Question for Mormons about Cain

[C2M2C]

For those of you who are not familiar with me, I’m an ex-Catholic, ex-Mormon, Catholic to put it simply. I spent the first 18 years as a Catholic, the second 18 as a Mormon, and the last 6-8 months as a Catholic after learning way too much non-faith promoting LDS history (from LDS sources of course). In the last few months I’ve been constantly amazed at the inconsistencies (to be nice about it) in Mormonism. I am then often even more amazed at the LDS apologist response. Those responses are part of what re-assures me that leaving the LDS church was the right thing to do (in conjunction with learning more about Catholicism). Now I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not that smart of a guy…just some guy that that builds houses and lives in Sandy, Utah; dead center in the heart of Mormondom.

So having said that, my question may be a dumb one, and it may be old hat with regards to something that has already been hashed out a million times. So forgive me if I missed the boat on something that has already been answered. But during my daily scripture study this morning, it dawned on me that Noah is not a descendant of Cain. So, if Mormon’s claim that Cain and his descendants have been cursed with black skin (the explanation as to why black men could not hold the priesthood until 1978), and Noah is not a descendant of Cain (meaning that his skin is a color other than black), how is it that there were any black people after the flood? Now I understand the biological explanation, but how about the theological explanation?

If Noah was something other than black (the reasonable conclusion I assume based on the Mormon claim), and all others on the earth at the time of the flood were destroyed, leaving only Noah and his descendants (who are something other than black), why is it that the black people before 1978 still carried the curse/mark of Cain if all of Cain’s descendants were destroyed in the flood?

 

[tundramom]

I’m sure that you will get all sorts of spin on this from any mopologists who reply.

Simply put? There are a lot of “seed of Cain” type of explanations from a lot of people. It’s not just the Mormons, but many Protestants as well. I think a lot of it stems from the slavery debate here in the US, but I could be wrong.

I think that it was just an easy way for people to explain why they thought the black man was inferior to the white man.

There is no theological way to explain it and I doubt highly that any mopologist will even try to tackle the subject. They will simply say that it was a command from their god and then it wasn’t.

in Christ
Steph

If I haven’t said it before, Welcome Home!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

They believe Ham’s wife was black.

 

[C2M2C]

They believe Ham’s wife was black.

Any genealogical evidence of that? What is the basis for that belief?

 

[PaulDupre]

Any genealogical evidence of that? What is the basis for that belief?

The same basis as all their beliefs - Joseph Smith. The basis is laid out in Smith’s ‘Book of Moses’ and ‘Book of Abraham’. The rest is taught by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, John Taylor and others. Search these threads for ‘seed of Cain’ and ‘mark of Cain’ and you’ll see where we have posted all this stuff before. Be prepared to be horrified.

Paul (also a C2M2C)

 

[C2M2C]

The same basis as all their beliefs - Joseph Smith. The basis is laid out in Smith’s ‘Book of Moses’ and ‘Book of Abraham’. The rest is taught by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, John Taylor and others. Search these threads for ‘seed of Cain’ and ‘mark of Cain’ and you’ll see where we have posted all this stuff before. Be prepared to be horrified.

Paul (also a C2M2C)

Interesting…knew you were M2C but didn’t know you were C first. I’ll look at this stuff right now.

 

[RebeccaJ]

All part of the divine order of humans based on race.

 

[tundramom]

I didn’t know the connection with Ham’s wife… Must have been sleeping in early morning seminary when that was taught.

Thanks for giving the correct (!!??) answer guys.

in Christ
Steph

 

[madabkr4tx]

I’m sure that you will get all sorts of spin on this from any mopologists who reply.

Simply put? There are a lot of “seed of Cain” type of explanations from a lot of people. It’s not just the Mormons, but many Protestants as well. I think a lot of it stems from the slavery debate here in the US, but I could be wrong.

Many many protestants opposed slavery, some even the south. All southern states with the exception of one, South Carolina, if I recall correctly, provided troops to the Union.

One lively protestant, by the name of Cassius Macellus Clay, from Kentucky, was fond of challenging proponents of slavery to duels. He was quite the accomplished knife fighter.

Sorry if this is off topic, but I’m tired of hearing this.

 

[RebeccaJ]

“The Way To Perfection” , Joseph Fielding Smith, 1949 Deseret Book co.

