numbers in DNR 57adc8b851782784e874d0b515f5fff7population counts every year for about the last ten. The latest news bulletins point out that Crazy Al’s polar bears are now being endangered because of too much ice! When it comes down to it, Pontius Pilate was far more brilliant than he’s given credit for when he said: What is Truth? And then of course ignored what he knew to be the Truth and murdered Jesus Christ because it was politically expedient.

images (30)Like Pontius Pilate, we today as Latter-day Saints are confronted with a very inconvenient “Truth.” Or rather, a “set of Truths.” Like Pilate, even a casual examination is more thandownload (21)
sufficient to prove beyond any rational doubt what the facts are in the case before us. Unlike Pilate however, in the case of Mormonism and the Mythical Curse of Cain, the man is obviously guilty. We are all obviously guilty. We as a body of Christ are guilty. We, like Pilate, will find that the cause of Truth and history itself, will never allow us to simply wash our hands of the matter, turn our backs on the issue, and casually walk away from the problem, never to be bothered by it again. The problem has not and will not vanish in a puff of cheerful, well-meaning vapor and blow away across the fields of time because we’ve all decided we’re beyond it now. Unlike Al Gore, we don’t need science and we don’t need thousands of partisan “experts” to prove the case against Mormonism’s history of racism. We have the words of Mormonism’s highest leadership, officially published and recorded, and openly preached and defended for generations.

Now that’s an inconvenient truth.

Hey, some people believe we never landed on the moon. That was all faked on a download (18)sound stage in the deserts of Arizona. 911 was an “Inside Job” and even though the two guys who invented the claim and wrote books, blogs, and made video documentaries for over ten years proving it, have abandoned their contention that the Twin Trade Towers were brought down viaimages (34) pre-staged, controlled demolitions, that does nothing to slow down the promulgation of this now abandoned claim. What is Truth? Well, usually it’s whatever you feel like believing, and nothing I can say is going to change your mind. The 911 “Truther” movement is a religion. “Global Warming” is a religion. Mormonism is a images (36)religion. And anti-Mormonism is more than all of these, blatantly a religion. Religious Truth is based upon what moon-landing-hoaxyou believe rather than what you know. And worse yet, even science is only based upon what you think you know, not necessarily what is. That’s why science, religion, journalism, history, all tends to blur together instantaneously into a highly subjective puree of “facts” and “events” and “reasons why,” that no two people however intelligent, inspired, godly,
devout, objective, observant, or ingenious, can usually agree upon even when both are standing right there when whatever it was happened, or whoever it was said what you think they said, or whoever it was did what you think they did.

images (60)I was born into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Renton Washington in 1957, essentially at the end of the Boeing Aircraft plant runway. My father was a tool and die maker, and shop steward at the plant. I spent most of my formative years between there and starting in grade 2, the “Berkeley of the Northwest,” Bellingham Washington, where my555178_3879104772556_830611025_n parents both resumed schooling and attended Western Washington State College—now a university. On campus, my dad took me to speeches where I heard Hubert H Humphrey campaign for the Civil Rights Movement, saying the Democratic Party had to stop being the party of states rights, and become the party of civil rights. In March of 1967 around my 10th birthday, Donovan Leitch released Mellow Yellow and I images (46)found a camp of hippies living in our backyard when I got up to take my Schwinn Stingray out of the shed to do my paper route at 0:500 before school. The Beatles released Sergeant Pepper’s the same year, and that summer the entire album played nonstop up and down the streets from every open window and doorway, echoing the strains of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, along with Procol Harum’s Whiter Shade of Pale, and other psychedelic hits like Rod Stewart’s first hit with Small Faces, Itchycoo Park. It’s all tooPeople enjoy the upper-80 degree weather with swimming, cliff diving and relaxing at Whatcom Falls Park in Bellingham Wednesday July 7, 2010. Photo by Daniel Berman/ beautiful…man…

On the opposite socio-political side of the LDS street, one of my best friends in the church had a father who was building a bomb shelter, waiting for the Commie invasion, and the “Nuclear Balloon to go up.” (I can’t help but think how let down he must have been some 20 years later at the collapse of the Soviet Union.)  One of my fondest memories of this images (58)time in my life was getting together in clandestine experimental demolition sessions with the son of this John Burch-survivalist and another church pal who was a descendant of Parley P Pratt. We made a pipe cannon, and several spectacular pipe bombs out of abandoned plumbing. They were detonated by some cannon fuse, and powered by high-grade shotgun powder we convinced the young Pratt to swipe from his dad. We blew up a pond, retrieved a few trout in the process, and shot several large ball bearings halfway through a very large maple tree. If only the Mormon Scouting program were like that all the time I’d have made it to Eagle.

Interrupting my Pacific Northwestern Nirvana, we did a year’s stint in Johnson City (actually Jonesboro) Tennessee, where my father got his Masters at East Tennessee State University. We lived in a trailer park out in the county. They called me “Puhfessor” because I 1866690_crop_650x440read above grade level and could do simple mathematics. (Haven’t progressed much since then.) Three girls in my class dropped out of 7th grade to get married that year. At recess they played a game called, “Yanks and Rebs.” This involved chasing the “Yanks” through the woods and throwing rocks and sticks at them. Guess who got to be the only “Yank.” I also learned the hard way that in 1968 you couldn’t bring your black friend into the 7-11 to buy him an Icee. I download (35)learned that your home teaching families would occasionally appear to welcome you at the doorstep, but when you got inside they would discretely threaten you with a sawed-off shotgun, tell you never to return, and then wave from the porch as you leave their tar-paper shack surrounded by half an acre of tobacco, shouting, “Y’all come back now, ya’hear!” I was also treated to fast-and-testimony meetings where faithful Saints would bear witness of their gratitude to the Lord for helping them to get out of Baltimore where they could live in a town and attend a church where they didn’t have to put up with “niggers.”johnson-city-hotel

That year, Merle Haggard had a hit with I’m Proud to be an Okie from Muskogee. The ETSU campus Lefties countered with a local hit called, I’m Proud to be a Hippie from Johnson City. The most ironic thing about that, is that the Okie rednecks Haggard was praising in song have all embraced pot over moonshine, they went hairy and bearded in the late 1970’s with the “Outlaws,” like Hank Williams Junior and Waylon Jennings, and far from being fore-square and supportive of law and order, the rednecks of Oklahoma, or East Tennessee and parts south are more than ready to “Stick it to the Man.” Haggard, in his ridiculous “Nashville” frigging cowboy hat, sequines, and giant, lettered guitar strap with his name on it, was also wrong when he said “white lightnin’ was still the biggest thrill of all” in Muskogee.

That would be crystal meth.

We returned to Bellingham, where dad’s buddy who rented the house had let his kidsimages (6) whack hammers into the ivory keys of mom’s hereditary upright Steinway that her grandparents had hauled across the prairie on a handcart into Burly Idaho in 1847 or whatever. (Known as the “Thousand pound Albatross” and cursed every time the family had to move–and is still hanging around my neck at the moment, but being passed on to my offspring to plague them for another generation.) In the course of another year or two of mostly unemployment, man landed on the moon, (allegedly) Woodstock closed out an era, I started high school, took up playing bagpipes, and then, we moved more or less permanently to Brooklyn Parkimages (3) Minnesota, where my father completed his doctorate at the University of Minnesota. He became once again, habitually unemployable because he was at that point well overqualified to greet shoppers at the lumber yard, and the HRimages (2) department of Menards looked at him with suspicion every time he applied. In the words of Monty Python: “It’s a fair cop, but society is to blame.”

I spent my mid-late teens hanging around Saint Paul and Minneapolis, playing bagpipes mostly with Irish Catholics and a select few Scots of both Protestant and Catholic varieties10431_1191833049963_6491502_n of the “orthodox” Christian orientation. This is due to a chance advert that came over the radio during the comedy hour in the 1969 VW microbus while mom was helping me deliver the Bellingham Herald, just before we left that little berg. The Bellingham Highlanders were recruiting new students for their reformation after years of inactivity. I never did understand the fascination my parents had with Highland bagpipes: My father’s heritage is all staunch, very images (65)conservative Norwegian Lutherans. My mother’s people were Danes who converted to Mormonism in the Old465227_3877746298595_1155459443_o Country and basically came over in handcarts and settled southern Idaho. Maybe it was just so different, so much less boring than either of their upbringings, that they wanted their kids to have something better, or at least less boring. But the circumstances leading to the union of a North Dakota farm boy and the daughter of a southern Idaho cream taster from Burley, that eventuated in my worldly appearance in Renton Washington, is another story entirely.

In 1972, I entered Anoka High School—the second class to use the new facility after abandoning the old building where Anoka’s sole claim to international stardom, Gary Keillor, attended ten years earlier–Yes, his name is Gary. Just plain old Gary. And he grew up off West River Road right near where I did in Brooklyn Park, not Anoka. Not in some mythical Lake Wobegon. He wouldn’t know a Norwegian bachelor farmer if he came up and bit him in the arse. And I’m sure many of them would like to. I played bagpipes on Keillor’s first couple of Prairie Home Companion broadcasts from the hall of a local Minneapolis church.images (69)

Musically, I was listening to Monty Python and the Bothy Band. (You haven’t lived until you’ve experienced playing Python’s Death of Mary Queen of Scots in a Stevens Avenue apartment off of Loring Park with the room filled with drunken kilted pipers after a long parade.) None of these bands will be familiar to most of you: Silly Wizard, Silly Sisters, Horse Lips, Steel Eye Span, Finbar Fury, Dave Swarbrick, and any of the other Celtic/British Isles folk/rock bands I explored in those days. Focus, Golden Earring, Kraftwork, David Bowie, Mott the Hoople, Ekseption, the original British Nirvana, and 220px-SimonSimopath
Beggar Julia’s Time Trip
, and a host of other “foreign” musical artists filled my ears. And while
the ethnic mix of my artistic and social circles centered around the Celtic regions, the truth is, the mix of actual local participants and attendant musical or social fellows, was a broad panorama or Nordic, Native American, English, French, German, and any other immigrant communities that had ever made their 800px-Voor_De_Vuist_Weg_1971-02-26_-_Ekseptionway to Minnesota. It was truly a melting pot: one of the best players of the Scottish, Highland bagpipe that played in our Irish band, was of Swedish extraction.

Socially, I was hanging around iconic “liberal” figures like those in the American Indian Movement like Russell Means and Clyde AIM-Native-American-activists-occupy-of-the-Bureau-of-Indian-Affairs-building-in-Washington-D.C.-in-1972.1Bellecourt. I played at military balls at Fort Snelling for Hubert Humphrey. On the other side of the ticket, I played Malcolm Forbe’s birthday party and snuck over a hundred dollars of cracked crab and exotic smoked salmon and seafood home in my pipe case.

I may have left out my serious appreciation of the American appearance of Queen in 1973. In fact, my first serious girlfriend at BYU thought my devotion to Queen meant I was gay. Apparently they didn’t listen to Queen in Cody Wyoming unless they were gay. But, I digress.

Around about 1973-74 I got my first introduction to LDS Curse of Cain mythology. The images (41)encounter arose out of a Sunday school lesson on blackness in general, probably out of the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham. I got the full, Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine version with cheerful embellishments from several other noted LDS “authorities,” like Joseph Fielding Smith. It sounded a bit silly, but it was no skin off my nose at that point and entirely academic so I neither thought much about it nor felt compelled to explore more. The guy who taught that lesson as best I can recall was named Steve Rollie. (SP?) It would be more correct to say that he “questioned” the lesson on every point, more than taught the points the manual wanted taught. And he resigned from the church about a year later over that specific lesson and the Curse of Cain issue in general. He was the best Sunday school teacher I ever had, and he was also a dead-ringer for John Denver. (Dating myself.) We young adults all went canoeing with him once back in the day, around Lake Calhoun and the chain of lakes in Minneapolis. That summer had been a big year for John Denver, and fans were waving and shouting his name at us as we The director, producers, and crew film on location in South Minneapolis on the set of "Stay Then Go," which just finished shooting in Minneapolis and St Paul. The film, by writer/director Shelli Ainsworth, is about a woman and her artist son, who has autism. (Courtesy to Pioneer Press: Stay Then Go)paddled by them on the shore.

In 1976, I studied documentary film at Film in the Cities in Saint Paul. And while all this time I’d been the “designated driver” and at times hassled for being far too squeaky clean, I seemed to frighten all the local Mormon chicks and I later learned the local bishops were all warning eligible future dates or mates from the LDS population to steer clear of me. But there are plenty of fish in the sea, and if you’re not catching around the harbor, you simply sail out to the fishing grounds. The following year, prompted by a lot of deep, spiritual pondering, and the fact that my father had thumped me on the back of the head and said, “I don’t know what you’re going to do with the rest of your life, but you can’t do it here,” I began what turned out to be a 9 year sentence to a full-immersion exploration of my maternal Mormon roots in Provo Utah, pretending to attend BYU and follow-up my film studies.

27695_1360358342990_7250064_nTo attend BYU, I was forced to butch-off my wonderfully soft and pretty hair and shave my fairly decent beard–which fuzz was considered a sign of manly maturity, and all-but required in my native Scandinavian culture. When I arrived at BYU I couldn’t help but notice the Osmonds were all running around with long hair and beards, escorted by a soon-to-be27695_1360354582896_4316195_n excommunicated patron General Authority who acted essentially as a personal promoter for the family, who explained that the reason the Osmonds had been effectively exempted from mission service was that they were far too famous to be able to serve, and the reason they attended BYU in spite of violating the grooming code, was because they had to maintain a download (25)popular look for professional reasons, and they would do far more missionary work in their capacity as entertainers than by serving a conventional mission. This of course, being true, one might wonder why BYU didn’t adopt long hair and beards if that look was far more popular and conducive to missionary work. This notwithstanding, BYU bishops were openly extorting me into “volunteering” to serve a mission, claiming it was mandatory, telling stories out of the Ensign of great violinists who gave up two years of their lives to serve, only to return having lost scholarships and dropped behind in skill such that they never amounted to anything on the violin—but of course still bearing witness that it was worth it. I certainly appreciate those sorts of testimonies. On the other hand, one of my piping friends in Utah told me 27695_1360291741325_5032213_nhow his mother fell to his knees in tears and begged him to serve a mission, saying, every male descendant of the family had served a mission since the clan had entered the valley and he would shame the family for generations if he didn’t follow suit. Though it doesn’t approach a weeping mother and the shame of generations, in my case, two of my BYU bishops indeed, openly explained that they were withholding my priesthood advancement unless I conceded to serve a mission.

None of this coordinated pattern of systematic needling, pestering, and cajoling of course seemed to inspire me to sign up for a mission. Rather, it all made me want to tell my bishops to give the lecture to the Osmonds—tell them to cut their hair and get a shave, get out of the sequined jump suits and start pounding doors and passing tracts. Tell them there’s no excuse for not going on a mission–not education, not a career. Tell them president Kimball has commanded “every worthy male” to serve a mission.

The actual, final, moderated quote is this:

Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing, likeimages (2) he should attend his meetings, like he should keep his life clean and free from the ugliness of the world and plan a celestial marriage in the temple of the Lord.

While there is no compulsion for him to do any of these things, he should do them for his own good.

You see, I had just barely gotten my life and brain together and mustered the scratch to go to college and decided what to do with my life. Perhaps they never considered me a candidate, but until I got to BYU I hadMotion-Picture-Studio-ca.-1959 never been asked by a bishop or anyone else to serve a mission. I knew all about the opportunity, it had just never been made pointedly clear to me that it was so “essential” to being a proper Latter-day Saint. Oh yes, I’d done all the praying and pondering and as far as I was concerned it was settled—I was going to BYU to study film. Well, that was the wrong answer I learned. “Just keep praying and you’ll get the right answer,” in the words of my first-year, first semester BYU bishop. But the Utah social imperative for a mission was far more personally and practically expressed, in the words of about 90% of the freshman BYU women students I attempted to befriend my first year there:

“Where’d you serve your mission?”

