Will Mormons’ racial history be a problem for Mitt Romney?

By Daniel Burke| Religion News Service, Published: January 31

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/will-mormons-racial-history-be-a-problem-for-mitt-romney/2012/01/31/gIQAdtK1fQ_story_1.html


Marvin Perkins says God led him to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — but friends advised otherwise.

“Mormons, they’re prejudiced against blacks,” Perkins recalls being told.

Until 1978, the LDS church banned men of African descent from its priesthood, a position open to nearly all Mormon males and the gateway to sacramental and leadership roles. The church had also barred black men and women from temple ceremonies that promised access in the afterlife to the highest heaven.

As he explored joining the church in 1988, Perkins said he asked Mormons near his Los Angeles home about the racial doctrines. They gently explained that blacks were the cursed descendants of Cain, the biblical murderer, he recalls.

“Let’s say you have this powerful witness of God telling you that this church is truly of him,” said the 48-year-old salesman and video producer. “And then the people in that church lovingly tell you that you are cursed. How do you reconcile those two things?”

Perkins says Mormon leaders couldn’t offer an answer.

The LDS church has neither formally apologized for the priesthood ban nor publicly repudiated many of the theories used to justify it for more than 125 years.

Perkins and other black Mormons say the church’s silence not only irks many African-Americans, it could also become a loud distraction for the nation’s most prominent Mormon: Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination.

“Right now is a great opportunity for the church to say, ‘Let’s clear the air once and for all,’” said Darron Smith, co-editor of the book “Black and Mormon” and a sociologist at Wichita State University in Kansas.

“But they won’t do it. And that’s going to put reasonable doubt in people’s minds about Romney and the church.”

“The curse of Cain”

The LDS church is mounting a multimillion-dollar campaign to highlight its growing diversity. In billboards, online ads and TV commercials, Latinos, Asians and African-Americans alike assert, “I’m a Mormon.”

But the church remains overwhelmingly white. A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that blacks comprise just 1 percent of the nearly 6 million Mormons in the U.S.

LDS church spokesman Michael Purdy said Mormonism is growing in Africa and in racially diverse communities in the U.S. and Latin America.

God rejects “none who come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female,” Purdy said in a statement, quoting The Book of Mormon. “Just as God loves all of his children, wants what is best for them, and considers them as equals, so does the church,” he added.

But many blacks perceive the LDS church as racist, said Perkins and Smith. Neither were surprised to hear an African-American pastor in Florida who supports Rick Santorum’s campaign raise the racial charge recently.

“Blacks are not going to vote for anyone of the Mormon faith,” the Rev. O’Neal Dozier told The Palm Beach Post on Jan. 22. “The Book of Mormon says the Negro skin is cursed.”

The Book of Mormon says no such thing. But another Mormon scripture, The Pearl of Great Price, says, “blackness came upon” Cain’s descendants, who were “despised among all people.”

Among Cain’s heirs was Noah’s son, Ham, who was “cursed ... as pertaining to the priesthood,” according to the scripture. Mormons trace their priesthood to Adam and Noah.

“The faith of my fathers”

Questions about Mormonism’s racial history also arose during Romney’s first White House run.

In a 2007 “Meet the Press” interview, Tim Russert noted that Romney was 31 when the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978. “Didn’t you think, ‘What am I doing part of an organization that is viewed by many as a racist organization?’” Russert asked.

“I’m very proud of my faith, and it’s the faith of my fathers,” Romney answered. “And I’m not going to distance myself from my faith in any way.”

But Romney also said that he had been “anxious to see a change in my church” and recalled weeping when he heard that the ban had been lifted.

“Even at this day it’s emotional, and so it’s very deep and fundamental in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God,” Romney said.

Pressed by Russert, Romney refused to say his church was wrong to restrict blacks from full participation.

Romney’s forebears were among the original Mormon converts in the 1830s, and Romney himself was a bishop in the church before he entered politics in 1994.

“For men like Romney, lifelong church members whose people were pioneers in the faith, to criticize church authority would be akin to heresy,” said Smith.

Romney’s father, George Romney, also faced criticism over the priesthood ban when he ran for president in 1968. He answered by extolling his civil rights record as governor of Michigan.

George Romney, like his son, refused to publicly criticize his church.