Chapter 16
THE SEED OF CAIN AFTER THE FLOOD

The question has been asked, “What evidence do we have that the negro of the present day is the descendant of Cain, and why is it he cannot have the Priesthood?” There is no definite information on this question in the Bible, and profane history is not able to solve it. From the Pearl of Great Price and the teachings of Joseph Smith and the early elders of the Church who were associated with him, we do obtain some definite instruction in regard to this matter.

THE CURSE CONTINUED THROUGH HAM’S POSTERITY

It is generally believed that the curse placed on Cain was continued in his posterity and that through the seed of Ham this curse was brought through the flood. Since Ham was the son of Noah, we must conclude that it was not Ham who had the black skin and was a descendant of Cain. However, there is in the Church the general belief that Ham married a woman who was a descendant of Cain, and in this way the curse of Cain was continued after the flood in Ham’s posterity. Some of the brethren who were associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith have declared that he taught this doctrine. That the wife of Ham was a descendant of Cain seems to be embodied in the following passages in the Book of Abraham:

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.

From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

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.

When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterwards settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang the race which preserved the curse in the land.-Abraham 1:21-24.

EGYPTUS

We see that the wife of Ham was named Egyptus, which name signifies “that which is forbidden.” We know it was the custom in those early times to give to children names conveying a definite meaning based upon some striking event connected with birth or early life, or to point out and fix attention on some peculiarity of character or habit which they may have formed. Frequently, in later life, names were changed because some outstanding event in or characteristic of the life of the individual was discovered. In this manner the name of Esau was changed. At his birth he was called Esau because he was covered with “an hairy garment,” but later in life when he sold his birthright his name was changed to Edom because of that event, and his descendants were known as Edomites. So it appears very probable that Egyptus was so named because she partook of the curse of her fathers. Moreover, this thought is strengthened in the statement that from Ham sprang the race which preserved the curse in the land. The implication seems to be very strong that this curse preserved through the seed of Ham was a curse which came from the other side of the flood. Elder B. H. Roberts several years ago discussed this question as follows:

Now, why is it that the seed of Ham was cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood? Why is it that his seed “could not have right to the Priesthood?” Ham’s wife was named “Egyptus,” which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden; * * * and thus from Ham sprang the race which preserved the curse in the land." Was the wife of Ham, as her name signifies, of a race with which those who held the Priesthood were forbidden to intermarry? Was she a descendant of Cain, who was cursed for murdering his brother? And was it by Ham marrying her, and she being saved from the flood in the ark, that “the race which preserved the curse in the land” was perpetuated? If so, then I believe that race is the one through which it is ordained those spirits that were not valiant in the great rebellion in heaven should come; who, through their indifference or lack of integrity to righteousness, rendered themselves unworthy of the Priesthood and its powers, and hence it is withheld from them to this day.-Contributor 6:297.

NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN

President Brigham Young, answering a question put to him by Elder Lorenzo D. Young in a meeting held December 25, 1869, in Salt Lake City, said that Joseph Smith had declared that the negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but “the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure (i. e. innocent. See D. C. 93:38.) that enter their tabernacles and there will be a chance for the redemption of all the children of Adam, except the sons of perdition.”-J. H., Dec. 25, 1869.

WHEN THE CURSE WILL BE REMOVED

On another occasion in a discourse President Brigham Young said:

Cain conversed with his God every day, and knew all about the plan of creating this earth, for his father told him. But, for the want of humility, and through jealousy, and an anxiety to possess the kingdom, and to have the whole of it under his own control, and not allow any body else the right to say one word, what did he do? He killed his brother. The Lord put a mark on him * * * When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity. He deprived his brother of the privilege of pursuing his journey through life, and of extending his kingdom by multiplying upon the earth; and because he did this, he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God.-J. D. 2:142-143.

President Woodruff, in his journal, records the words of President Young as follows:

The Lord said, I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him, and that mark will be seen upon the face of every negro upon the face of the earth; and it is the decree of God that that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood, until the time of that redemption. Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the Priesthood; but the day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.-History of Wilford Woodruff, p. 351.

These remarks indicate the enormity of the offense of Cain. He sinned against the light, having been taught by the Almighty, and knowing perfectly the plan of salvation. Moreover, he was cursed and his posterity after him because he cut off Abel in his youth without posterity.

 

[RebeccaJ]

…continued

A SKIN OF BLACKNESS

President Young also gave this explanation:

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 laws of God. They will go down to their 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, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood.-J. D. 11:272.