“I haven’t gone.”

“Oh, when are you going?”

“Uh, don’t know. Hadn’t planned on it. I’m trying to get a degree in motion picture and television directing…”


(Walks away…..)

Granted, my second year there I found no such resistance from the female population. Once a Mormon girl gets a year or two older than high school and remains unwed, the standard of courtship acceptability apparently dropsimages dramatically. This is particularly true if you cared to make the trip up to Salt Lake and attend a YSI dance at the Terrace Ballroom. There you would be competing with fat, balding, truly dull and painfully uninspired returned missionaries pushing 30 in their Greek fishermen’s caps. I found that 23-25 year-old sisters still unwed or particularly, divorced, were far less interested in mission service than basic compatibility, especially if you didn’t have a dew-lapped belly covering your belt buckle, or were inherently violent, terminally stupid, a philandering scoundrel, or had chronic halitosis.

From the Terrace in Salt Lake, to the Wilkie ballroom on campus, nearly every weekend at BYU was a sceneimages (48) somewhere of hormonally-pumped young Mormon men and women desperately selling each other on the notion that “The Lord” as told me that YOU are the one… It’s the next step in the LDS young men’s program: Primary, Seminary, Eagle, Mission, BABIES. And the young women feel a kindredmaxresdefault pressure in a complementary conditioning system.

In retrospect I freely admit it was financial suicide to pursue a degree in film and television. Even with such a degree it only inherently qualifies you to clean toilets for a living—which in good part became my ultimate fate anyway. But I make no excuses nor do I feel I need to regret my life choices. I enjoyed my time in Mormondom. It’s one half of my heritage and I’m not particularly ashamed of it at all. I’m happy with the way things turned out. I have a good wife and family, own two houses, three sheds, a dog, and feel the Lord has guided me in all the important areas of my life to take me where I am today.

Who knows? Far worse than not serving an “honorable” mission, is being sent home from one early—for any reason. Because in Utah Mormon culture, whether dysentery, smallpox, a ruptured disc, broken ribs protruding from your chest, not The_pride_of_the_Mormons,_the_Temple,_Salt_Lake_City,_Utah,_from_Robert_N._Dennis_collection_of_stereoscopic_viewssticking to the flip charts, just being a lazy smart-ass in general, having a bit of nookie with the sister missionaries on the side, or worse yet, snogging your same-sex companion, it’s pretty much all the same in the Valley. We often make fun of the Roman Church for forbidding it’s prime young men to marry in order to enter the priesthood, pointing out that it’s no wonder that church is images (1)riddled with clergy sexual abuse. But the Mormons on the other hand, pair up couples of hormonally-peaking young men for two years of non-stop day and night contact at the height of their sexual drive and seem surprised at the resultant mission-related chastity-failures along the lines of all sorts of sexual preferences, or at least, sexually desperate opportunities of any random gender.

Just the rumor and innuendo of not completing a full mission can be enough to scar and stigmatize an “unsuccessfully” returned missionary for life. I had one roommate who went to South America and came right down with some weird intestinal parasites or something. Toughed it our for over six months till he was down to about 98 pounds and he had to confess he was horribly sick. They tried to treat him in-country for another several months, but finally, after nearly imageskilling himself for lack of proper treatment in the US, they put him on a plane for home, for good. And still, he was ashamed. He went home early. And there would forever be a question mark hanging over his missionary service.

Oh yes, I may have not served a mission, but I’ve lived with numerous brothers who have, and I could curl your spiritual nose-hairs with some of the stories they tell. But my point is, not serving a mission in Utah LDS culture is like dodging a wartime draft in American culture. And Utah Mormons have no perspective at all on just how fanatical, obsessive, peculiar and regional and Mormon-specific that ethos is.

If you concentrate all the Mormons into one valley, then naturally, all the criminals in the valley are going to be Mormon. All the idiots in the valley are going to be Mormon. All the A-holes in the valley are going to be Mormon. It’s not a reflection of the religion, it’s justUtah_State_Hospital_(1896) human nature and statistics. None of the inadequacies of my Utah Mormon cultural experience ever at any time disturbed my personal testimony of the greater truth of the church’s overall organizational inspiration. Even so, the church is chock-full of people, and people are all flawed by nature. If you let that one jerk, or that local or regional or societal collection of jerks drive you from the overall inspiration of the supporting, prophetic structure of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, then that’s down to your personal vanity and inspirational stupidity.

As usual, I was born about twenty years too early to do anything but push the system and make trouble, but here’s a little something I’ll take at least some credit for setting into motion:

And if you think I’m boasting a bit too much, here’s “Studio C” circa 1978:

Actually, that’s a show I called “Nurdsville” and frankly, in 1977, the idea of sketch comedy particularly in the communications department was heresy. Or at least a waste of gooddownload (23)
video tape that could be put to use transferring Church History slides to VHS. Theatre and commo were two different worlds, and video and film did not mix. Times change, even
BYU grows up I suppose if you wait long enough, just too late for me to get a piece of it. You can say what you want about BYU, download (22)but it does bring “world” Mormonism into close contact with the provincials of “The Valley,” and that ongoing contact may eventually diminish the inherent distrust and paranoid fear of the “world.” Just not fast enough to do me any good. The locals however, still call it “BYZoo,” call it’s residents “Zoobies,” and basically rob and pillage them coming and going, cramming six or seven of them into two and three bedroom, black widow-infested basement apartments as the images (65)foundation of their retirement income at hundreds of dollars a head.

You may rightly say, I criticize the “Utah church” as if it’s some separate entity. You will dispute this notion I suspect, claiming that the “Utah church” is the church, and Utah “culture” is the “culture of the church.” I counter that contention by saying that the world is the church, and though the present leadership may well have been born and bred in Utah, God is no respecter of persons, nor is God a respecter of regional, cultural, ego-centrism, or notions of ethnic purity and superiority, even if that includes the home of the Brethren along the Wasatch Front.

34 ¶Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no arespecter of persons:

35 But in every anation he that bfeareth him, and cworkethdrighteousness, is eaccepted with him.

The Utah church has spent nearly two centuries trying to freeze its ethnics and society in images (4)the bunker-mentality that drove them out there in 1847. I have the pioneer pedigree on my mother’s side alright. I could claim that culture by bloodlines if need be. But so what? What has dressing up in Quaker hats and sun bonnets every July 24th got to do with me? Very little at this point. I didn’t serve a mission, I didn’t get married in the temple first off. It didn’t destroy my life. Didn’t drive me into heresy and darkness. Hasn’t crippled my social advancement. And if you care to challenge me on that, I have a cache of missionary-roommate horror stories from BYU I could get into. Likewise, I could name several download (5)“perfect case” scenarios in which the mission-temple-wedding-family-home-evening formula was far less than effective. Starting with Marie Osmond. And several BYU roomates who, when arriving just off their missions used to be annoyed by my imagined rowdiness, and who now are devoted apostates. And worse.

Not buckling into the social pressure to conform to Utah custom might have made me less of a “Mormon,” but certainly no less a Latter-day Saint. And if you think it does, well you know where you can stuff it. I’m not Utah product and I’ll tell you exactly where you can stuff that whole line of reasoning if you press me hard enough. I know all those words and have fluent command of them. I’m an outlaw. I grew up in the “mission field.”

I finished two years of upper-division courses at BYU, and completed my senior internship without a single182185_3879185134565_1617775277_n general studies credit by about 1980. I learned what I felt like learning, got diverted by female pursuits, and ran out of money. This does not lead to graduation, but it’s sort of the vocational ed approach to filmmaking and something of an adventure anyway I guess. Taking then church president, Spencer W Kimball’s advice far too literally, I got married, and did not put off raising a family for school or career reasons.

There will be many excuses, of course: “I could not support a wife and go to college.” “I could not have children and maintain myself in school.” “I thought it would be proper to wait a few years for my marriage and my children.” What the Lord will say to these excuses we can only imagine. We are sure he will at least say, “You have not placed first things first.” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.292)

There may have been some hormonally-driven motivation in there as well. But that’s not a bad thing either. (Separate lecture, separate set of anecdotes…IE: Evening campfire at Sundance 1980—“Mind if I sit with you here by the fire? I like to keep my instrument warm…and my bagpipes get cold too…”) Still not sure why she married me but I‘m not complaining. Inappropriate pickup line. Worked fine anyway. She passed the test.

images (3)Out of necessity, I took time off school, intending to refinance my education via something known as a “job.” There were unfortunately not many of those during Utah’s economic crash of the early 1980’s when former engineers from Geneva Steel were taking draftsman jobs for 6 bucks and hour and if you had a job at all, you could buy a 4 bedroom house in Provo for a dollar down and monthly payments that were pocket change because half the real estate in two valleys was either in foreclosure or in desperate need of selling to free the occupants so they could leave the state for work. After a couple of years and writing a few screenplays, and quite a-typically actually being paid for it–even getting one actually produced–while at the same time wrestling lunatics at the Utah State Hospital for three fifty an hour, any one of which who would eagerly bite your nose off if you gave them a chance, I decided it was time that I returned to Minnesota to get a “real” job.542990_3879206055088_995378580_n

I re-entered the Great White North in 1985 with a wife and family, where I have remained, endured, and reasonably prospered up to this writing. We’ll see how that goes after publication of these culturally suicidal ramblings.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have sketched out this very condensed history of my life as a way of illustrating how I was exposed to a lot of very cosmopolitan, intellectually liberal, pro-farmer labor, pro-union, “progressive” thinking and academic mores concerning “higher criticism.” Frankly, my Euro-Christian Socialist relatives in Dakota on my father’s side created the Farmer-Labor Party, a party once so fiercely communal and self-sufficient that it only affiliated itself with the national Democratic Party a generation or two after its invention because they had to organize to vote in federal elections in some reasonable fashion, and at the time the Democrats were the closest match. In many ways they’ve lived to regret that, and they’re definitely not happy today with the current crony-capitalist, government employee, academic, intellectual, urban bias that has taken over the party. In short, there’s damned few farmers, and damned few laborers with their attendant traditional family images (4)and religious values actually being represented by the DFL party today. My point being is, that I am well aware that I think and certainly write like an outsider by Utah-based standards. This is because I am not a product of the Wasatch Front culture. This, I submit, makes me no less loyal a Latter-day Saint than any of the festering burble of authors from Provo to Bountiful, happily regurgitating mediocre pap for the consumption of the complacent masses of Saints along the Wasatch Front. And I can say that without offending any of them because they would have to look up all the offending words before they could be offended. (And they’re not going to read down this far.)

Ich bin ein Ausländer.

(For my Norwegian cousins: Jeg er en utlending.)

Since Brigham Young entered “The Valley,” Mormons have been inventing ways to self-identify themselves as “special” on the one hand, while on the other refining ways to stain or tarnish the very nature of lesser-souls, the “outlanders,” if you will–even though the very heart of LDS theology defines all mankind as the literal sons and daughters of God, and puts no qualifying sacraments or conversions upon mankind to lay claim to its divine origions. Mormonism became a question of gatekeeping, rather than soul-saving. Mormonism became fascinated with itself and its “chosenness.” It has spent nearly two centuries self-expounding upon the theme. While city3Mormons profess a three-level system of eternal reward, frankly, they haven’t ever had any interest in the 2/3rds of humanity who by all reckoning aren’t going to get to the highest rank in the system anyway, and even then the church has concerned itself mostly with the highest rank of the highest rank. The Mormon church teaches that mere paradise beyond human understanding is an insufficient reward meet only for the weak and failed of God’s children who were not pious enough for Celestial Glory. No, I’m not kidding. That’s the Mormon conception of “salvation” in a nutshell.

Not unlike the Russian Revolution, Mormonism, like the Soviet Union, in order to combat images (3)all the overtly miserable elements of its society, very
quickly become entirely all about “chosenness.” The most chosen of all God’s most chosen. Suffering and denial became the ultimate evidence of God’s unique selection, not some divine curse for making stupid choices in life. The more sacrificing, humble, and miserable you were willing to make yourself, the faster your rise in the organization. If you’re not a candidate for that rare and elite, self-deprived body of “True Believers,” then, frankly, Mormonism didn’t have a place for you. Or in modern terms, a “program” for you. 51512989.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-largeAnd for enduring all this suffering God would reward you with earthly and heavenly booty, including the joy of watching your enemies pay for their crimes against the Saints. The early church was indeed quite open and brazen in its pronouncements along these lines. We’re still paying for it.mormon_prejudice_021512_350pxB (1)

Word of Wisdom superiority in particular became THE major indicator of “faithfulness,” or “loyalty.” Hundreds of millions of people in thousands of cultures have an alcoholic drink now and then, or even regularly, and remain faithful, religious, devout, family folk. Not in Mormonism. In Mormonism, any alcoholic consumption is an indicator of immediate treachery and disloyalty. One a year, one a week, one a day, it doesn’t matter. Any alcohol at all for any reason, being consumed within the context of Mormonism means you are weak-willed, fallen and vulnerable. You are not reliable for anything. You are flagged and segregated and assigned “keepers.” If you actually read the 89th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants: That’s not an LDS “Health Law,” as it is widely described today. It is not a law at all by its own self-description. It’s not a standard the Lord demanded. It’s a bit of advice the Lord explicitly ordered should not be maintained as a strict commandment. But in a bruised and battered church, crawling out of the persecutions of pioneer Mormonism, well, when you see a brother hanging out with “Gentiles” and sharing a beer at the local tavern, what you see is not a friendly fellow. What you see is mormon_prejudice_021512_350pxan almost certain back-stabber in the making, fraternizing with, and probably collaborating with the enemy. And as that paranoia progressed it coincided with a political movement pushing for national prohibition, so Heber J Grant made sure he got his political way with his own flock, even if the national movement was a failure that only gave us organized crime and transformed the local tavern from a quiet haven from the wife for the mature menfolk after a hard day’s work, to a common all-night festival of debauchery, and easy hookup-spot for young men and women. To Heber J Grant however, it seemed the cheapest and surest way to separate his “chosen” Mormons from moral or social contamination via the Gentiles that surrounded them and the “evils” of alcoholic excess he politically decried.

I’m not making an argument here specifically about the Word of Wisdom. I’m making an argument which, if you have the interest, patience, and discernment to pursue through all four of my essays on the subject of Race and the Priesthood, will sufficiently demonstrate to you through canonical references, historical documentation, and the words, testimony, and sermonizing of LDS apostles, prophets and presidents past and current, that the “order of the church” has very little to do with the “prophet” having breakfast with Our Lord and Savior every morning in the Holy of Holies, and taking his direct notes from this daily Divine Direction into the routine administration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I’m addressing a now conceded issue by the Brethren Themselves that error is indeed possible in the proclamations of even the highest of LDS authorities, and in at least in the case of the “Negro Question,” has openly been admitted at the pinnacle level of LDS “Prophet.”