“The issue hurt him and it hurt the image of Mormon church,” said Newell Bringhurst, a historian and co-author of “The Mormon Quest for the Presidency.”

It may mar Mitt Romney’s campaign too, Bringhurst said. “He’ll face more and more scrutiny on the Mormon-black issue, even though the church has abandoned the policy.”

Smith was more blunt.

“The church has never done its due diligence, and guess what? Mitt Romney is taking hell for it.”

“We just got that one wrong”

Purdy said LDS leaders began seeking divine guidance about the black ban in the 1970s. In 1978, he said, “a revelation to the church’s prophet extended the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy members.”

“It was a day of great rejoicing in the church,” Purdy said.

But the 1978 statement did not address the theological background behind the ban.

In 1949, the LDS church’s First Presidency — the top tier of its hierarchy — had said the priesthood ban was a “direct commandment from the Lord.” And some LDS leaders regarded as prophets taught that black skin was punishment for souls that lacked valor in a pre-earthly existence.

“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,” Purdy said. “These previous personal statements do not represent church doctrine.”

But even prophets’ personal statements are taken as holy writ, and theories about blacks being cursed or spiritually lacking circulated among Mormons well after the ban was lifted.

Even under intense pressure from black Mormons, the church has refused to formally repudiate past interpretations of doctrine or scripture that tie spiritual worthiness to race.

“If the LDS church were to apologize, that would be casting aspersions on God’s prophets — the voice of God on earth,” said Richard Ostling, co-author of the book “Mormon America.”

“I don’t think the Mormon soul could countenance it.”

Perkins agreed that admitting prophets had erred would be “faith shattering” for many Mormons.

After converting to Mormonism, he began counseling fellow black Mormons and producing videos on race in church scripture. Perkins believes he’s doing his part to help the church overcome its racist reputation.

But his work alone cannot overcome blacks’ deep-seated and widespread suspicions about Mormonism, Perkins said.

“The church is going to have to make it happen by confessing that its racial teachings were wrong,” he said, “that we’re a church of continuing revelation and we just got that one wrong.”

I Scour the Internet: 1/31/12 Edition

This is for all those people out there that want to know when the next season of Sister Wives will start.

The next season should begin in the Spring 2012.

That's right, Spring 2012 !

Assuming of course that the show isn't cancelled in the meantime.

I'm putting this in a prominent place because nothing on the Sister Wives website ( the fundamental fitness one, the Brown family website STILL has a 'Coming Soon' notice up), Twitter or Facebook fan pages says when the season starts. Why are they keeping their fans in the dark?

You know, with all the hype about social media and how important it is, am I the only one who finds it amusing that the Browns are still muddling around not really using Twitter and Facebook to round up some more folks to partake of that expensive MLM food supplements they are trying to sell?

Take a look at the Dargers. They have their ONE public Twitter account, which they basically use to direct their fans to their up and running website. They not only hawk their book, but provide weekly commentaries on their lives as polygamists, with plenty of cheesy, outrageously HUGE photos of the wives -usually hugging a kid or two, or a sister wife or husband or all four of the adults group hugging each other in matching outfits.

And then you have the Browns.

The Brown YouTube channel's plug was pulled months ago. The Fundamental Fitness website very simply points you to either the wives (and now Kody's) Twitter accounts, or the 'Like' fanpage on Facebook. Oh yeah, and to their trainer/business partner's Facebook page. It contains no other content.

I still don't understand the need to have 2 different 'official' fanpages run by the same group of family friends on Facebook. It's almost like how I would imagine Fundamentalist Mormon heaven to be setup. In lower heaven (the Like fanpage) you have all the riffraff who don't quite 'qualify' for the upper heaven - the 'friend' fanpage.

I recently went to the Like page. There were twelve (12) comments between 1/21/12 and and 12 noon 1/30/12.

• 2 comments wanted to know when the next season starts - so far unanswered
• 8 comments say how much they LOVE the show and family
• 1 comment asked a question about marriage vows - it also goes unanswered
• 1 comment called Kody a douchebag

There were no admin comments - which is a good thing if you've ever read a comment from the admins. In fact, on the Like page, I had to go back to 1/16/12 to even find a comment from an admin. I did not find any comments from the Browns on the Like fanpage. The mole must of eaten them all.