It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black. Enoch taught the Gospel among all the people everywhere, except the people of Canaan. The people of Canaan lived before the flood, and were descendants of Cain. Is it not probable that Ham named his son Canaan after Cain or one of the descendants of Cain, who gave his name to the land in which the posterity of Cain lived before the flood?

THE PEOPLES OF CAINAN AND CANAAN

The Cainanites, who lived in the land of Cainan, from whence Enoch came, were a righteous people and evidently were descendants of Seth. Then there must have been another people called Canaanites who were a black race and the descendants of Cain. Speaking of these peoples, Enoch said:

I came out from the land of Cainan, the land of my fathers, a land of righteousness unto this day. And my father taught me in all the ways of God.-Moses 6:41.

And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan;

For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all the people.

---

And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Canaan, to repent.-Moses 7:7-8 and 12.

---

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.

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 were the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.-Moses 7:21-22.

CURSED AS PERTAINING TO THE PRIESTHOOD

From these references we discover that the children of Cain were in all respects very much like the children of Ham. The Canaanites before the flood preserved the curse in the land; the Gospel was not taken to them, and no other people would associate with them. The Canaanites after the flood also preserved the curse in the land and were denied the rights of Priesthood. Abraham informs us that through Egyptus, daughter of Ham-who evidently bore the same name as her mother-Egypt was inhabited and named, and that her sons could not hold the Priesthood. These facts are recorded in the words of Abraham as follows:

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.

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate the 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.

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.-Abraham 1:25-27.

President George A. Smith, speaking of the negro race, in a discourse, September 23, 1855, said: “When Cain brought a curse upon his own head and that of his household, his after generations bear the same curse. The curse that came upon Canaan, the son of Ham, was extended to a great portion of the human race, and has continued to the present day.”-J. H. Sept. 23, 1855.

 

[RebeccaJ]

…continued

A SERVANT OF SERVANTS

President Brigham Young, at another time said: “The seed of Ham, which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a ‘servant of servants’ to his fellow creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it.”-J. D. 2:184.

The name of Ham is also rather significant, for it means “swarthy” or “black.” It is possible that this is an appellation given to the third son of Noah because of the part he played in preserving through his lineage-and that most likely, as we have tried to show, through his wife Egyptus-the race of blacks upon whom the curse was placed. Piecing together the evidence as we discover it in holy writ and in tradition, we are brought to the conclusion that Ham, through Egyptus, continued the curse which was placed upon the seed of Cain. Because of that curse this dark race was separated and isolated from all the rest of Adam’s posterity before the flood, and since that time the same condition has continued, and they have been “despised among all people.”

This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. At a meeting of the general authorities of the Church, held August 22, 1895, the question of the status of the negro in relation to the Priesthood was asked and the minutes of that meeting say:

“President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s offspring.”

Joseph Smith has left very little on record in his own words outside of the Pearl of Great Price. During the course of a discussion in Nauvoo in 1842, on the question as to whether the negroes or the Indians have received the greater ill-treatment from the whites, the Prophet Joseph said: “The Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain.” (D. H. C. 4:501.) But we all know it is due to his teachings that the negro may be baptized and enter the Church; and some of these unfortunate people have been baptized and have proved their faithfulness and worthiness before the Lord, in this their second estate, setting examples in righteousness which many of the sons of Shem and Japheth could emulate with everlasting profit. Surely the Lord will remember their faithfulness and reward them accordingly.

 

[ParkerD]

Rebecca,
I came back on to see what things were being discussed here, and noticed your quite balanced quote about the blacks and the priesthood. It is important for anyone having read the above to understand that LDS church leaders of today have said Joseph Fielding Smith was not teaching doctrine when he speculated about the reason blacks could not hold the priesthood for so long, until 1978 changed that position in the LDS church. (Note that the doctrine was there from Brigham Young, that they would one day receive all the blessings including priesthood, so it was a question of timing.)

So what Joseph Fielding Smith wrote on the matter was just his opinion. He had thought about the subject, but he never said that what he was writing was the revealed truth on the matter.

But if Catholics are going to give LDS a hard time about all that “curse” (which I don’t agree with) happening because of Cain having killed Abel, then why don’t they give themselves a hard time about the doctrine of original sin because of Adam’s choice in the Garden of Eden?