In canonical terms, nobody who smokes or drinks or enjoys a cup of tea or coffee is going to hell because they do so. Some health risks may be present, but it’s not a spiritual consideration even by Mormon canon. There is no canonical penalty for “breaking” the Word of Wisdom. It is not possible to violate a suggestion or recommendation. But, by rigidly, socially, or politically enforcing Word of Wisdom compliance as a “test of fellowship” however, now the Word of Wisdom breaker, while not condemned by the 89th section of the Doctrine and Covenants itself, finds himself guilty of breaking implicit “policy” agreements with church leadership, or as they say, “not supporting the Brethren,”images (62) and thus can become charged with not being in “full fellowship.” (Yes, church “policy” is “political” not “doctrinal” by definition.)  The church, harangued by an era of strong prohibitionists in leadership, a “T for total abstinence” political and social movement brought back by LDS leaders after encountering it while serving missions among the strict Methodists of England, has as a “democratic” unit “decided” it’s going to go one better than the literal Word of God on the matter of the Word of Wisdom. It isn’t “good enough” to Utah’s modern, “evolved” social Mormonism that a person be faithful and devout and sincere. It has been decided that any would-be “Saint” also has to

images (61)give up all the common, human pleasures normal people find inoffensive. It’s an offshoot of fanatical Methodism, not Joseph Smith’s “temperate” Mormonism. It’s Emma Smith’s idea of a “holy lifestyle,” not Joseph’s.  Total abstinence from the evils of “dirty habits” like liquor and tobacco is  the foundation of the Salvation Army, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Today, a Mormon candidate has to be willing to “prove” themselves “worthy” not of God’s family or the forgiveness of Christ, but of the of the fellowship of the “Saints,” by giving up something that not even the Lord has required as a mandatory sacrifice. If the prospective “Saint” is ready to go “one better than God,” in essence, Mormonism has decreed that perhaps then we’ll think about letting you hang out with us. It’s an LDS attitude as prevalent today as in yesteryear. Indeed, the social elements of Utah Mormon culture drive the recruitment program and self-perpetuates itself. The argument goes: anyone ready to give up smoking and drinking is “enlightened” and ready to join the church. The download (1)counter argument goes: making the baptized give up smoking and drinking actually only means that those who aren’t interested in either are statistically far more likely to join the church. Those who are fanatically opposed to smoking and drinking are exponentially more likely to join the church thus by majority in body and leadership, this ethos becomes more and more entrenched in this “policy,” quickly inflating its importance to primacy over actual, important doctrine. In a few generations the church became in this way, almost exclusively about not smoking or drinking. Do that first. Prove yourself to us. And then we’ll let you into the waters of baptism. If you extrapolate that social phenomenon out into thousands of social, political, ethnic or cultural issues, and you soon have an extremely inbred and elitist organization.

I sat through a “joint teaching” experience a few months ago with two missionary elders and a couple of African investigators. They hadn’t been doing the “assigned” or “agreed” readings but were still keen to read and discuss scripture while we were there. At the end of the lesson however, the ringleader elder couldn’t help but give these two a lecture about how there were plenty of serious investigators out there who would love to hear the Word of images (55)God, and if these guys didn’t follow through with their agreements to read the assigned scripture, they were wasting the elders’ time. He said in summary, that he and his companion could be teaching people who appreciated their efforts instead of wasting their time here with you deadbeats.

Now, I didn’t serve a mission, but it seems to me that these elders were lucky to have anyone willing to sit down and listen to a damned thing they had to say. I’ve gone from apartment to apartment one day a month with these rotating characters, as they tried to chase down people hiding behind couches, blocked by front-men at the door claiming they weren’t home. And those were images (56)the “appointments.” Seems to me it was their job to waste their time in this fashion. And if they couldn’t interest these two investigators or any others for that matter, it was their job to part on good terms, leaving whatever of the Good News they were willing to accept, rather than wheedle and nag them and get into their faces about who’s wasting who’s time.

And then the other elder hit them with a “challenge to baptism” as he hit the door. These guys hadn’t read more than download (24)a few chapters of the Book of Mormon. The message clearly seemed to be: Hold off smoking and drinking a few months, take the dip–job done. That seemed to be their plan. So, I guess Mormonism isn’t entirely committed to the best of the best all of the time. Not when mission statistics are at stake. Mind you, personally, I think the notion of holding up general fellowship or simple baptism because of smoking or drinking habits is asinine in an eternal scheme of things. It’s not church canon. It’s a policy, just like the “Negro Priesthood Ban” was not canon, not a revelation, and just “policy.” But if you’re going to make knocking off beer and cigarettes the primary covenant of membership in the church, while at the same time you have missionaries telling investigators overtly or covertly that all they have to do is hold off their liquor and smokes a few months, sneak through baptism, and then try your best to moderate later on, well, that isn’t really productive for anyone. That’s just hypocrisy.

And they wonder why so many new converts go inactive

If Mormonism had and still has little or no interest in ministering even to otherwise totally righteous white folk who’s only “vice” is that they sneak a beer or two on the weekends, drink coffee or tea, or maybe have a smoke now and then, you can imagine what evolved041216white_wash around those black and not-so-white folks who had more specific “canonical” condemnations assigned to them simply for being themselves. If Mormonism felt it had to mark the “weak” among its fold by making up rules about “vices” or “dirty habits,” and catching them in the act, just how hard was to identify the clearly “marked” alleged descendants of Cain and the other darker races, and label them as “weak” or “inferior” spiritual creatures? If Heber J Grant, or any single LDS “prophet” could be so wound up in social and political movements that he was able to sway the entire church and its regulating bodies into an end-run around the literal Word of God in order to promote his pet secular causes, how hard was it for Brigham Young to groom the hearts and minds of his contemporaries and successors into accepting the popular political and social, even “scientific” “Truths” about “The Negro?”

It wasn’t hard at all. In “Truth,” nobody of any authority in the LDS church gave the whole “Negro Question” much of a thought for 161 years, at least insofar as questioning the reason for having a question in the first place is concerned. Rather too much thought Races_and_skullshowever, was given to justifying and rationalizing the question with scripture and apocryphal revelations and  gospel principles. Those often quite “authoritative” rationales only dug the church a deeper hole in which to fall when it finally moved into the light and could see the problem clearly. For generations, there were no “Negroes” around “The Valley” anyway. It was entirely academic. And it just all seemed to make sense. “Prophets” had explained it was a commandment from God. And it was in the canon. Or so they maintained at the time. That’s where the thinking ends in Mormonism. End of discussion. Argument closed. If anything needs to be clarified, God will personally come down and explain the changes with thunderbolts, earthquakes,  and a set of stone tablets.

The latest LDS statement on Race and the Priesthood of December 2013 attempts to retroactively separate the “Inspiration” of Mormon leadership from Mormon politics and Mormon society. But that’s not possible. People are People. It’s all the same in a blur in a sheltered, regional, cultural sensibilities.images (2) And rather than spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Church that bears His name has for too long been more concerned with promulgating its inbred regional blur of cultural sensibilities worldwide. Many of you out in the “real” world, out in the “mission field,” are suckers and sitting ducks for the cultural wackiness that is the Wasatch Front. And you will eagerly embrace it right alongside the Word of God until you simply don’t know the difference. I’m doing you a favor I think, lifting up the “Zion Curtain” as the anti-Mormonites call it. Just far enough to get the general picture. Just far enough to get a real good peek at what “Zion” has been all about since 1847 and Brigham Young’s “reformation” of Joseph Smith’s church. (And yes, that’s exactly what Brigham Young called it.)

Under Brigham Young, and in the rocky bunker of the Inter-Mountain West, the Church of download (26)Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ceased to be a universal church—a world church. It became a tight cluster of True Believers and the Elect, hiding out from the World, and certainly the US government and a plethora of other foes. That’s not an attack, that’s not an insult. It’s just history. Certainly, Brigham Young’s Mormons had every reason to be paranoid, because people really were out to get them. But, while Brigham Young’s “nation building” efforts produced a hard-core legion of fanatics that eventually outgrew their little hideaway and survived their persecutors with the strength of an organization able to finally re-emerge into the real world, it also distorted the original mission of the church and did generations of emotional, intellectual, and spiritual damage to the people of the fundamentally survivalist culture it created. More importantly it produced a people woefully ignorant, naïve, and estranged from the “outside” world.  If you don’t understand that, concede that, then you will never understand half the “problems” now unfolding in Mormon “doctrinal” matters as it moves onto the world stage. Nowhere is this more evident than in LDS attitudes on race and skin color.

When I was a kid we dragged home a device known as a “Chick-u-bator,” from some thrift shop or garage sale. It was a little yellow flying-saucer shaped bowl with a clear dome and a small light bulb in it. It hatched chickubatoreggs and you could watch through the dome as the baby chicks hacked their way out of the shell. My mom secured some fertilized eggs and we began to watch and turn them faithfully several times a day, and count the days till hatching. Part of the job was to sprinkle a little water into the mix to keep humidity up while you were rotating the eggs. One day, after doing the sprinkling, I apparently went off to put the sprinkling can away without putting the dome back in place and wandered off for several hours and forgot about it. Later, when I returned to service another rotation, and I found the lid laying beside the hatchery. I replaced it and hoped no damage had been done, but I was pretty sure I had killed the eggs. I continued the routine in hope, but when hatching time came and went, eventually it was down to me to crack one open and check. Sure enough, it was filled with rotting, stinking, dead baby chick. Well, I couldn’t eat eggs for months after that.

There’s a lesson in that somewhere. I’m not sure what the immediate analogy is. I meant well. I screwed up. I killed a bunch of baby chicks. The next time I made damned sure not to leave the lid off. Eventually we had baby chickens. People make stupid mistakes. Learn from them. Stop killing baby chicks.

Or, I think more what I meant to say was this:

If you want to continue to enjoy the sausage, do not go to the sausage factory and learn what’s actually inside the casing. (Not an exact reduction of the parable, but close enough.)

You have been warned. I’ve given you enough evidence to know that if you crack open this basket of eggs you’re not going to find a bunch of cute, fluffy little baby chicks. Be sure you’re curious enough to really want to see for yourself.

Actual thesis begins…

Posted in Mormonism and the Mythical Curse of Cain: Overview | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mormonism and the Mythical Curse of Cain Part 4: It’s a law of God

In 1969 president McKay actually moved the business of removing the black priesthood ban to a vote amongst the Brethren, and the resolution was passed. Absent on church business from that vote however,mckay_1952 Harold B Lee demanded a re-assessment, and argued that it was God’s express will to maintain the ban. Delbert Stapley supported that contention, and Ezra Taft Benson was at the time, preaching over the pulpit that the Civil Rights Movement was a Soviet plot to invade the US. McKay represented the majority view in wanting to end the ban but it was a weak majority facing off against some very forceful speakers and debate artists. The 1969 effort was ultimately held up by Lee’s challenge that McKay would need to receive a bona-fide revelation to reverse a previous “revelation.”

In response to his efforts to secure Divine intercession in solving the “Negro Question,” McKay claimed on several occasions to have had a number of answers to his inquiries of the Lord:

There are at least three anecdotes of McKay’s prayers and different answers.

Marion D. Hanks said McKay reported receiving “no answer”. Lola Timmons, a former secretary in the Church office building said McKay reported receiving an answer “not yet”. Richard Jackson, an architect in the Church Office Building, said McKay reported God’s telling him “not to bring the subject up again.” David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism at 103-04.

On November 17, 1964, the New York Times reported that, when asked whether the Church would change its policy withholding priesthood from Black members, McKay replied, “Not while you and I are here.”

President McKay, of course, disliked rocking the boat, or confronting other Brethren. And some of them were quite set in favor of the policy (and some opposed civil rights–see letter from Elder Stapley to George Romney


Instead of rescinding the ban on Negro priesthood ordination, McKay’s First Presidency ultimately issued the second major official statement on Race and the Priesthood in that same year, 1969. It supported the notion of Civil Rights for the Negro, but otherwise utterly reiterated the classic, LDS Curse of Cain theology of the church’s first statement on the matter in 1949. Both documents entirely embraced the very positions Randy Bott represented to the Washington Post on 29 February, 2012.

Following McKay’s passing in 1970, Joseph Fielding Smith ascended to the presidency. His adherence to historical Mormon Curse of Cain theology with all its overtly racist overtones can be found in Answers to Gospel Questions, Doctrines of Salvation etc. His son-in-law,  Bruce R McConkie, and his epic encyclopedic dissertation on everything Mormon and doctrinal, titled oddly enough, Mormon Doctrine, immediately became even more popular than it already was, and far more available. Though still a self-published work at this point, by this time Mormon Doctrine was for all practical purposes the LDS priesthood manual. Obviously, Joseph Fielding Smith’s new title as Prophet Seer and Revelator gave anything and everything he’d ever written implicit, ultimate doctrinal authority. By association, and in Utah cultural estimation, by bloodlines, this mantle of authority was extended to McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine.

Eugene England is alleged to have first come to the attention, or rather, fell under the scrutiny of Bruce R McConkie during debates in the 1960’s with his father-in-law, who I believe was president of the Quorum of Twelve around that time, who as I say, was Joseph Fielding Smith:

What stands out also in my mind is that (with all due respect) the 12 hadn’t done their homework on this yet either during the McKay (4) It is obvious from the McKay biography that several members of the Quorum of 12 were steadfastly against the possibility of change in the policy. In fact, several of them would have said “doctrine” instead of policy. Eugene England tells of challenging Joseph F. Smith during the 60′s about a scriptural basis for the ban. Apostle Smith said that it certainly was a doctrine based in scripture, but in a personal meeting with England where they reviewed the scriptures in question, he ultimately said “It’s not in there, and I always assumed it was”.

Eugene England asked [Elder Joseph Fielding Smith] in a 1963 private interview whether it was necessary for a faithful Latter-day Saint to believe that black men were denied priesthood because of their activities in the preexistence, Elder Smith said, “Yes.” But when England asked for scriptural substantiation, Elder Smith reread the relevant passages, reflected, then finally stated, “No, you do not have to believe that Negroes are denied the priesthood because of the pre-existence. I have always assumed that because it was what I was taught, and it made sense, but you don’t have to believe it to be in good standing, because it is not definitely stated in the scriptures. And I have received no revelation on the matter.”4

And while England claims to have elicited something of a confession of error in Joseph Fielding Smith’s doctrinal orientation concerning the Negro in private, N Eldon Tanner, who was party to the McKay era debates on the priesthood ban, and Joseph Fielding Smith’s second counselor, had this to say about it in public:


The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There’s really nothing we can do to change this. It’s a law of God.

N. Eldon Tanner, Seattle Magazine, December 1967, page 60

Following president Smith, we had Harold B Lee, from 1972-73. I see no point in quoting him to prove what his disposition was on the Negro, since Lee was the sole agent who hung up the resolution to rescind the ban on Negro priesthood ordination in 1969, and who led the Brethren to lobby president McKay and his counselors to not only forget about sanctioning a repeal, but persuaded McKay’s administration into sending out yet another detailed, official, and authoritative proclamation that LDS Curse of Cain theology wasn’t ever going to change in any expected lifetime or occur even within the known universe. So as Neil Armstrong was landing on the moon and “we came in peace for all mankind,” was the slogan of the day, the Brethren in the Valley were hunkering down in 1969, defending what looked to the rest of the world like unmitigated bigotry and racism.

Which brings us up to 1974 and Spencer W Kimball, the Mormon church president who finally repealed the church’s priesthood ban on black African members. And though he spearheaded the repeal with great conviction, president Kimball was not yet entirely purged of the attendant, LDS racial or skin-color based theology:

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen‑year‑old daughter we represent, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she Spencer W. Kimballwas several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather…. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.

Spencer W. Kimball, Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, October 1960; Improvement Era, December 1960, pp922‑923

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.

Spencer W. Kimball, Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, October 1960; Improvement Era, December 1960, pp922‑923

When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage.

Spencer W. Kimball, Spencer W. Kimball, “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball,” p. 302

President Kimball made similar racial observations to the end of his days, including a very strong couple of warnings against interracial marriages. In fact mixed-race marriages were illegal in Utah until 1963.

In 1985, Ezra Taft Benson assumed the mantle of church president, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. He too is notably quoted and officially logged all over the historical record as opposing any change in policy or doctrine on the “Negro Question.” Though he eventually muted his rabidly anti-Communist and anti-Civil Rights sermonizing from over the pulpit, and in general mellowed in his old age, I really only need to include one passage from Ezra Taft Benson to give an overview of his opinion on Race and the Priesthood:

What do you know about the dangerous civil rights agitation in Mississippi! Do you feEzra Taft Bensonar the destruction of all vestiges of state government?