Then there's the Friend fanpage. This is the one where you actually have to be 'vetted' as a Friend before you can see the content. Now this information is from Antoinette the mole La Taupe, still working undercover:

On 1/28/12 Robyn commented that her four "kiddos" have been sick with the flu, and she can't wait til everyone is better. And on 1/26/12, Janelle wrote that Maddie has her learner's permit. These are the exact same comments made on their Twitter accounts.

The number of Friends are steadily dropping each week. As of 1/30/12, it's at 1426. There seems to be some lady with named Carol who has taken over as the official greeter now. That's fine, the Admins are too busy approving that backlog of 1000 friend requests and hunting for that mole! They need the help!

Commenters with questions are more likely to be answered by an admin on the Friend page than the Like page, and Janelle answered a question on 1/26/12. It's funny to see how many questions still go unanswered, but the admins ALWAYS have the time to write a response to a comment made by a Sister Wife. Must be in their admin volunteer contract (You WILL respond immediately and positively to a Sister Wife's comment, no matter how banal.)

Thanks Antoinette! Now you better get back undercover before those malicious (but very busy) admins accidently step on you!

OK, what's our Mother of the Year 2011 Robyn been up to?

Yeah, Antoinette told us. So, what's been happening with Global Operation Detox this month?

C'mon, Robyn! You know you were named a TOP RECRUITER - VOLUME and TOP RECRUITER - SIGNUPS, so while you were retweeting I hope you didn't get hurt patting yourself on the back!

And while Robyn works on recruiting, Meri and Janelle went shopping!

Ummm....Thanks for that FYI, Janelle...

Hey, I know what you mean Meri. But we all aspire at one time or another to be Minnie Pearl, know what I mean?

So what's been up with Kody?

Uh... Meri? Can you tell us what Kody is trying to say? Help us out, please!

Thanks a lot, Meri! Explains a lot!

And how's the family business coming along?

 Amazing all right. Fantastic demonstration on how to 1) have a giggly blond set up your sample bottles and 2) have the same giggly blonde demo cross contamination by stirring each sample with the same damn spoon! Real scientific! NOT!



What kind of outfit is this? Didn't I read somewhere this was a multi-billion dollar company but they cram THIRTY (30) bodies into somebody's home? Actually, they could have gotten a lot more people crammed in if they didn't have such humongous chairs. No folding card table chairs for these folks. I guess no one is rich enough to have a mansion yet. Or maybe the rich know better than to get involved with this organization?

Well, that's all for now. When does Spring start?. And remember...

I scour the internet, so you don't have to ! 



From Slate.com: Is Polygamy Really So Awful?

A new study shows that despite what you see on reality TV, plural marriage isn’t very good for society.

By Libby Copeland    |Posted Monday, Jan. 30, 2012, at 5:18 PM ET 

These are boom times for memoirs about growing up in, marrying into or escaping from polygamous families. Sister wives appear as minor celebrities in the pages of People, piggybacking on their popular reality TV show. And oh yes, we have a presidential candidate whose great-grandfather was an actual bona fide polygamist.

Americans are fixated these days on polygamy, and it’s fair to say we don’t know how to feel about it. Polygamy evokes both fascination and revulsion—the former when Chloe Sevigny is involved, and the latter when it is practiced by patently evil men like and Osama Bin Laden and Warren Jeffs, the fundamentalist Mormon leader who had a thing for underage wives. At the same time, the practice of plural marriage is so outside mainstream American culture, so far in the past for many Westerners, that it has come to be regarded as almost quaint. What’s so wrong with it, if it works for some people? In counterculture circles, the practice of polyamory, or open partnerships, is supposed to be having some sort of moment. All of which explains why, in response to the argument by conservatives like Rick Santorum and Antonin Scalia that gay marriage could be a slippery slope leading to polygamy, some feminists, lefties, and libertarians have wondered aloud whether plural marriage is really so bad.

History suggests that it is. A new study out of the University of British Columbia documents how societies have systematically evolved away from polygamy because of the social problems it causes. The Canadian researchers are really talking about polygyny, which is the term for one man with multiple wives, and which is by far the most common expression of polygamy. Women are usually thought of as the primary victims of polygynous marriages, but as cultural anthropologist Joe Henrich documents, the institution also causes problems for the young, low-status males denied wives by older, wealthy men who have hoarded all the women. And those young men create problems for everybody.