I’ll give a personal opinion about blacks not holding the priesthood until 1978. Among the many blacks I have known during my life (dozens, personally), a striking thing I noticed was how strongly and naturally religious the women are, with great faith yet also a willingness to be somewhat subservient to the men in their life. It seems to me that the culture needed to change so that when the men received the privilege of the priesthood, they would wield that power and authority righteously and not use unrighteous dominion. Any man who holds the priesthood and uses unrighteous dominion in exercising authority is doing a grave sin, and if that kind of habit is perpetuated down through generations, then it would be well-nigh impossible to change the culture.

I am sure it would be a tremendous trial of faith for blacks learning about LDS doctrine to hear about some of the teachings Rebecca quoted from. I am very grateful that a large number have responded to the Spirit and allowed the mistake that Joseph Fielding Smith made to be his own personal mistake. I love that so many blacks have and are joining the LDS church. I think it would be a great help to their culture in general across this country, as it has been in Nigeria and Ghana, where LDS growth has been phenomenal.

 

[C2M2C]

I started this post, so hopefully no one will mind if I change gears. My question now is on temples. I am under the impression that Mormons claim their temple ceremony is what was done in the 1st & 2nd temple and also what the Mayans did in their temple (being Nephites and bringing the temple ceremony with them).

I was married in the SL Temple & attended the Jordan River temple monthly for years, so I don’t need a tutorial on LDS temples. But didn’t the Mayans make human sacrifices in their temple & Jews, animal sacrifices in theirs for repentance; because there wasn’t a whole lot of that happening when I was there.

I am completely ignorant on the subject and have made no attempt the research this, that’s why I’m asking.

Ps- always makes me shake my head when you do a spell check on anything written about Mormonism and how so many of their words are not really words Try it sometime if you haven’t already

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
I came back on to see what things were being discussed here, and noticed your quite balanced quote about the blacks and the priesthood. It is important for anyone having read the above to understand that LDS church leaders of today have said Joseph Fielding Smith was not teaching doctrine when he speculated about the reason blacks could not hold the priesthood for so long, until 1978 changed that position in the LDS church. (Note that the doctrine was there from Brigham Young, that they would one day receive all the blessings including priesthood, so it was a question of timing.)

So one of your prophets is speculating and the other is giving doctrine? How did you come to this determination? Seems to me you cherry pick out what you like and hope the rest will rot.

So what Joseph Fielding Smith wrote on the matter was just his opinion. He had thought about the subject, but he never said that what he was writing was the revealed truth on the matter.

You think this is what LDS believed about JFS in 1949?

But if Catholics are going to give LDS a hard time about all that “curse” (which I don’t agree with) happening because of Cain having killed Abel, then why don’t they give themselves a hard time about the doctrine of original sin because of Adam’s choice in the Garden of Eden?

Original sin is not based on racism.

I’ll give a personal opinion about blacks not holding the priesthood until 1978. Among the many blacks I have known during my life (dozens, personally), a striking thing I noticed was how strongly and naturally religious the women are, with great faith yet also a willingness to be somewhat subservient to the men in their life. It seems to me that the culture needed to change so that when the men received the privilege of the priesthood, they would wield that power and authority righteously and not use unrighteous dominion. Any man who holds the priesthood and uses unrighteous dominion in exercising authority is doing a grave sin, and if that kind of habit is perpetuated down through generations, then it would be well-nigh impossible to change the culture.

And so the racism continues.

I am sure it would be a tremendous trial of faith for blacks learning about LDS doctrine to hear about some of the teachings Rebecca quoted from. I am very grateful that a large number have responded to the Spirit and allowed the mistake that Joseph Fielding Smith made to be his own personal mistake. I love that so many blacks have and are joining the LDS church. I think it would be a great help to their culture in general across this country, as it has been in Nigeria and Ghana, where LDS growth has been phenomenal.

These were not JSF “mistakes”. It is what your prophets taught beginning with Joseph Smith until 1978. You may want to sweep it under the rug that easily, but it is not an honest thing to do.

 

[LDSGuy]

I started this post, so hopefully no one will mind if I change gears. My question now is on temples. I am under the impression that Mormons claim their temple ceremony is what was done in the 1st & 2nd temple and also what the Mayans did in their temple (being Nephites and bringing the temple ceremony with them).

I was married in the SL Temple & attended the Jordan River temple monthly for years, so I don’t need a tutorial on LDS temples. But didn’t the Mayans make human sacrifices in their temple & Jews, animal sacrifices in theirs for repentance; because there wasn’t a whole lot of that happening when I was there.

I am completely ignorant on the subject and have made no attempt the research this, that’s why I’m asking.