Ezra Taft Benson, 135th Annual Conference

Gordon B Hinckley became LDS church president in 1995. His position on the “Negro Question” by that time was that he just didn’t know much about the whole thing. His only defense or clarification was that he thought there was no point raking over the coals of the past:

I dGordon B. Hinckleyon’t see anything further that we need to do. I don’t hear any complaint from our black brethren and sisters. I hear only appreciation and gratitude wherever I go. Gordon B. Hinckley, “Mormon Leader Defends Race Relations,” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 1998

Until Randy Bott opened up for the Washington Post in 2012, Gordon B Hinckley had been the last LDS church president to make any truly firm and authoritative declaration on Mormon Curse of Cain mythology. And he basically said: “No comment.” That was in 1998. Fourteen years later, Randy Bott found himself in a game of doctrinal football where he thought he was kicking a field goal for the home team, aiming it straight through the uprights, but the second the ball hit the air, the goalposts faded right, then left, then ran for the opposite end of the field. It was as if the jolly old professor had left his team briefly to take a powder during the halftime briefing in the locker room, and missed some very important rule changes that were announced by new management, while he was blissfully answering nature’s call.

And many would say that overtones of the old LDS theology surrounding the Negro-priesthood ban were still evident over the pulpit at the the occasion of the first church wide address by the first black LDS General Authority, JOSEPH W. SITATI in his talk at the October General Conference in 2009:images-20_thumb1

We see that as the restored Church began to be established on the earth, the living prophets sought and followed the will of God about how the gospel should go forth among the nations.

I have lived to see the time foreseen by the prophet Zenos in the allegory of the olive tree, when the righteous from all nations of the earth would become partakers of the covenant of God with Israel. 16

(The church video crew definitely needs to learn how to light people with dark skin tones. But that’s another issue. Bob Sink is sorely missed…)

The whole thesis of the Sitati talk seemed to be a very subtle nod to traditional LDS Curse of Cane theology, suggesting that the gospel had been offered to all the “white” races first, and now it was time to open up Africa and give Canaan his chance. There’s a lot of assumption and “reading into” the Sitati text in that analysis, but at the time the Saints were desperately looking for some clear leadership on the question and getting silence in return. And yes, there still remained the constant allusions from various Brethren to God authoring the priesthood ban on some unknown pre-mortal pretext, and other statements from General Authorities claiming the Negro had never at any time either in the eternities or just from the first Christian Church been allowed to have the priesthood. It all simply sounded like “code” talk for saying the same thing they’ve been saying for 161 years about the Negro, without the risk of sounding politically incorrect. Apart from the Negro getting his “turn” at the priesthood by way of having served out his penance in some vague, End-Times allusion, all the rest of the traditional LDS Curse of Cain dogma hadn’t appeared to have changed one iota.

Nudge-nudge. Wink-wink.

Which brings us up to February 29 of 2012.

If you were surrounded by reference materials and 67 years of memory and personal encounters with the Brethren and other LDS authors of the entire history of Mormon Curse of Cain mythology, what possibly could there have been in anything even the prophets themselves ever saiddownload (1) or did after 1978 to spell out to general LDS membership or even BYU professors of religion, that the church was dropping the whole thing, and dismissing it as pioneer era ignorance and racism? What is there in the entire history of Mormon doctrinal development that would wave off Doctor Randy Bott from telling the Washington Post exactly what the highly respected professor had been taught from childhood? Why would a BYU D.Ed. “Filter,” LDS religious talking points that were by most estimations, still entirely unchallenged by LDS leadership?

The BYU Daily Universe reports that although Professor Bott told them he was not available for comment, he later released a statement saying he fully endorsed the Church’s statement regarding the article in the Washington Post. Furthermore, his students said he discussed the interview in class and said he felt he was misrepresented. “He said they had a nice long interview, like two hours long,” said Quinn Rice, a freshman in Bott’s mission prep course. “He said that he was misquoted, and misrepresented. He’s such a great and spiritual professor. He wouldn’t go against the Church’s principles.”

download-22_thumb2Meanwhile Carri Jenkins, who also explained that BYU’s media policy is that they ask members of their campus community not to speak for the university or the Church, added that Jason Horowitz, the author of the Washington Post article, made no attempt to contact the University Communications office when he arrived on campus. “We were aware when [Horowitz] came. He did not make any contact through our office,” Jenkins said. “He did not contact us before he came. We were made aware through members of our campus community, but he did not work through our office. I know that in some cases he simply appeared in people’s offices.” The fact that Horowitz did not contact the Communications office has triggered speculation that he was hoping to portray the LDS Church as racist by entrapping BYU people into giving unfiltered statements.

Statements like the above censure of Bott from official church communications sources leave the entire church with a far more serious doctrinal problem than the immediate issue of justifying its historical banning of Negroes from the priesthood. Now we have to face the bigger question: Who are we, and what do we believe?

Oh really? You know what we believe? Really? Do we really believe that? Oh yes, you really think you know we believe that–but are you sure?

Randy Bott thought he was sure. He spent 67 years and earned a Doctorate at “The Lord’s University” trying make sure he was sure. But in the end, obviously, even a professor of LDS theology was not sure enough.

15 The Prophet Joseph Smith himself is quoted in Documentary History of the Church as aimages-48_thumb1dmonishing us that prophets are mortal men with mortal frailties, so that “a prophet (is) a
prophet only when he (is) acting as such” [History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Period I, History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, by Himself, edited by B.H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1902-1912), 5:26]. The complications in identifying which directives from Church leaders are to be understood as binding on the Saints were extensively addressed by President J. Reuben Clark in a lengthy Church News article of July 31, 1954. See the reprint of that article, “When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12:2 (Summer 1979), 68-81. Applying all of this to Brigham Young’s 1852 declaration in a political forum (the Utah Legislature), despite his citing of prophetic authority, leaves us with an interesting quandary, considering that today’s Church leaders (at least since 1969) have clearly retreated from Young’s ideas on race, priesthood, and many other things.

But not too many decades before all this indignant outrage at Randy Bott’s “rogue” doctrine, “Mormonism” was defined at the street-level by whoever collected whatever “teachings” or observations of any one or group of apostles or prophets or historians. Missionaries in particular would quite simply fly by the seat of their pants:

They would often hold what they called “cottage meetings,” which, in theory, would allow them to speak to large groups of people and, in a dream scenario, lead to mass baptisms; I’m sure dreams of Wilford Woodruff preaching at Benbow Farm were common. But the reality was often sparcely-attended gatherings where ill-prepared young men either read from pamphlets or stumbled through their own recitation of the First Vision.

My grandfather’s 3-volume “Mormon Doctrine.”

As a result of their limited direction, missionaries were left to construct their own curriculum, both for teaching and learning. Pamphlets written by prominent LDS leaders were thus an important part of missionary life. For many, it was their original source to gospel principles and Mormon history beyond what they learned in sunday school prior to their mission. Similar to the many print-outs and copies-of-copies of “deep doctrine” passed around by missionaries today, Mormon pamphlets were bought, traded, and collected in large numbers. They were used both as tools to teach interested observers as well as studied for private instruction. In 1949, a year into my grandfather’s mission, an idea came to mind: to collect all the pamphlets in circulation and combine them into a more permanent and useful format. So, he took 36 pamphlets, totaling 1,784 pages, bound them into three volumes, and added his own tables of contents that listed the name and length of each insert. He titled these books “Mormon Doctrine.”

The statement on Race and the Priesthood from the First Presidency on December 10 2013 helps immensely to understand current LDS thought on the “Negro Question.” It still isn’t “canon” but it is much appreciated. It’s just that it comes about 35 years too late to be of any help for rather a lot of former Saints and one-time potential Saints. If you were born after 1978 you grew up in the “silent era.” You may not be aware there ever was a “Negro Question.” But if you’re Randy Bott or achieved teenhood any time around 1978, you grew up with Mormon Curse of Cain mythology integrated into the very matrix of all other church doctrine.  So, on some level you bought into that so-called “folklore” or were forced to concede that this “folklore,” was “gospel” for ten, twenty, thirty, or more years.

Here’s a summary of J Reuben Clark’s 1954 essay on divining correct doctrine from false doctrine and personal opinions. This may be a new concept to many of you:

Here we must have in mind–must know–that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of theScreen-shot-2012-02-05-at-11.31.16-P Church. He is God’s sole mouthpiece on earth for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true Church. He alone may declare the mind and will of God to his people. No officer of any other Church in the world had this high right and lofty prerogative.

So when any other person, irrespective of who he is, undertakes to do any of these things, you may know that he is not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost,” in so speaking, unless he has special authorization from the President of the Church. (D.C. 90:1-4, 9, 12-16; 107:8, 65-66, 91-92; 115:19; 124:125; D.C. 2:477; 6:363).

Thus far it is clear.

But there are many places where the scriptures are not too clear, and where different interpretations may be given to them; there are many doctrines; tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declared. It is in the consideration and discussion of these scriptures and doctrines that opportunities arise for differences of views as to meanings and extent. In view of the fundamental principle just announced as to the position of the President of the Church, other bearers of the Priesthood, those with the special spiritual endowment and those without it, should be cautious in their expressions about and interpretations of scriptures and doctrines. They must act and teach subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. It would be most unfortunate were this not always strictly observed by the bearers of this special spiritual endowment, other than the President. Sometimes in the past, they have spoken “out of sum,” so to speak. Furthermore, at times even those not members of the General Authorities are said to have been heard to declare their own views on various matters concerning which no official view or declaration has been made by the mouthpiece of the Lord, sometimes with an assured certainty that might deceive the uninformed and unwary….

images-29_thumb1There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” You will recall the Prophet Joseph declared that a prophet is not always a prophet.

How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest….

But this matter of disagreements over doctrine, and the announcement by high authority of incorrect doctrines, is not new.

It will be recalled that disagreements among brethren in high places about doctrines made clear appeared in the early days of the Apostolic Church. Indeed, at the Last Supper, “there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest”; this was in the presence of the Savior himself. (Luke 22: 24.)

The disciples had earlier had the same dispute when they were at Capernaum. (Mark 9:33; Luke 9:46.) And not long after that, James and John, of their own volition or at the instance of their mother, apparently the latter, asked Jesus that one of them reflectionseurope_com_Last_Supper_wi[1]might sit on his right hand and the other on his left. (Matt. 20:20 ff.; Mark 10:35 ff.)

This matter of precedence seems to have troubled the disciples.

There were disputes over doctrine. You will recall that Paul and Barnabas had differences (not over doctrine, however), and, says the record, “the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other.” (Acts 15:36 95.)

Paul had an apparently unseemly dispute with Peter about circumcision. Paul boasted to the Galatians, “I said unto Peter before them all ….” (Gal. 2:14.)

Peter, replying more or less in kind, wrote: ” . . . even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (II Peter 3:15-16.)

This same question regarding circumcision became so disturbing to the Church that “the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter,” in Jerusalem. Paul, Barnabas, and Peter were there and participated in the discussion. The Pharisee disciples stood for circumcision of Gentiles. James delivered the decision against the necessity of circumcising the Gentile converts. (Acts 15:1 95.)

All through the history of the restored church doctrinal controversies have raged. Does God really live on a planet near the star Kolob? Does God’s God have a God? Is God eternally progressing? Do we really have a mother in heaven, or is it several mothers in heaven? Did Jesus wed Mary Magdalene at Cana? Did they have kids? Did heavenly father physically procreate with Mary to conceive Jesus? Where did Cain get his wife? Is God really God only because we sustain him as God? (Come on you Skousenites…let’s go!) Was Jesus just the most intelligent of all intelligences, or does he really have to be more intelligent than all intelligences combined? Was Adam God? If God was a man living on a planet, did he have a Christ and a Father in Heaven as well? Is Harry Reid a tool of the Devil? Will temple garments actually stop bullets and make the wearer immune to flame? Is sugar a poison? Will eating chocolate violate the Word of Wisdom?

But those aren’t the sorts of obtuse, casual mysteries we have to solve here. The real problem before us is one president Clark doesn’t directly entertain. He probably didn’t dare to. The problem we have before us now, is a string of prophets and church presidents, with whole quorums of apostles and General Authorities backing them up, declaring unanimously for 161 years that the Negro was cursed. Now the current Brethren, rather abruptly, tell us, no, the Negro is not cursed and apparently never was. We do not get that in a “revelation,” and an official declaration, canonized and published in the Standard Works. No, instead, we get that from a couple of press releases from the media office on the church website, and one PBS interview of Jeffrey R holland that almost nobody saw, over 8 years ago. And so far, there are no prophets and presidents of the church backed up by whole quorums of apostles and General Authorities, precisely defining and declaring this change of “policy” in writing and canonizing it.

If a senior, tenured professor, who had specifically been granted a Doctorate of Education out of BYU, the flagship Mormon educational institution, is unclear in any way about what constitutes Mormon doctrine, the fault lies in the institution, images-9_thumb1not Randy Bott. Randy Bott is not a loose cannon or a fringe element or a senile, anachronistic old codger who just didn’t “get it.” He taught his “folklore” openly and widely for decades all over campus, educating perhaps 70,000 thousand young Mormon skulls full of mush directly in his tenure, and less directly, maybe as many as two hundred thousand or more by various human networks or online, sending most of them off to the “mission field” and across the world of Mormondom and beyond, to spread the selfsame anti-Negro Mormon “folklore,” throughout the world.

In Dr Bott’s twenty years or so at BYU, he didn’t set off any alarms, no whistles were blown, no red flags were thrown, neither the Brethren nor the Board of Regents or HR never called him in for a little “talk.” He never spent a second in the penalty box. The only Mormons in the BYU religious loop disturbed at all by his theology, Dr Bott’s only offended casualties of his “gospel,” were a handful of “ethnic-types” of black and off-white coloration, who were too intimidated to speak up to anyone, until the Washington Post came calling and the church press office gave them permission to show a bit of spine. Moreover, they no doubt found Bott’s “folklore” so universally supported elsewhere in LDS literature and culture, that they didn’t see the point in debating it. So, for 18 years or more, Randy Bott sat comfortably in front of his rapt audience at the pinnacle of the Mormon Mars Hill of education, certain of his mastery of all things Mormon, and preached the same doctrine he preached to the Washington Post. And nobody ever corrected him, because Mormon Curse of Cain mythology sounded “just fine” to his peers and superiors as well. There was nothing to correct.

How could the Brethren and other trustees of BYU, let alone its administration, not know what goes on in BYU religion classes? How could they not know what’s taught in the missionary preparation course? Every BYU freshman learns in a month or two that there’s far weirder stuff than Randy Bott’s “Negro with the car-keys” doctrine going on in those classes every day.

The same peer-pressure, the same social phenomenon happens at the University of Minnesota on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. Some young, bright-eyed Mormon kid, a big fan of images-13_thumb1Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, talk radio and the Tea Party, sits through week after week of some English class where the professor spouts on and on about the melting glaciers and ice caps, starving polar bears, and the imminent threat of the global warming crisis, while the Right-Wing Mormon kid rolls his eyes and just writes the assigned essay on the dangerously rising sea levels that will flood Manhattan by 2015 because he needs the grade and he needs the diploma. And nobody on campus, much less staff is going to sympathize with his protestations that “global warming is far from settled science.” Everybody from the university president to the dean of the English department, to the janitor just hired to clean toilets, knows what’s being taught in that guy’s English class instead of English. But they’re all in on it. They don’t see any problem with it. It seems perfectly reasonable to them. And he’s getting some English in there too. So what’s your beef? How bad do you want this diploma?

Or in Bott’s case: how bad do you want to be a Mormon? You are forced to decide if you can you put up with this offensive “Negro stuff” because the rest of it is so great.