“Monogamous marriage reduces crime,” Henrich and colleagues write, pulling together studies showing that polygynous societies create large numbers of unmarried men, whose presence is correlated with increased rates of rape, theft, murder, and substance abuse. According to Henrich, the problem with unmarried men appears to come primarily from their lack of investment in family life and in children. Young men without futures tend to engage in riskier behaviors because they have less to lose. And, too, they may engage in certain crimes to get wives—stealing to amass enough wealth to attract women, or kidnapping other men’s wives.

As marriage historian Stephanie Coontz has pointed out, polygyny is less about sex than it is about power. Rich old guys with lots of wives win twice: They have more women to bear them babies and do household work, and they also gain an advantage over other men. After all, in such societies a young man in want of a wife cannot simply woo her. There is too much competition, and he probably has too little to offer. So he winds up having to do work for a more powerful, polygynous man, bringing him gifts and tributes, in hopes of someday being rewarded with one of that man’s many daughters. “Often the subordination of women is in fact also a way of controlling men,” says Coontz, who was not involved in the study out of the University of B.C.

That polygyny is bad for women is not necessarily intuitive. As economist Robert H. Frank has pointed out women in polygynist marriages should have more power because they’re in greater demand, and men should wind up changing more diapers. But historically, polygamy has proved to be yet another setup that screws the XX set. Because there are never enough of them to go around, they wind up being married off younger. Brothers and fathers, realizing how valuable their female relations are, tend to control them more. And, as one would expect, polygynous households foster jealousy and conflict among co-wives. Ethnographic surveys of 69 polygamous cultures “reveals no case where co-wife relations could be described as harmonious,” Henrich writes, with what must be a good dose of understatement.

Children, too, appear to suffer in polygamous cultures. Henrich examines a study comparing 19th-century Mormon households, 45 of them headed by wealthy men, generally with multiple wives, and 45 headed by poorer men, generally with one wife each. What’s surprising is that the children of the poorer men actually fared better, proving more likely to survive to age 15. Granted, this is a small study, but it’s consistent with other studies, including one from Africa showing that the children of monogamous households tend to do better than those from polygynous households in the same communities. Why? Some scholars suspect that polygyny may discourage paternal investment. Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin, and to make things worse, they’re compiling resources to attract their next wives instead of using it on their existing families.

Must polygamy always bring these social ills? Is it possible to be polygamous in a way that’s good for you and everyone else? Maybe. Historically, problems have cropped up when polygamy is widespread in a culture with great disparities in wealth, and a few men hoard all the women. But it has worked in small cultures where there aren’t a lot of differences in wealth and status. Coontz points to past Native American societies that occasionally engaged in what’s known as sororal polygyny, in which a man married to one woman might also marry her sister, perhaps after the sister’s husband died.

It’s possible that even in a large, deeply stratified society like ours, rare instances of polygamy wouldn’t foster gender inequity and roving bands of unhappy single men, provided those instances were spread out among a largely monogamous population. But it’s hard to imagine that, because it isn’t how it has played out here. Instead, American polygamy occurs in close-knit fundamentalist Mormon communities, in which young women often do appear to be subordinated and from which young men—the so-called “lost boys”—are exiled to reduce the competition for wives. Has fundamentalist Mormon culture shaped the expression of polygamy, or has widespread polygamy shaped fundamentalist Mormon culture? It’s hard to separate the two.

And this is exactly Henrich’s point: Polygamy may actually exacerbate inequities in wealth and gender that hurt societies, even if the institution itself appears neutral. Crime and chaos are threatening. Christianity may have brought monogamy to Europe and many other places, but those cultures succeeded because monogamy happened to suit them. In other words, as far as social evolution is concerned, the best form of marriage for a given society isn’t really about what’s moral, but what works.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/the_problem_with_polygamy.single.html

Something Different: Reporter screams on Super Bowl zip line

All I got to say is at least Meri and Christine didn't yell like this dude when they rode that Fremont Street Experience zip line.

Can you imagine Kody on the Super Bowl zip line?