Mitt's Mormon Problem Explained

[_Melchett]

Well.... Unlike others here, I was actually in the Church prior to the ban being lifted and remember the actual facts.
It ALWAYS taught against racism, bigotry and intolerance.
If we were really bigots, we would have had ministry's against other religions or groups.

Despite the ban, Mormons were always highly tolerant of others.

The ban existed because of the racism in the world, not the Church.
While some in the Church weren't perfect, some made mistakes, and some were likely racist or at minimum ethno-centrist, Mormonism itself and the vast majority of it's people were ALWAYS strongly against racism.

That is the actual truth of history, contrary to anti-mormon cherry-picking of history.

The author and creator of the book and movie ROOTS wouldn't have went to the Church pre-lifting of the ban, and received an award from the Church, if the Church and it's people were actually racist.
JFK wouldn't have highly respected the Church pre-ban, if the Church was actually racist. On and on.... ACTUAL HISTORY tells a different story about the Church you idiots!

Referring to those of African ancestry as cursed smacks a little of racism, don't you think?

[_ldsfaqs]

Referring to those of African ancestry as cursed smacks a little of racism, don't you think?

You're talking to someone who left the Church once primarily because of the Priesthood ban and Polygamy.

I'm well aware what things "seem" like. But, that's far different than the actual truth.
Those with responsible intellects and historical analysis don't place their modern social conventions onto history. Otherwise, you miss things.

[_Darth J]

The extermination order in Missouri had nothing to do with Mormons.

[_moksha]

... Mormonism itself and the vast majority of it's people were ALWAYS strongly against racism.

What about that reassuring announcement back in 1953 that the LDS Hospital Blood Bank did not use negro blood?

[_Tim]

saying the church was against racism despite the ban is like the Confederacy saying they were against racism despite slavery.

The ban was by definition institutional racism. All things being equal the only thing that kept a black man from getting married in the temple was the color of his skin. That is a judgement based solely on his race, ergo racism.

[_subgenius]

saying the church was against racism despite the ban is like the Confederacy saying they were against racism despite slavery...

and yet, ironically though the Union was against slavery they, with the confederacy, still held fast to racism for so many years to follow.....hmmm....until about 1964

[_Buffalo]

saying the church was against racism despite the ban is like the Confederacy saying they were against racism despite slavery...

and yet, ironically though the Union was against slavery they, with the confederacy, still held fast to racism for so many years to follow.....hmmm....until about 1964

Yes, and...?

[_subgenius]

The extermination order in Missouri had nothing to do with Mormons.

I know, right? I mean how could anyone think that after reading it? (emphasis below is mine)

Headquarters of the Militia, City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838.
Gen. John B. Clark:
Sir: Since the order of this morning to you, directing you to cause four hundred mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Reese, Esq., of Ray county, and Wiley C. Williams, Esq., one of my aids [sic], information of the most appalling character, which entirely changes the face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operation with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace--their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may consider necessary. I have just issued orders to Maj. Gen. Willock, of Marion county, to raise five hundred men, and to march them to the northern part of Daviess, and there unite with Gen. Doniphan, of Clay, who has been ordered with five hundred men to proceed to the same point for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the north. They have been directed to communicate with you by express, you can also communicate with them if you find it necessary. Instead therefore of proceeding as at first directed to reinstate the citizens of Daviess in their homes, you will proceed immediately to Richmond and then operate against the Mormons. Brig. Gen. Parks of Ray, has been ordered to have four hundred of his brigade in readiness to join you at Richmond. The whole force will be placed under your command.
I am very respectfully, year obt st
L. W. Boggs, Commander-in-Chief

And then when Governor Bond rescinded the order.....

"WHEREAS, on October 27, 1838, the Governor of the State of Missouri, Lilburn W. Boggs, signed an order calling for the extermination or expulsion of Mormons from the State of Missouri; and
WHEREAS, Governor Boggs' order clearly contravened the rights to life, liberty, property and religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of the State of Missouri...."

??...wait a second...did you mean to post your comment in this thread??? or is it some deeper non-sequitur that escapes me?

[_subgenius]

Yes, and...?

the poster seemingly negates the hypocrisy of the confederacy saying they are against racism despite slavery when posed next to the union saying they are against slavery despite racism....a rather nonsensical simile is all that i was noticing

[_Buffalo]

Yes, and...?

the poster seemingly negates the hypocrisy of the confederacy saying they are against racism despite slavery when posed next to the union saying they are against slavery despite racism....a rather nonsensical simile is all that i was noticing

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point he was making.