Professor Randy Bott, BYU religion professorial archetype, reached over 3000 students a year with his “anachronistic folklore,” indoctrinated them all, ran a blog dedicated to continuing the mission of answering any and all “gospel” questions out in the blogosphere. He wasn’t shy about it. He wasn’t hard to find. And he wasn’t alone in his “folkloric” professions on campus, in the LDS local community abroad, or the church in general. If Bott never got the “message,” it’s not Bott’s fault. Nobody of any sufficient authority ever gave him the message.

Randy Bott was simply quoting the last, most intelligible transmission from leadership.

The Brethren have said a lot of things about a lot of things, and they often differ in opinion. But the one thing they’ve almost unanimously agreed upon, right up to Holland’s 2006 PBS commentaries, is that the Negro priesthood ban was a commandment from God that needed a revelation to remove. That was the whole point of Declaration 2. And more specifically, not even the 10 December statement of 2013 precisely denies the righteousness of the ban from a canonical perspective. There is still enough authoritative wiggle room for those who care to keep justifying the notion straight out of the canon that the Negro had always been banned from the priesthood up until 1978, and that it had to do with “something” in the pre-mortal or “spirit world.” And from the Book of Mormon it’s just plain blatantly easy to justify skin-darkness as a sign of Godly disfavor. The Brethren I suppose, imagine that time and generational, popular liberalism will eventually bring about generations who don’t see or care to see any great significance in any of those previously pivotal “racial” passages, without anyone having to outright admit they’ve been getting it wrong for going on two centuries now.

Prior to 1978 and Declaration 2, the Brethren were almost unanimously promoting a litany of openly racist justifications for banning Negroes from the priesthood. When the ban was just as unanimously lifted, they then changed the narrative to claim that the “reasons” for this ban in the first place were “unknown,” and would remain so. One cannot know the mind of God, but one must obey God’s will. Thank you John Calvin. Thanks a lot.timthumb_thumb15

Since “Bottgate,” the official LDS response has now been advanced to a cautious admission that the Brethren do know the reasons, and it was down to Brigham Young. The ban, it is now explained, was based on pioneer racism, bigotry and politics, and had nothing whatsoever to do with revelation or doctrinal truth ever, at any time. And furthermore, the whole Curse of Cain, Curse of Ham thing, canonical references aside, was all “folklore.” This rationalization ostensibly goes back to the time of Christ, back to Moses, Abraham, and Adam as well. It implies that the writers of those canonical records were likewise writing out of ignorance and racism or cultural bias. That, or their preservationists and translators were. So what then, are we to make of these previously vital canonical expositions on Race and the Priesthood? The Brethren haven’t quite spelled that out.

Personally, I’m taking the cautious route in re-examining the canon. I wouldn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What I do bear witness of, is that this final disavowing of LDS Curse of Cain mythology ostenisbly by the Brethren, in December of 2013, would likely have never been motivated in my lifetime had Mitt Romney not been running for president, and had Randy Bott not agreed to talk to the Washington Post in an effort to help America better understand Romney’s Mormon system of beliefs.

I think we all owe a nod of gratitude to Randy Bott. And I suppose the liberal Democrat hacks at the Washington Post who set out to do a hatchet job on Mitt Romney in February of 2012 just as his campaign was hitting its stride.

It’s all well and good to have this issue mostly, but not completely clarified by the Brethren’s official post on, on 10 December 2013. The article on Race and the Priesthood there however, would have been even more helpful had it been penned in 1978. I can personally testify that when I stood teaching a large class of Sunday School teens in my high council room in the early images (12)years of this new century, around 2004-2005, looking at a large panel of combined Sunday school class kids made up of youth in their mid-to-late teens, my youngest son included, I had no apologetic exit strategy to escape the questions coming at me from the six or eight Liberian and African-American kids asking me to answer the church’s “Negro Question” for them. All I had was McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine, Joseph Fielding Smith’s Answers to Gospel Questions, Doctrines of Salvation, a host of other antiquated “authoritative” commentaries, and over 20 years of shoulder-shrugging out of church headquarters concerning any follow-up insights on Declaration 2. Even McConkie’s “corrected” 1978 version was rare, and only odd little interviews from obtuse journalists had dug out any further insight into the matter from the Brethren, and none of it was widely circulated compared to 161 years of openly available, deeply ingrained and popular “folklore” concerning the “Negro Question.”

Interview with Apostle LeGrand Richards

By Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos

16th August 1978

Church Office Building

(Recorded on Cassette)

WALTERS: On this revelation, of the priesthood to the Negro, I’ve heard all kinds of stories: I’ve heard that Joseph Smith appeared; and then I heard another story that Spencer Kimball had, had a concern about this for some time, and simply shared it with the apostles, and they decided that this was the right time to move in that direction. Are any of those stories true, or are they all?

RICHARDS: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it’s hard to get leaders that don’t have Negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It’s going to be dedicated in October.hqdefault-2_thumb1 All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising the money to build that temple. If we don’t change, then they can’t even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it.

He asked each one of us of the Twelve if we would pray – and we did – that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office – individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can’t always express everything that’s in your heart. You’re part of the group, you see – so he interviewed each one of us, personally, to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood.

Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group together, and then we prayed about it in our prayer circle, and then we held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children. And then the next Thursday – we meet every Thursday – the Presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement – to see how we’d feel about it – and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it – the Twelve and the images-28_thumb1Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Petersen, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and he (Petersen) approved of it.

WALTERS: What was the date? Would that have been the first of June, or something?

RICHARDS: That was the first Thursday, I think, in May. [June?] At least that’s about when it was. And then after we all voted in favor of it, we called another meeting for the next morning, Friday morning, at seven o’clock, of all the other General Authorities – that includes the Seventies’ Quorum and the Patriarch and the Presiding Bishopric, and it was presented to them, and there were a few of the brethren that were out presiding then in the missions, and so the Twelve were appointed to interview each one of them.


WALTERS: Now when President Kimball read this little announcement or paper, was that the same thing that was released to the press?


WALTERS: There wasn’t a special document as a “revelation”, that he had and wrote down?

RICHARDS: We discussed it in our meeting. What else should we say besides that announcement? And we decided that was sufficient; that no more needed to be said.

WALTERS: Was that the letter you sent out to the various wards?

RICHARDS: And to the Church; and to the newspapers, yes.

VLACHOS: Will that become a part of “scripture”?

RICHARDS: Yes, I’ve already thought in my own mind of suggesting we add it to the Pearl of Great Price, just like those last two revelations that we’ve just added.

WALTERS: Will this affect your theological thinking about the Negro as being less valiant in the previous existence? How does this relate? Have you thought that through?

RICHARDS: Some time ago, the Brethren decided that we should never say that. We don’t know just what the reason was. Paul said, “The Lord hath before appointed the bounds of the habitations of all men for to dwell upon the face of the earth,” and so He determined that before we were born. He who knows why they were born with black skin or white and so on and so forth. We’ll just have to wait and find out.

WALTERS: Is there still a tendency to feel that people are born with black skin because of some previous situation, or do we consider that black skin is no sign anymore of anything inferior in any sense of the word?

RICHARDS: Well, we don’t want to get that as a doctrine. Think of it as you will. You know, Paul said “Now we see in part and we know in part; we see through a glass darkly. When that which is perfect hqdefault-3_thumb1is come, then that which is in part shall be done away, then we will see as we are seen, and know as we are known.” Now the Church’s attitude today is to prefer to leave it until we know. The Lord has never indicated that black skin came because of being less faithful. Now, the Indian; we know why he was changed, don’t we? The Book of Mormon tells us that; and he has a dark skin, but he has a promise there that through faithfulness, that they all again become a white and delightsome people. So we haven’t anything like that on the colored thing.

WALTERS: Now, with this new revelation – has it brought any new insights or new ways of looking at the Book of Abraham? Because I think traditionally it is thought of the curse of Cain, coming through Canaanites and on the black-skinned people, and therefore denying the priesthood?

RICHARDS: We considered that with all the “for’s” and the “against’s” and decided that with all of that, if they lived their lives, and did the work, that they were entitled to their blessings.

WALTERS: But you haven’t come up with any new understanding of the Book of Abraham? I just wondered whether there would be a shift in that direction. Is the recent revelation in harmony with what the past prophets have taught, of when the Negro would receive the priesthood?

RICHARDS: Well, they have held out the thought that they would ultimately get the priesthood, but they never determined the time for it. And so when this situation that we face down there in Brazil – Brother Kimball worried a lot about it – how the people are so faithful and devoted. The president of the Relief Society of the stake is a colored woman down there in one of the stakes. If they do the work, why it seems like that the justice of the Lord would approve of giving them the blessing. Now it’s all conditional upon the life that they live, isn’t it?

WALTERS: Well, I thank you for clarifying that for me, because you know, out in the streets out there, there must be at least five, ten different stories about the way this happened.

RICHARDS: Well, I’ve told you exactly what happened.

WALTERS: Right. Well, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

RICHARDS: If you quote me you will be telling the truth.

WALTERS: Ok, well fine. You don’t mind if we quote you then?


WALTERS: Ok, that’s great!

Perhaps, worse than the Brethren taking the risk of authoritatively guessing wrong in the matter of the Negro issue, was saying nothing at all. Or at least, nothing definitive or useful. That left the lowly Sunday school teacher or even the greatest BYU mlk_birmingham_thumb1religion professor of 2012 and the modern era, with nothing but “folklore,” and “unauthorized guesswork” to fill the void. The best I had in my devotional arsenal when I found myself forced to do the hard research and come up with a real answer for a real black, African Latter-day Saint, was to stick to the canon, highlight the “Mark of Protection,” elements of the narrative, honestly confess I had no idea what was going on between Ham and his old man, and if forced, cop to the undeniable truth that the “pre-mortal slacker” theory still seemed to be the LDS Party-line justification for the previous ban on Negro priesthood ordination.

We also see, that as brother Richards explains it, at the same time the “Negro Question” was being all but eradicated from LDS doctrine as far as he was concerned, Richards eagerly cited clear canon in the Book of Mormon still indicating that dark skin was a curse from God, even if it didn’t specifically relate to the Curse of Cain or priesthood denial. Very little of the overall tone of “White Supremacy”in LDS doctrine and culture if you will,  was “cleared up” by Declaration 2 in 1978. LeGrand Richards and the Brethren may have decided behind closed doors to just drop the subject, but nobody put the word out to me. “We don’t know the reason,” was not a good enough answer for generations of potentially LDS “Negroes,” then, before then, and still to come. When I faced down a generation of smart, earnest, and very black LDS kids in Sunday school a generation back, all I could honestly add was that I personally didn’t buy any it. Several of those warm, intelligent, black, African, and African-American youth left the church anyway. One of them left specifically due to reading Mormon Doctrine, Answers to Gospel Questions, and doing all the online research I’ve outlined here. Five minutes online is all the longer it took for that young man to discover generations of overtly racist, ostensibly authoritativeimages (14) pronouncements coming from LDS leadership at all levels, tracing all the way back at least allegedly, to Joseph Smith. And unfortunately, it was all most easily found in grossly anti-Mormon contexts. Rather than help him keep his testimony, I believe he felt I had just been whitewashing the issue. (Pun intended, but it’s more sad than funny.)

And he was right. I was tap-dancing all around hoping to distract him from what clearly appeared to be the central LDS doctrine about the “Negro Question.” I’ve since adopted a motto: “Do what is right, let the consequences follow…” My whitewashing days are over. And thank the Lord, I don’t have to any more. But I must observe, Mormons need to own this conversation, not pretend it isn’t happening. The conversation will be had with us in it or not, and without us in it the door is open wide for a thousands of other entirely bogus anti-Mormon charges to enter the discussion unchecked and uncontested. Mormonism has real problems, and this is one of them. If we deal openly with our real problems, it makes it just that much easier for enemies and investigators alike to see the pretended, imaginary problems for what they are.

So now what? We just had the Gospel Doctrine lesson a week or from Genesis 3 about Abraham sending a servant out to recruit a wife for Isaac from the ostenisbly pagan, idiot relatives back in his father’s idolatrous region.

3 And I will make thee aswear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt bnot take a cwife unto my son of the daughters of the dCanaanites, among whom I dwell:

4 But thou shalt go unto my acountry, and to my bkindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.

According to LDS tradition, the reason Abraham’s pagan kinsfolk were preferable to the locals is that Issac couldn’t possibly take a woman of Canaan to wife, she not being “of the covenant,” meaning quiteadamfalls2 specifically that any resulting offspring would be ineligible for the patriarchal covenant just like his wife. That’s not just Mormon tradition. That’s pretty much the whole Jewish, Christian and Muslim take on it. And as cleaned-up the lesson manual had been, there remained the allusion that Isaac and his offspring would then be denied the inherently priesthood-based patriarchy of the House of Israel because of…yes, figure it out. What else would there be to explain it? Right there would be where the whole “Curse of Cain/Curse of Ham” theology in LDS interpretation, just naturally plugs right in. So even the current statement on Race and the Priesthood of December 2013 doesn’t work out all the kinks. In fact, it just makes more and bigger kinks. hqdefaultIf the “Negro” wasn’t the offspring of Cain or Ham, and if the Canaanites weren’t either, just what was the problem that excluded the Negro from priesthood ordination in 1853? Is the current statement by the Brethren really saying it all entirely down to frontier American racism, that Brigham Young and his apostolic peers were just bigoted on the matter? Was there never any canonical basis for LDS anti-“Negro” theology or the policy of banning the “Negro” from the priesthood at all? Is that what I am supposed to accept? I for one am not entirely sure–I know what I’d like to teach about it, but would I be entirely in harmony with the Brethren on it? I can’t say. And LeGrand Richards’ notion of brushing it aside with permission to “think of that as you may,” just don’t count it as “doctrine” is how we got into this problem in the first place.

As for Randy Bott, well he’s on the church’s “Master Retirement Plan,” and that’s not bad on it’s own. Combined with Social Security and his Deseret Mutual Savings and Investment Plan, he’s probably sitting pretty. I’m not losing any sleep over the professor’s fate. The church is actually a very fair and decent employer. But I will offer just one more bit of Randy Bott insight:

Bott, a popular religion professor at BYU and the highest-rated professor in America in 2008 according to, told students in his missionary preparation class Wednesday that he gave the interview to the Post because he was under the impression that the reporter had 781708_thumb3permission from the church to talk to him.

“He said he had been misquoted,” said Katie Cutler, a junior in linguistics from Yorktown, Va. “He said he just shared the scriptures with the reporter and told them that the church hasn’t given an official reason for the priesthood ban.”

Stephen Whitaker, a BYU graduate who now lives in New Haven, Conn., wrote a concerned email to Professor Bott after reading the story in the Washington Post. Whitaker said that in a “very kind” return email Bott indicated to him that he felt he had been misrepresented in the Post, and that he regretted that the reporter had not given him an opportunity to review his quotes before the story was published.

“He said that if he had been able to read his quotes in advance he would have made significant changes,” Whitaker said.

“I feel sorry for him,” said Daniel C. Peterson, who is also a BYU religion professor but who says he has never met Bott. “I’m confident, though I don’t know him, that he’s a good, well-intentioned man.”

Writing in his own blog, however, Peterson said he disagrees profoundly with what Bott said to the Post.

“Our speculations as to the reason(s) (for the priesthood ban) have been essentially wdownload-6_thumb1orthless, and sometimes harmful,” Peterson wrote. “God has not seen fit to explain why he commanded or at least permitted the denial of priesthood to blacks.

“We certainly don’t know that God withheld the priesthood from blacks in order to protect them, or because they weren’t ‘ready’ for it, or because it ‘benefited’ them to be denied access to the temple or opportunities to serve missions, and the like,” he continued. “We just don’t know. And if we ever learn the reason, that knowledge will come through the Lord’s chosen prophets and apostles, not through BYU professors like me.”