Ps- always makes me shake my head when you do a spell check on anything written about Mormonism and how so many of their words are not really words Try it sometime if you haven’t already

If you actually went through the temple, you would know that Mormons don’t claim that this is what was done in Mayan temples.

 

[C2M2C]

If you actually went through the temple, you would know that Mormons don’t claim that this is what was done in Mayan temples.

I didn’t say Mormons believed it. My question has to do with the validity of the temple ceremony and it’s origins. Mormons claim that the Mayan temple is proof of the BoM civilizations. Mayans sacrificed humans in their temples, so unless Mormons not sacrificing humans in the temple now is just another change made to their ceremony, it’s hard for them to make that claim. My question had to do with how do you reconcile this.

Would you like for me to describe the inside of the Jordan River temple for you? The desk is at the East entrance after you walk through the foyer area. Behind the desk is a wall, West of that is a waiting area. West of that are two areas where men go to the right (North) to their dressing room and women go to the left (South) to their’s…would you like for me to go on?

 

[C2M2C]

If you actually went through the temple, you would know that Mormons don’t claim that this is what was done in Mayan temples.

“Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They *are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so *on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology.” John E. Clark, Professor of anthropology, BYU, Director of NWAF, Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 14, No. 2, 2005 p.42 The entire article is titled “Archeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief” published by FARMS 2005.

(Emphasis added by me)

From Wikipedia-

"…The Maya practiced human sacrifice. In some Maya rituals people were killed by having their arms and legs held while a priest cut the person’s chest open and tore out his heart as an offering. This is depicted on ancient objects such as pictorial texts, known as codices. It is believed that children were often offered as sacrificial victims because they were believed to be pure.[23]

Much of the Maya religious tradition is still not understood by scholars, but it is known that the Maya, like most pre-modern societies, believed that the cosmos has three major planes, the underworld, the sky, and the Earth…"

Another in the long list of prolems in Mormons…and yet another reason why my wife, my 4 kids & I left.

 

[ParkerD]

So one of your prophets is speculating and the other is giving doctrine? How did you come to this determination? Seems to me you cherry pick out what you like and hope the rest will rot.

You think this is what LDS believed about JFS in 1949?

Original sin is not based on racism.

And so the racism continues.

These were not JSF “mistakes”. It is what your prophets taught beginning with Joseph Smith until 1978. You may want to sweep it under the rug that easily, but it is not an honest thing to do.

Rebecca,
First, in 1949 JFS was not the prophet. He was writing his own opinions, and at least one of them was wrong. (I never felt it was correct, the first time I heard it. But I understood that it wasn’t doctrine–it had not been stated by the united written words of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles, nor was it scriptural in the way he said it, by any stretch of the imagination.) He should have kept silent about something he knew nothing about other than earlier conjecture by others.

The doctrine is now in the Doctrine and Covenants, plain to read. I did not need to “cherry pick”.

Many LDS (including general authorities) understood that JFS and Bruce R McConkie were very opinionated men who wrote more than they should have about certain subjects including this one.

Joseph Smith did not teach what JFS taught about pre-mortal considerations involving blacks and the priesthood.

So you think it is racism (I read it from Black editorialists very often) to imply that black men have needed to assume a more prominent role in their families? I suppose you know that almost all of the micro-loans made in third world countries (many to black families) are to the women of the family, not the men. Why is that? It is the kind of talk you give there that reinforces the implication that every hint that a culture could improve is a racist comment, leading to finger-pointing rather than self-assessment. Read the unwed mother statistics–to read them isn’t racist, but I suppose you will say my bringing it up is. Black editorialists bring it up. Read their editorials, not my words.

I dearly love the black people, always have, always will. I loved the time I spent among them in Los Angeles, in Danville, Illinois, in Marietta, Georgia, getting to know many wonderful people, men and women and children with great enthusiasm for life, great faith, great love for people and for their cultural heritage, and much kindness to me which I appreciated.

 

[Jerusha]

Parker:
So what do you think of LDS people who have internalized and taken for themselves the racist aspects of Mormon scriptures? Do you ever confront racist comments made in your own church?

Do you have the same attitude towards non-Mormon people of color that you have towards Mormon people of color?

Do you believe that it is in God’s plan for people of color to struggle to cope with racism?

No, I am not being racist when I ask these questions. I simply know through personal experience, that the BOM and other past teachings of the LDS church encourage racism in those people who are so inclined.