-

[_MsJack]

I do think it is going to far. Mormonism has racist teachings, that's clear. However, that does not mean every 'devout' Mormon ascribes to those racist views.

Romney, and his parents, have a long history of having taken rather liberal views vis-à-vis Mormonism's teachings. So I think that it is a non sequitur to say that because Romney is a Mormon he is therefore a racist.

Whether Romney is or is not a racist is a question that does not follow necessarily from his religious affiliation, even if he is affiliated with COJCOLDS and its has racists teachings, not only in its past but in its current, correlated materials now available on the LDS.org website.

I agree. I don't think it's fair to call someone a "racist" because they belong to an organization that maintains or used to maintain racist policies. Even if they enforce those policies as part of a leadership position within the church and don't verbally denounce them.

I think that the Romneys did exactly what they needed to do to bring about change in the LDS church. Over at LDS & Evangelical Conversations, my friend Eric (who is LDS) explained it better than I could:

My reaction: Romney has nothing to apologize for, or to be more precise, I’m not aware of anything in the public record that suggests he has anything to apologize for in this area. (For what it’s worth, I say this as someone who has no intent of supporting Romney for president, and also as someone who believes that the policy developed as a result of the racist culture at the time.)

It’s easy with 20/20 hindsight to say that Romney should have done this before 1978, or he should have done that, that it’s not enough that before 1978 he hoped for a change in church policy and rejoiced when it happens. But I see nothing in the record to suggest he was in a position to bring change in the church policy, nor that he didn’t act in accordance with his stated beliefs that blacks are God’s children as much as white persons are. We all have to choose our battles, and I see no need to fault Romney for living out his faith as he did and not choose institutional racism as his battle.

It makes sense to assume that Mitt’s views on race were shaped by his father, George, who, we’ve been told, openly welcomed the 1978 revelation. If I had been in a position in the 1960s and ’70s to advise George Romney on how he could change the church’s policy, I would have advised him do to exactly what he did: He was an outspoken supporter of civil rights at a time where being so wasn’t universally accepted in the Republican Party, and he was criticized for his role by politicians in his own party as well as by some in the LDS church hierarchy. Any objective observer would say that changing public perspectives on race are ultimately what led to the 1978 revision/revelation, and George Romney played a small part in that. I know of nothing that indicates Mitt Romney didn’t share his father’s values against racial prejudice.

I think it would be wise for Romney to put some distance between himself and his religion's racial history by stating unambiguously that he thinks the policy/doctrine on blacks was wrong (as Huntsman did). But I don't think it's fair to call him a racist. That he was a 30 year-old in the LDS church at the time is hardly evidence enough of that.

[_Drifting]

Time for some hypothetical perspective methinks.

If Romney had been or still was a member of the KKK would it be going too far to call him a racist?

(I am not equating the Church with the KKK)

I am just making the point that perhaps it's the subtlety of the racism that prevents the label being legitimately used.

[_MsJack]

If Romney had been or still was a member of the KKK would it be going too far to call him a racist?

So, in other words . . .

. . . was Robert Byrd racist?

[_Drifting]

If Romney had been or still was a member of the KKK would it be going too far to call him a racist?

So, in other words . . .

. . . was Robert Byrd racist?

I think I'm going with yes on that one!

[_Quasimodo]

Many are just as black as African blacks...... So yes, they are black.

Does this guy count?



Do too many hours in a tanning booth make one "less than valiant"?

[_Darth J]

Does anyone think ldsfaqs understands that skin color and "race" are not the same thing?

Kind of like how the Nazis were killing off Jews who were the same skin tone?

Then you've got Croatians ethnically cleansing Serbians, and I bet less than three people on this board could tell a Croatian from a Serbian based on skin color. And of course you have black people of varying ethnicities in Africa ethnically cleansing one another.

Since ldsfaqs likes Wikipedia, except when it does not support his assertions (i.e., frequently): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

And despite the pre-1978 teachings of The One True Church, "black African" is not a single ethnic group. Talking about "black Africans" in the context of the LDS priesthood ban is just perpetuating the lineage of Ham myth, and therefore the global flood/Noah's ark myth.

I'm going to go with no. Ldsfaqs does not understand that "race" and skin color are not the same thing. Nor does he understand that denying the priesthood to men based on nothing other than their perceived ethnic heritage is, by definition, racism.

And yes, the Church did segregate blacks. A black man trying to get a temple recommend so he could get his endowment in, say, 1976, would not have been especially successful, even if he was determined to be worthy on the basis of his conduct and professed beliefs.

[_Blixa]

Does anyone think ldsfaqs understands that skin color and "race" are not the same thing?

It's only one of many things he's incapable of understanding including that "q" and "g" are nearly indistinguishable on many computer screens.

[_Quasimodo]

Does anyone think ldsfaqs understands that skin color and "race" are not the same thing?

It's only one of many things he's incapable of understanding including that "q" and "g" are nearly indistinguishable on many computer screens.

Derail alert!!!!!!!

Is that the real Blixa? What camera is that that she is holding? Something vintage, I would guess.

[_Blixa]

Derail alert!!!!!!!

Is that the real Blixa? What camera is that that she is holding? Something vintage, I would guess.

Nope sorry, just a lovely found photo I found in a friend's collection.

[Guest]

Many are just as black as African blacks...... So yes, they are black.

ldsfaqs,

After acknowledging that your statement above is one of the most misinformed and ignorant I have seen on this board, I have to ask if you have ever been to Central and South America, the Pacific Islands or India. I would assume not or you would know better than to say something like this.

I have, many times, and you will just have to believe me that there is a very wide range of skin melanin content and dispersion in the populations that live in these countries. Many of these countries are ethnically and racially diverse. Most of the nationals in these countries are not considered "black" by others, and more importantly, do not consider or refer to themselves as "black".

Your statement that the Mormons in these areas are "black Mormons", regardless of whether or not they are of African descent, (which the overwhelming majority are not) is ignorant, ill-informed, and wholly inappropriate.