I don’t for one second believe Randy Bott was misquoted. However, hey there brother Peterson–you’re not so up-to-speed either. We do know the reasons. The “Lord’s chosen prophets and apostles” just told us: it was racism. God didn’t withhold the priesthood from blacks at all. It was all LDS Utah-Mormon, Brigham Young-based “folklore.” Read the 10 December 2013 First Presidency statement on Race and the Priesthood. I know you think you’re winning points with the Brethren sticking your two cents worth into the mix here—but you’re lagging dangerously behind the revelation of the day and begging for retirement too. Oops! My mistake. You got fired:

I was talking with my source about how the Mormon Church is seeking tactical advantage in projecting a new-and-improved image of the Mormon Church through use of Mormon Mitt’s run for the White House roses.

Our conversation focused on how Romney has had a significant history of flip-flopping on issues, images-16_thumb1and how this apparent tendency on Romney’s part to reverse field at a moment’s notice for political advantage does not serve him well in presenting himself to larger society as a Mormon supposedly committed to telling the truth and maintaining a consistent moral standard.

We also talked about how Romney steadfastly refuses to discuss with reporters in any meaningful detail the official doctrines (and their related history) of the Mormon Church but, rather, insists on speaking only about his personal experiences in the Mormon Church as what he describes as an LDS “pastor” position, as well as his experiences and beliefs as an individual member.

My source observed that Romney simply could not address matters of Mormon doctrine and history because it would render his campaign untenable.

Then, according to my source (who said the following had been relayed to the source by a staff employee at the Maxwell Institute), the Mitt Romney campaign had contacted the Maxwell Institute to complain that the extreme Mormon apologetics of Peterson were hurting the Romney presidential campaign.

Subsequently, the source said, Peterson was fired from his editor position at the Maxwell Institute.,587020

Take that one for what it’s worth. The timing is just, uh… ironic. Peterson knifes an old images-22_thumb2colleague in the back, issuing a patronizing eulogy for his dated contribution to the “Negro Question,” smugly shuffling him off to historical and cultural irrelevance, then the same month, Peterson is kicked to the curb, likewise, without any warning, for making the same sort of ostentatious public defenses of LDS “doctrine.” And if you want to digress enough to read the following sources, Peterson’s ouster was made because he was too personal and vehement in his defense of what he considers to be genuine LDS doctrine and history.

Apparently there’s an ongoing war being settled between present management IE: THE BRETHREN, BYU administration, and FARMS/FAIR, Dialogue, the Juvenile Instructor, the Maxwell Institute and other apologetic LDS think tanks, regarding the overall strategy of whether to explain away the whole “Negro Question” thing, or just confess it was all down to “folklore,” throw Brigham Young et-al under the bus and get on with it.f52ffd99-e3ca-490b-8a7a-a25cd838117c

Randy Bott apparently isn’t the only one not getting the secret memos. I’m not taking sides here so much as just pointing out a bit of disagreement on “approach” to presenting this and many other former and present “tenets” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A little bit of friendly fire. Or as Jesus once said:

49John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” 50But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”

But I suppose, it seems that’s an old paradigm. Today, apparently, some of our strongest supporters are also our biggest liabilities. Go ask Randy Bott. And Daniel Peterson.

download (6)A comment posted by “Eric” to the BYU Student Review story records the reaction from “Ryan Bott,” identified as the son of Randy Bott:

“As many of you know, my dad (Randy) has been in the news… The explanation is simple… yes, he did grant an interview to Washington Post to discuss ‘Mitt Romney’. The reporter told him that he had cleared the interview with BYU and the Dean of Religion – which he found out this morning was a lie. The reporter misquoted and misrepresented the majority of the interview. My dad has been asked by BYU and the church to remain silent, but I feel his side should be told.

Some have noticed that we have deactivated the Know Your Religion Blog [Ed. Note: webcache available HERE]… This was not done as an admittance of guilt, but was done at the request of BYU until things settle down.

Any of you who personally know my father, know that he is definitely NOT a racist, as the media would have you believe. It amazes me that no one at BYU or the church seem to care to give him the benefit of the doubt, investigate what was really said; instead it seems easier to just believe a liberal Washington Post Reporter, go on ‘hear-say’, and throw my dad under the bus.

Unfortunately for the professor’s son Ryan, assuming this post is legitimate, comments left at the Know Your Religion site betray the fact that Randy Bott had published pretty much the same sentiments aired in the Washington Post, for years.

CTR_Ring_LDS_Church_thumbThe Washington Post reporter did not “trick” BYU’s top professor of religion into giving “unfiltered” comments that were distorted and taken out of context. BYU’s top professor of religion gave the Washington Post a fairly accurate synopsis of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ longstanding historical theology on the subject of Race and the Priesthood. And out in the light of day, it sounded pretty damned racist. I’m not hurling epithets at either Randy Bott or the Lord’s Anointed. I’m just telling the truth. As best I see it.

That’s a commandment you know. And I’m using “damned” in the Biblical sense.

24 And atruth is bknowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is amore or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a bliar from the beginning.

30 All truth is independent in that asphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

timthumb (4)

Posted in Mormonism and the Mythical Curse of Cain Part 4: It's a Law of God | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mormonism and the Mythical Curse of Cain Part 3: The Ballad of Randy Bott


Randy Bott was unarguably the most popular Brigham Young University religion (or any other) professor on campus. He’d just won a national student poll and was reigning US “professor of the year.” He taught the mission prep class and gave great lectures. He was an excellent scholar of LDS history and doctrine. You could say he was this generation’s Paul Dunn. He was similarly popular with the missionary force. Unfortunately, he met with a fate similar to that of Paul Dunn in the end. Only, unlike Dunn’s case, Bott’s denouement had less to do with self-promoting rumors and stretching the truth for a good story, than in engaging our modern, heavily weaponized 21st century American Paul_H._Dunn_thumb1journalism armed only with a 19th century muzzle-loader filled with soggy old powder and a load of old cobblers.

Dr Bott’s first mistake was granting an interview with the Washington Post. His second mistake was thinking he’d have no trouble simply outlining what he understood to be the truth about Mormon Curse of Cain doctrine in such a national forum and then using his decades of experience in the LDS arena to satisfy any followup questions. And keep in mind that he was a tenured professor of religion at the LDS church’s premier institution of higher education. Keep in mind he’d been there preaching this selfsame “gospel” in the mission-prep class and all over campus for over 18 years. It would be easy to assume that since Randy Bott had been awarded his D.Ed. from BYU itself, that such an advanced degree should easily certify him to discuss and understand all 161 years of Mormon doctrine surrounding the LDS “Negro Question” perfectly well. Brigham Young was it now seems, the man who invented the whole system of LDS Curse of Cain mythology, and Young likewise founded the university from which Bott got his doctorate. I don’t know if there could be anyone with a closer connection to the subject than that.  One might well imagine that asking a BYU religion professor a few questions about Mormonism would be a pretty safe proposition.

And you would be wrong.

In his office, religion professor Randy Bott explains a possible theological underpinning of the ban. According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who killed his brother, Abel, “were black.” One of Cain’s descendants was Egyptus, a woman Mormons believe was the namesake of Egypt. She married Ham, whose descendants were themselves cursed and, in the view of many Mormons, barred from the priesthood by his father, Noah. Bott points to the Mormon holy text the Book of Abraham as suggesting that all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were timages-34_thumbhus black and barred from the priesthood.

It’s not clear whether Joseph Smith, the religion’s founder, who ordained at least one black priest, supported the ban. But his successor, Brigham Young, enforced it enthusiastically as the word of God, supporting slavery in Utah and decreeing that the “mark” on Cain was “the flat nose and black skin.” Young subsequently urged immediate death to any participant in mixing of the races. As recently as 1949, church leaders suggested that the ban on blacks resulted from the consequences of the “conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence.” As a result, many Mormons believed that blacks were less valiant in the pre-Earth life, or fence sitters in the war between God and Satan. That view has fallen out of favor in recent decades.

“God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, says Bott, the BYU theologian. He quotes Mormon scripture that states that the Lord gives to people “all that he seeth fit.” Bott compares blacks with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood.

“What is discrimination?” Bott asks. “I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?” Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. “You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder, because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

The LDS church Public Relations Department hurled back and almost instant response:

“Professors are free to speak when it comes to their research and subject,” she [church PR rep Jenkings] said, “but we ask that they do not speak on behalf of the Church or BYU.”

Photo Credit: Brigham Young University

Jenkins neither confirmed or denied rumors of Bott possibly being fired saying, “We are handling it internally.”

It didn’t stay an on-campus issue for long. It was very soon anything but an “internal” matter. National media was far more surprised and fascinated with the church’s untypically strong and swift denunciation of Dr Bott’s pioneer-era Curse of Cain dogma, than the dogma itself. The dogma, they’d all heard before. It was all online and just a few clicks away. And contrary to the Washington Post article, the last authoritative statement downloadfrom the Brethren relegating the “Negro” to second-class status in the church was not 1949, but 1969, and it concurred wholeheartedly with Randy Bott’s sketch of the church’s historical summary of the “Negro’s” pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal spiritual disposition. Randy Bott’s assessment drew upon the consensus of essentially every prophet and president of the church from Brigham Young to Gordon B Hinckley, and has been tremendously well researched by numerous BYU historians, scholars, and professors of Mormon theology. The American popular media had heard it all before. They’d just never heard the Brethren back away from it so adamantly before.

And neither had Randy Bott.

Bott was the highest-rated professor in America in 2008, according to He teaches large sections of required religion courses, including courses designed to prepare future missionaries, to as many as 3,000 students a year. This semester, more than 800 students are registered in Professor Bott’s classes. (Eleven are registered for BYU’s African-American history course this semester.) Professors at BYU routinely find themselves having to address racist and sexist content taught in Bott’s classes, and many are outraged and embarrassed by his rogue remarks to the Washington Post, say sources at the university. “Dr. Bott does not speak for BYUdownload (37) or the Church and his views are his own,” one religion faculty member told me.

But Professor Bott is no outlier. Especially among older Mormons, racist rationale for the priesthood ban—linking it to Old Testament pretexts, or to moral infirmity in a pre-earthly life by the souls of Africans and African-Americans, and other racist apologetic mental gymnastics exemplified in Bott’s statement to the Post—persist and circulate, generally unquestioned and unchallenged.”

Poor professor Bott. When you work, fellowship, and socialize in the rarefied halls of BYU, you don’t realize that outside of the cozy Mormon seminary, BYU, or Sunday school classroom, Mormon Curse of Cain mythology sounds pretty ignorant and silly. And decidedly racist. It looks even worse in print in a national newspaper.

Those of you Saints born about 1978 may even be cheering the purge of this apparently bigoted, irrelevant old codger. But if you did that, in fairness, you’d have likewise cheer the passing of 161 years of LDS leadership. About the time you were old enough to understand what was going on, the whole issue of “Mormonism and the Negro” had been quietly dropped underneath the church’s doctrinal radar. You may even think Randy Bott’s just been all alone in spouting that hateful, racist nonsense because he’s an ignorant, mean-spirited old fossil. But that’s only because when you were growing up, you never had prophets and apostles give conference talks like this:

George Albert Smith
We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.” I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven.
George Albert Smith, Conference Reports, CR April 1939, Second Day‑Morning Meeting

Those of you born in the 50’s or who otherwise entered the church before about 1978 and the release of Declaration 2 have indeed been indoctrinated into the same theology Randy Bott has been very dramatically and suddenly been called to repent of. It’s been the great, Victorian elephant lumbering around the Mormon theological living room for more than a century and a half.

That wasn’t Randy Bott’s fault.

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.images-31_thumb1

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.

The “restriction” ended decades previously, yes, but Bott’s only overtly doctrinal error up to his conversation with the Washington Post, was adding a personal touch of apologetic embellishment at the very end of boilerplate LDS Curse of duiCain theology that goes unbroken back to Brigham Young. And in this, his “car-keys” analogy and his “doing them a favor” analogy, he’s not unique. I’ve heard the same “doctrine” taught at BYU myself from 1977 to 1985, well after 1978 and Declaration 2, which is now being touted by many LDS “authorities” as the unspoken cutoff date after which none of this nonsense was supposed to be perpetuated.

Bott had been teaching Curse of Cain “doctrines” for decades, to thousands, no, to tens of thousands of BYU students and LDS missionaries. Scores of thousands. As best I can tell in his quickly evaporated online presence, he’d been at BYU in one capacity or the other at least since 1988. Apart from his official teaching duties, he ran a blog online called “Know Your Religion,” and did so for many years. On this blog he propagated the exact same “doctrines” answering Curse of Cane questions from the public and students alike. Why? Because Bott’s allegedly incendiary “racist” comments to the Washington Post can be found in equivalent paraphrase, openly in the works of General Authorities and prophets of the church, like Bruce R McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, George Albert Smith, Harold B Lee, Ezra Taft Benson, Delbert L Stapley, Mark E Peterson, and the full list is practically a roster of every LDS General Authority since Joseph Smith. Parley P Pratt for instance said:

Were the twelve Apostles which Christ ordained, Gentiles? Were any of them Ishmaelites, Edomites, Canaanitesparley-p-pratt, Greeks, Egyptians, or Romans by descent? No, verily. One of the Twelve was called a “Canaanite,” but this could not have alluded to his lineage, but rather to the locality of his nativity, for Christ was not commissioned to minister in person to the Gentiles, much less to ordain any of them to the Priesthood, which pertained to the children of Abraham. I would risk my soul upon the fact that Simon the Apostle was not a Canaanite by blood, He was perhaps a Canaanite upon the same principle that Jesus was a Nazarite, which is expressive of the locality of his birth or sojourn. But no man can hold the keys of Priesthood or of Apostleship, to bless or administer salvation to the nations, unless he is a literal descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus Christ and his ancient Apostles of both hemispheres were of that lineage. When they passed away, and the Saints, their followers, were destroyed from the earth, then the light of truth no longer shone in its fullness.

–Journal of Discourses vol. 1, pp. 256-263

Pratt was one of Mormonism’s early intellectuals, and though his rhetoric is devoid of the overtly racist overtones of many of his other early fellows in the church, he clearly makes a case for restricting the priesthood from the legacy of Canaan—a sentiment backed up by Our Lord Himself in Mathew 15:

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take themonkimage children’s bread, and to cast it to adogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thyafaith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour

29 And Jesus departed from thence

And of course today’s modern “enlightened” Christian sects have apologized their way around the literal truth in these Biblical passages: that even the Savior was well-aware of the christ_canaanite_womanlower-caste status of the Canaanites. Moreover, the Savior calls this humble woman, destitute mother, and Canaanite, a “Dog.” The “dog” concedes to being one, and begs its master for the blessing of the priesthood it is not allowed to have by caste and lineage. I repeat that: the DOG accepts the fact that it is considered to be a DOG, and argues with Jesus Christ for a FAVOR as a DOG. If you then connect Canaanites with black skin and Negroid features, you have an easy bridge to a Biblical verification of all the most common permutations of Mormon Curse of Cain theology–and you have it directly from Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself, right in the “enlightened” teachings of the New Testament. No trolling the Old Testament, no need for Book of Mormon, “skin color” quotes,  no Pearl of Great Price LDS-specific scriptures are at all necessary.

I’m not doing any second-guessing here, I’m just saying that if you accept the Bible to be the Word of God, a record going back to the Original Apostles, and believe it is more-or-less accurate and translated fairly correctly, you can’t simply dismiss the Biblical arguments made by Brigham Young and John Taylor and Parley Pratt or other early LDS leaders as entirely ignorant. You can’t honestly just claim out of hand that they were completely “winging” it. No, they had a lot, rather a lot, of Biblical, CANON law to consider. Now, they may have been racists on top of that, but they respected the canon. And they were functioning as an extension of Jewish and Christian tradition in an American social and political milieu of black, African slavery. All of this affected their logic and judgment. It dulled their openness to “inspiration” and receptiveness to higher enlightenment in the matter, if you choose.

“I don’t know.” It’s a mystery. The official answer since 1978.

So, Randy Bott’s third big mistake was not licking his finger, pointing it skyward, and checking which way the doctrinal winds had been blowing for at least the last couple of election cycles. Were there any signal flares fired up into the heavens for professor Bott to see? I certainly didn’t see any. Perhaps a memo went around while he was out of the office. I know I never got mine. Maybe the good Dr was so preoccupied blogging about the “Negro Question,” he forgot to check his email for a few decades. Perhaps he doesn’t watch PBS and missed Jeffrey R Holland’s interview in March of 2006:

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. … I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. … They, I’m sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the blog7707nal_thumb2explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. …

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don’t know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. … At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, … we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

What is the folklore, quite specifically?

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don’t know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I’ve been able to live in the period where we’re not expressing or teaching them, but I think that’s the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. … But I think35852_all_005_002-cainAbel that’s the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. … We just don’t know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. … That’s my principal [concern], is that we don’t perpetuate explanations about things we don’t know. …

We don’t pretend that something wasn’t taught or practice wasn’t pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we’re absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that’s not perpetuated in the present. That’s the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. …

It stands to reason that if you want a cutoff date to be enforced, you have to speak it. Unspoken rules seldom get heard. The rank-and file don’t get the6a00e54f0b409b8834015391ddf0bb970b-800wi message. That’s like drawing a line in the sand, without actually drawing one. It’s a theoretical line in the sand that only you as the elite hierarchy know about.

Randy Bott was the most popular professor of LDS theology at Brigham Young University. Brigham Young founded both the university and was the primary visionary and hereditary formative leader of the Utah-based “Mormon” church. Yet, Randy Bott didn’t get the message that it was all “folklore.” Randy Bott was not as many church press releases and popular media articles imply, a doddering old fart without a clue. He was right there at the heart of it all.

You can’t shoot the messenger for screwing up the message if you give him the wrong one. And Randy Bott quite accurately preserved and delivered the message you gave him. And “you” know who I’m talking about. I know I didn’t get the “right” or “new” or “corrected” message directly and authoritatively from the Brethren, until 10 December 2013. I’m a pretty smart guy. I actually wanted to keep up with the subject. Randy
Bott had a Doctorate in the subject. What does that say for the average Latter-day Saint puttering along with no specific contact with Mormonism’s “Negro” issue out there in sheltered, white bread pockets of Mormondom?

Do we all really have the message yet? Do you? I’m currently trying to get a word in edgwise on a Facebook page dedicated to Latter-day Saints for Racial Equality. The ignorance on both sides of the equation astounds me, and the testimonies coming from black, African LDS members, particularly African-Americans, leaves no doubt that they are still regularly contending with Wasatch Front product entirely immersed in age-old LDS Curse of Caine/Ham theology directly attributed to Brigham Young, Bruce R McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, prophets, apostles et al. To this day vast bodies of the Saints remain entirely unaware that Jeffry Holland declared it all a load of old wive’s tales in 2006, or that the current statement from the First Presidency of December 2013 even exists. And when quoted, it is common for many white Saints to claim the person referencing the quote essentially a liar, or a misinformed, ignorant idiot.

Jeffrey R Holland has no problem referring to the whole history of LDS Curse of Cain theology as an abandoned folklore as early as March of 2006. That’s 7-8 years ago as of this writing—before Randy Bott, before 10 December 2013’s Race and the Priesthood statement. He clearly concedes that these “folklore” based anti-Negro concepts were taught in the church and that he grew up being taught them. But Jeffrey R Holland is the first person I ever heard apart from myself, (and then only quietly around my wife and kids,) to clearly call any of it52a66b54e212b.preview-620 “folklore” in any “official” capacity even after Declaration 2. And I only heard it because of some very thorough searching for authoritative LDS quotes on that very topic–and it only came up after weeks of Googling almost by chance. There was a deafening, often stubborn silence on the matter from the First Presidency right up through president Gordon B Hinckley parting the veil and years beyond. Jeffery R Holland may have personally pronounced it all to be speculative, “folklore” on PBS in 2006. But, I didn’t see that casual interview. I had to look it up based on links connected with Randy Bott’s outing of these racist LDS dogmas in the Washington Post eight years later.

Whatever president Holland said in 2006, president Gordon B Hinckley, his superior, went to his grave in 2008 refusing to repudiate LDS Curse of Cain mythology, claiming that the 1978 Declaration 2 “said it all.” I followed it closely. That’s the last word I had heard publicly on it from a prophet of God.

The basis of Declaration 2, and numerous commentaries surrounding it from Bruce R McConkie, LeGrand Richards and others is that a revelation from God can only be repealed by a more current revelation from God. It was a big deal. A lot of Saints were worried a lot of other Saints wouldn’t accept the “new revelation.” So if a”revelation” was considered by the Brethren to be such a fundamental requirement in the opening of priesthood ordination to worthy black LDS males, it stands to reason there would be no need for a “revelation” to rescind “folklore.” None of the Brethen therefore, could have honestly maintained that in 1978 the ban on Negro priesthood ordinations was “folklore.”

Quite unlike Declaration 2, now in the LDS canon and widely distributed, Jeffrey R Holland’s 2006 speculation that the Mormon position on the “Negro Question” has always been mostly10-173-2 (1) folklore was only seen by a handful of Saints on Public Television. Holland’s PBS ramblings were, are, and like the singular works or statements of any one LDS general authority, remain essentially unauthoritative in terms of advancing LDS “doctrine.” In actual church govenment, not even the word of the church president alone is canonical without the sustaining vote of the Council of Twelve–otherwise president David O McKay would have rescinded the ban on Negro priesthood ordinations some twenty years ahead of Declaration 2 all on his own say-so. (But that’s another chapter in the mystery.)

Assuming professor Randy Bott even caught the 2006 PBS interview with president Holland, as a D.Ed. in Mormon theology, why would he or anyone else weigh one casual answer by one apostle on PBS, against McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine, or Fielding Smith’s Answers to Gospel Questions, or a whole Journal of Discourses full of apostles and prophets? There is little doubt that Holland’s musings on the “Big Bird” channel would have made no authoritative impression on Randy Bott whatsoever. And rightly so. If the #1 Mormon theology instructor at the #1 LDS institution of higher education was unaware of the radical reversal of LDS Curse of Cain/Ham theory, what are the odds that anyone else got the message from the Brethren on 10 December, 2013?

It’s easy to criticize Randy Bott for a less-than-optimal performance representing Mormon doctrine in the popular media, but you also have to look at how LDS authorities in general have not done as good a job on their homework as they might have either. More often than not even the most “chosen” LDS officials, presumed to be “prepared” for major media interviews, have in reality only allowed themselves to be “set up,” and then eaten up.

The documentary, released in March but yet to be broadcast Stateside, is called The Mormon Candidate and featured a sit-down interview in the LDS Church Headquarters in downtown Salt Lake City between British reporter John Sweeney and Holland.

Among Sweeney’s questions were several relating to whether U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney would have pledged to cut his own throat or disembowel himself before revealing the secrets of the LDS temple ceremonies. In edited footage, Holland said, “That’s not true.” He later says that vows would have been made “regarding the ordinances of the temple.” Such penalty oaths were taken out of the temple ceremony some time ago, one Sweeney interview subject said, albeit after Romney would have taken his temple oaths.

Sweeney asked Holland about church members shunning those who leave their faith. Holland notedsasdafsdfa that he would choose not to cut out of family life one of his children if they decided to leave Mormonism.

Other highlights of the interview include questions relating to the baptizing of dead Holocaust victims, similarities between the LDS Church and Masonic organizations and whether the LDS Church is a cult. By this point in the interview, Holland’s distinct unease had unraveled to almost cavalier frustration. “I’m not an idiot,” he told Sweeney—nor, he implied, are the 14 million members-plus members of his growing church.

Sweeney also brought up the “Strengthening the Members” committee, a group within the LDS Church that polices polygamists and other vocal apostates or breakaways from the church. Holland acknowledged their continued existence as a group dedicated to protecting the church’s membership from dangerous critics.

Perhaps the most interesting question is why the interview took place at all. The LDS Church is not known for allowing media to interview its hierarchy.

Defending the history and historical “doctrine” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints before a modern, shark-like, anti-Mormon, internationally linked media is a rough job even for an apostle of the Lord. JosephSmithBut on the other hand, pretending it all went away in 1978 and trying to forget it even happened is not “preparation.” (And that seems to have been the “plan” if there ever was one–the Brethren thought X-number of generations would come and go and it would all pass away behind us.)  But not even an apostle of the Lord is going to get away with pretending it didn’t happen. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has faithfully recorded doctrinal ramblings from nearly 200 years of Latter-day lay-clergy, often spouting things off the tops of their heads. Because we are Mormons, and a “record keeping people,” it’s all constantly being written down somewhere. Because this is the 21st Century, it’s all “written down” on the internet, and retrievable in a few seconds on any search engine. Not even an apostle of the Lord has the luxury of enjoying his quiet circle of provincial LDS peace, sheltered and surrounded by the faithful. Not if he’s going to testify of Christ to the world.

Accounting for the history of the church and its past leadership is an unavoidable pre-requisite to accomplishing the Great Commission. Warts and all, brothers and sisters. Warts and all.

For the moment, put aside the welling panic that seems to warn you that too many brain cells are being engaged to be truly “spiritual.” What is the current dogma that theadfasdf current Brethren at the current moment, relative to the issue of Race and the Priesthood? It’s not a rhetorical question. Any one of us at any moment could have that local cable-access reporter in our faces with a microphone shoved at us and have to answer the question. So there you are, camera in face, microphone staring at you, what’s your answer to the “Negro Question?”

I’m more than happy to dismiss 161 years of stern sermonizing about the “Negro Question” from prophets and presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I’m happy to call it all “folklore.” What I have trouble with is pretending it was “unauthorized” folklore. That’s just an euphemism for “false doctrine.”

Randy L. Bott has taught mission preparation at BYU for 18 years and focuses on teaching his heavily-attended classes eight key principles of the gospel: The Atonement, resurrection, judgment, faith, repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, and to endure to the end.

He focuses on these principles to teach them correct doctrine; he wants them to never be standing in an airport and not be able to answer the question, “What is the gospel?

“I concentrate on teaching them what they need to know to be ambassadors of the Lord,” Brother Bott said. “I want to teach them and help their testimony grow to be centered on Christ. Once they have that principle burning in their soul, they can go forth and preach.”–students-take-missionary-class-at-BYU.html

What is the gospel? As it turns out, Randy Bott couldn’t answer that question himself. download (2)With an open canon and ongoing revelation, you have to be prepared to embrace change. Randy L Bott wasn’t embracing change. He may have been the most popular BYU, LDS theologian of the current era, but he wasn’t looking forward. He was looking backwards. For 18 years he loaded up Mormon missionaries LDS Curse of Cain “mythology” and sent them out to convert the world to it. And he didn’t know any better. Didn’t think anything of it at all.

Randy Bott ran a blog called, “Know Your Religion” for years. Turns out he didn’t know his religion. One moment, we find the church promoting Randy Bott’s gospel competency as a main selling point for its missionary training program, and a year later we find him in full retirement only three months after his interview with the Washington Post. Problem solved. Randy Bott finally got the message. One down, 15 million to go.

Randy Bott is not an aberration. He is not one of a small cadre of fringe Mormon racists hiding in plain sight amongst the Mormon zealots at BYU. Certainly he was caught by the Washington Post with his inspirational pants down—but he was clearly teaching what has been mainstream LDS “doctrine” since the days of Brigham Young. You can call it “opinion” or “folklore,” or “speculation,” to further obfuscate its status, but in Mormon culture, a prophet’s or apostle’s “opinion” is generally called “doctrine,” and when they are spinning “folklore,” it’s regarded as “scripture” by the faithful. The Mormon church’s press reaction to Bott’s Washington Post article is enigmatic. Appreciated, yes, from my personal LDS perspective, but enigmatic. It is an almost ludicrous string of counter-intuitive assertions that are perplexing on many levels.

The church press office contends that a senior, tenured, professor of the Mormon religion, who’d acquired his D.Ed. at BYU, the church’s premier university, is not qualified, competent, or familiar enough with LDS “doctrine,” to offer to the public a simple synopsis of one of its most well-known, and most-researched tenets. Furthermore, the church’s response claims that Bott’s ruminations on the subject4810772_thumb1 are entirely out of harmony with the teachings of the church, and it protests the lack of a chance for rebuttal, as if the Post were interviewing some foe who’d just done a hatchet job and was demanding an equal time response. The press office then proceeds with a blanket dismissal of everything Bott said in the interview, as if his comments were entirely foreign to LDS theological and historical roots.

The church itself, however, had barely stopped its publication of McConkie’s distinctly supportive Mormon Doctrine. That work was retired in October of 2011, only four months before Bott’s meet-and-greet with the Washington Post. Deseret Book had barely dried the binding glue as it finished off Bruce R McConkie’s run as the primary “authoritative” source of Mormon “doctrine,” which had started in a self-publishing effort in Tom Monson’s printing shop in 1958, and culminated some 53 years later, with Thomas S Monson in the LDS president’s office, and McConkie’s legacy volume terminating in a small edition of custom, Italian leather bound hard copies for presentation, library and archival purposes, after years of being published officially through Deseret Book, the authorized church press.

In his lifetime, Bruce R McConkie formally retracted only the timetable portion of his “eternal Negro curse” formula explained in Mormon Doctrine. He left essentially unchallenged the greater thesis of LDS anti-Negro, fringe “folklore.” In 1978 however, he did make a few changes in his prize work that should be noted:

In the providences of the Lord, the gospel and all its attendant blessings are offered to one nation and people after another. During Jesus’ mortal ministry he and his disciples took the gospel to the house of Israel only; after his resurrection the word went forth to the Gentiles also. Those who live when the gospel is not on earth may receive its blessings in the spiritdownload (3) world after death.

In all past ages and until recent times in this dispensation, the Lord did not offer the priesthood to the Negroes. However, on June 1, 1978, in the Salt Lake Temple, in the presence of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation from the Lord directing that the gospel and the priesthood should now go to all men without reference to race or color.

This means that worthy males of all races can now receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, perform ordinances, and hold positions of presidency and responsibility. It means that members of all races may now be married in the temple, although interracial marriages are discouraged by the Brethren…

This new revelation is one of the signs of the times. It opens the door to the spread of the gospel among all people before the Second Coming in fulfilment of many scriptural promises…

The official document announcing the new revelation, signed by the First Presidency (Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney) and dated June 8, 1978, is as follows:

“He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood…We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known His will for the blessing of all His children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of His authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.”
–McConkie Mormon Doctrine 1978 Version

By the time McConkie’s 1978 edition was out I certainly had gone off using his book for a reference source anyway. I was never keen on it—read a first edition to begin with and it was downright bitter. This is the first time I’ve read his highly modified entry on the “Negro Question.” Two notes: McConkie continues an allusion that the ban was a Godly thing that dates back through all ages to pre-mortal times, and the “revelation” of Declaration 2 means the Negro was simply getting his “turn” as the church allowed his “black” nations to have the gospel at last. This neither explains why the Negro had always been banned from the priesthood, nor why he had to wait till what McConkie suggests is theMormon-Doctrine-Spanish “End Times” to receive this blessing, nor denies any of the conventional reasons already postulated for 161 years for this “curse.” McConkie doesn’t specifically claim there was a “curse” either, but in describing the consequences of having one, clearly suggests there was, and that it went back to pre-mortal life. And secondly, McConkie can’t resist making allusions to “race-mixing” or “miscegenation”–a theme that then president Spencer W Kimball was greatly concerned about. He gave a number of talks at BYU before and after Declaration 2, essentially saying this new revelation wasn’t a green light for inter-racial marriage.

But we see, McConkie’s “encyclopedia” is once again obsolete and out of harmony with the Brethren. Inter-racial marriage has now been expressly sanctioned. Also deemed as “folklore,” is not just the Negro-specific “Curse of Cain/Ham,” but so too, any related God-struck curse of black skin. Or darker skin. Keep in mind that above and beyond the “Negro” and any alleged Biblical curse assigned to him, LDS authorities have perpetuated a companion Book of Mormon mythology related toMormon Doctrine Native Americans and others being turned black or white, depending upon righteousness. That too is now obsolete. McConkie’s claim that the “Negro” has been banned from the priesthood from all time till 1978 is likewise apparently false doctrine, because the most current statements by the Brethren imply that there never was any such curse on Cain and his descendants in the first place and that Brigham Young invented the priesthood restriction in 1853. The whole belief in an “eternal” ban of the Negro from the priesthood that was ended by “revelation” in 1978 became doctrinally untenable sometime between Hollands’ 2006 talks at PBS, the church press offices responses to Bott’s Washington Post article 2012, and the latest statement on Race and the Priesthood of 10 December 2013.

Contrary to Holland’s suggestions on PBS, following Declaration 2 in 1978, there was certainly not any obvious, official LDS intimation that the ban had been lifted because it had been based merely on “folklore.” Bruce R McConkie would have labeled that sort of talk, a “Deadly Heresy.” It’s clearly not in Declaration 2 itself. There was no retraction of, either the blatantly racist 1949 or 1969 First Presidency statements on the “Negro Question prior to Randy Bott’s Washington Post interview. At the time Randy Bott was casually shooting the breeze with the Washington Post, both of these documents still stood as the “last official word of the First Presidency” on the matter, and both boldly testify that he faithfully paraphrased them in his comments to the Post. Both of these were officially statements made in the name of the First Presidency, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Council of Twelve, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

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…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…

–1st Presidency, 1949

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

–1st Presidency , 1969

So, frankly, the most “authoritative” statements available to Randy Bott on 29 February 0f 2012 were quite in harmony with his message to the Washington Post. The only other readily available example of an “authoritative” statement Randy Bott might have accidentally run into, the only other evidence suggesting an utter abandonment of historical LDS Curse of Cain mythology, appeared in 2003. This was a reply to inquiries about same issued by Donald Jesse, who at the time was with the PR Department and spoke ostensibly for the church:


Note, the typo, it should read “1978.” Assuming it’s legitimate, well, then we have to admit that a handful of foaming anti-Mormons saw this release, and it didn’t mean anything ecclesiastically because it had no authority behind it. Between two formal statements from two sets of First Presidencies and Councils of Twelve from 1949 and 1969, and a quick note from Donald Jesse, I think I’d be inclined to say that Donald Jesse isn’t qualified or authorized to dismiss two generations of the church’s ruling councils by calling their official proclamations “opinions,” and “not the policy of the church.” But, this said, it’s clear that by 2003 at least, internally, “church” policy had changed, or rather, significant “doctrines” had been abandoned by it’s ruling bodies, regarding LDS Curse of Cain theology.

The first significant statement from any principle LDS authority applying the term “folklore,” to LDS Curse of images-14_thumb11Cain mythology, appears again, to be Elder Jeffrey R Holland’s interview with PBS in 2006. Holland suggests in his estimation that one man’s opinion does not a “doctrine” make—not even if that one man was a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thus, even had Bott heard Holland’s interview, it would remain quite reasonable for Bott to relegate Holland’s doctrinal positions–by Holland’s own criteria–to the category of nothing more than a personal opinion and utter speculation. The bulk of “authoritative” LDS doctrinal thought and evidence around 2006, actually still tended to refute anything Holland was claiming about “folklore,” making Holland the aberration, not Bott. But more to the point: Gordon B Hinckley served as president of the LDS church until he passed away in 2008, when the current First Presidency was formed under Thomas S Monson. (The man who first published McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine—against the pleadings of then church president David O McKay in 1958.) That post-dates Elderhqdefault-1_thumb1 Holland’s repudiation of LDS Curse of Cain “folklore,” as he described it, by two years. President Hinckley thus had two years to adopt Holland’s repudiation of Curse of Cain “folklore” as an official position of the First Presidency, or even codify it and present it for canonization. Instead, he very openly and deliberately denied there was any reason to do so.

After president Hinckley passed away, and without express orders to change longstanding LDS doctrinal precedent, BYU religion professor Randy Bott was quite proper in assuming the answer to the “Negro Question” had remained at status-quo long after Declaration 2.

White church member Eugene England, a professor at Brigham Young University, wrote in 1998:

This is a good time to remind ourselves that most Mormons are still in denial about the ban, unwilling to talk in Church settings about it, and that some Mormons still believe that Blacks weredownload-7_thumb1 cursed by descent from Cain through Ham. Even more believe that Blacks, as well as other non-white people, come color-coded into the world, their lineage and even their class a direct indication of failures in a previous life…. I check occasionally in classes at BYU and find that still, twenty years after the revelation, a majority of bright, well-educated Mormon students say they believe that Blacks are descendants of Cain and Ham and thereby cursed and that skin color is an indication of righteousness in the pre-mortal life. They tell me these ideas came from their parents or Seminary and Sunday School teachers, and they have never questioned them. They seem largely untroubled by the implicit contradiction to basic gospel teachings.[114]

Now, England had been sharply condemned you may recall by Bruce R McConkie in a personal letter, for promoting his own gospel “hobbies” on campus. Some of his ponderings centered around the issue of defining the notion of “Eternal Progression,” relative to Deity. The details of the controversy are found in the above links. Another big theme in Eugene England’s theological explorations was developing apologetics that could help the faithful Latter-day Saint maintain a testimony of the truthfulness of the church and the inspiration of its leaders, in the face of more and more easily seen evidence of a generational trail of racism and bigotry openly and overtly displayed by LDS leadership through the years, relative to the singular issue of Race and the Priesthood.

Today, I can now offer the late professor England this:


The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-dayimages (1) Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world. (See also: Race and the Priesthood)

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of imagesus is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject:

“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.”

[Emphasis mine]

See also: Race and the Priesthood

So, the above official press release of 10 December, 2013,  from the First Presidency arose directly in response to Randy Bott’s international expose of entirely accurate and historical LDS Curse of Caine theology, published in the Washington Post, on 29 February 2012. In it you will note that president Hinckley cautions against casting aspersions on the character of others due to racial makeup. That was in 2006. He does not however, take the opportunity of this quoted talk, to pronounce LDS Curse of Cain dogma a load of mythology and fairy tales.  And he died two years later making no stronger statement repudiating historicalKDS  racism than the brief admonition against name-calling quoted in the above.

Eugene England was a fine graduate of St Olaf’s College in Northfield Minnesota. I could go on for pages about how the Square Heads ran off Jesse James and the Younger Brothers and shot them out of town, but that’sNorthfield-sign another subject entirely. It doesn’t surprise me however, that coming from St Olaf’s, Scandinavian tradition of enjoying a brain cell-sweating, solid polemic debate, Greenland ran into problems with anti-intellectualism and constraining social ideology at BYU. Randy Bott and Eugene Greenland may come from left and right halves of the Mormon religious brain, but condemning either an Eugene England or a Randy Bott for researching Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, John Taylor, the several, “Alphabet” Smiths, Wilford Woodruff, and essentially the whole legacy of prophets that followed, is a far easier thing to do than calling fellow prophets, presidents, and apostles “racist,” or “confused.” Putting a Randy Bott or Eugene England between current and past church leadership, places an expendable red-shirted crewman between captain Kirk and the space monster.

In 1995, black church member A. David Jackson asked church leaders to issue a declaration repudiating past doctrines that denied various privileges to black people. In particular, Jackson asked the church to disavow the 1949 “Negro Question” declaration from the church Presidency which stated “The attitude of the church with reference to negroes … is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord … to the effect that negroes … are not entitled to the priesthood…”.[116]

The church leadership did not issue a repudiation, and so in 1997 Jackson, aided by other churchthe_negro_a_beast_1900_thumb2 members including Armand Mauss, sent a second request to church leaders, which stated that white Mormons felt that the 1978 revelation resolved everything, but that black Mormons react differently when they learn the details. He said that many black Mormons become discouraged and leave the church or become inactive. “When they find out about this, they exit… You end up with the passive African Americans in the church”.[117]

Hinckley, then church president, told the Los Angeles Times “The 1978 declaration speaks for itself … I don’t see anything further that we need to do”. Church leadership did not issue a repudiation.[116]

Jackson’s basic argument was this:

Although the church’s leaders now proclaim racial equality as a “fundamental teaching,” the process of repudiating old doctrines remains difficult. “They feel like a lot of people may not believe the church is true because a lot of these things were said by previous prophets, and a true prophet of God shouldn’t make mistakes,” said David Jackson, a black Mormon who is among those calling for change.

The call for change comes at a time when the 10 million-member church is enjoying unprecedented growth in Africa and other developing countries. Several months ago the church’s president and prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, wrapped up a five-nation tour of Africa, where the church reports an estimated 110,000 converts as of the end of 1997. But black members of the church in the United img_thumb1States as well as some Mormon scholars warn that the “racist legacy” contained in various Mormon documents and authoritative statements risks undermining its mission unless they are disavowed. “In the absence of any official corrections, these speculative and pejorative ideas will continue to be perpetuated in the church indefinitely,” Armand Mauss, president of the Mormon History Association, wrote recently.

“What [the 1978 revelation on blacks and the priesthood] doesn’t say is we’re no longer of the lineage of Cain, that we no longer did these things in pre-existence. It does not say we are not cursed with black skin,” Jackson said.

David Jackson was something of a pioneer in the black Mormon community–a Mormon internal Civil Rights activist who did his best to use historical records to evoke some sort of official correction or at least and open address of previously “authoritative” Mormon leadership statements like this:

“Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not A REFLECTION OF OUR WORTHINESS or LACK OF IT IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE?

…[C]an we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in DARKEST AFRICA, or in FLOOD-RIDDEN CHINA, or among the STARVING HORDES OF INDIA, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that BECAUSE OF PERFORMANCE IN OUR PRE-EXISTENCE some of us are born as CHINESE, some as JAPANESE, some as Latter-day Saints. …A CHINESE, BORN IN CHINA WITH A DARK SKIN, and with all the HANDICAPS OF THAT RACE seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people whoimages-19_thumb1 are willing to accept the gospel.

IN SPITE OF WHATEVER THEY MIGHT HAVE DONE IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE TO JUSTIFY BEING BORN OVER THERE AS CHINAMEN, if they now, in this life accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn’t the mercy of God marvelous?

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood…. THIS NEGRO, WHO, IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE LIVED THE TYPE OF LIFE WHICH JUSTIFIED THE LORD IN SENDING HIM TO EARTH IN THE LINEAGE OF CAIN WITH A BLACK SKIN, AND POSSIBLY BEING BORN IN DARKEST AFRICA…. IN SPITE OF ALL HE DID IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. IF THAT NEGRO IS FAITHFUL ALL HIS DAYS, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. HE WILL GO THERE AS A SERVANT, but he will get celestial glory.”

LDS “Apostle” Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems – As They Affect the Church,” Address delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s book entitled “The Changing World of Mormonism,” p. 294.

Randy Bott’s problem with Mormon theology is not that he knows too little about it. His problem is he knows too much about it. Come, listen to a prophet’s voice:

The Lamanites [Native Americans], now a down‑trodden people, are a remnant of the house of Israel. The Spjiks_thumb2curse of God has followed them as it has done the Jews, though the Jews have not been darkened in their skin as have the Lamanites.

Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 22:173 (

What was that mark? It was a mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain, and descended upon his posterity from that time until the present. Today there are millions of descendants of Cain, through the lineage of Ham, in the world, and that mark of darkness still rests upon them.

Wilford Woodruff, General Conference, April 7, 1889; Millennial Star 51:339

And if any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cain the only way he could get rid of it or have Salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off and spill his blood upon the ground ‑‑ it would also take the life of his children.

Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s personal diary, 4:97

OK. So much for the rugged, fiery prophets of 19th century Mormonism. What did the enlightened prophets of the new, progressive 20th Century Mormonism have to say about it?

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin….But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, Pvkvxs3necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom….What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight.

George Albert Smith, Conference Reports, CR April 1939, Second Day‑Morning Meeting

Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain’s transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world.

George Albert Smith, Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46‑7

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

George Albert Smith, Official Statement of First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951

The First Presidency under George Albert Smith doubled down on these sentiments in the first comprehensive, “official” LDS statement on the “Negro Question,” in 1949, a manifesto fully sustained by the Council of Twelve and distributed church-wide expressly to clear the matter up once and for all. And as we see above, the issue found its way into another minor statement in 1951. And again at the peak of the Civil Rights Era, the First Presidency reiterated yet another comprehensive statement on the Negro and Civil Rights, echoing all the above sentiments, in 1969.

But let’s study onward. How did the free-thinking LDS leadership grow in their understanding of the issue of Race and the Priesthood as America’s Civil Rights Movement swept through the nation, peaked with federal Civil Rights legislation, where the south was forcefully de-segregated, the schools were de-segregated, and hippies were singing about love, peace, and the universal brotherhood of man?

Joseph Fielding SmithThere is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. 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.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, p. 61

Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning…. we will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our negro brethren, for they are our brethren‑children of God‑not withstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness.

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pages 101‑102

After the people again forgot the Lord and dissensions arose, some of them took upon themselves the name Lamanites and the dark skin returned. When the Lamanites fully repent and sincerely receive the gospel, the Lord has promised to remove the dark skin. The Lord declared by revelation91wikI7harL that, ‘before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as a rose.’ The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts and delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord. Perhaps there are some Lamanites today who are losing the dark pigment. Many of the members of the Church among the Catawba Indians of the South could readily pass as of the white race; also in other parts of the South.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, v. 3, p. 123, 1953

It is not the authorities of the Church who have placed a restriction on him [the black man] regarding the holding of the Priesthood. It was not the Prophet Joseph Smith…. It was the Lord!

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Glory of Mormonism, 1963, p. 154

(I might remind you that Joseph Fielding Smith was Bruce R McConkie’s father-in-law and McConkie’s theology closely followed Smith’s, carrying these exact anti-Negro, anti-black skin sentiments in print via Mormon Doctrine, right up to 1978 and beyond. Answers to Gospel Questions is still in print and commonly available, Doctrines of Salvation is still considered a principle LDS resource as is The Way to Perfection)

I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest that the real reason datesdownload-9_thumb back to our pre‑existent life.

David O. McKay, Mormonism and the Negro, Part 2, p. 19

McKay was a bit ambivalent about the issue and getting feeble. He didn’t like upsetting the Brethren around him. He had Hugh B Brown urging him on, arguing that it was only a policy, not a revealed truth, and claiming that it wasn’t supported by canon and had a dubious history of prophetic authorization. Unfortunately, by the time came for a push on the issue, president McKay was physically and probably spiritually spent arguing with the Brethren over the years. And though he would never be sustained in his lifelong attempt to rescind LDS Curse of Cain theology, he did produce the most cogent and apparently still the most “correct” answer to the church’s “Negro Question.”

In 1954, Church President David O. McKay taught: “There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a34190_all_WWC_04-dMcKayWife divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.’[58]

Unfortunately, McKay’s ultimate assessment of the policy and “folklore” surrounding LDS Curse of Cain theology, remained a very singular minority report for a couple of generations. It would take another 24 years before the Brethren would come around to McKay’s way of thinking.

Posted in Mormonism and the Mythical Curse of Cain Part 3: The Ballad of Randy Bott | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments