Presently, early Mormon theology is openly reaffirmed every Fast Sunday and on other occasions. Members of the Mormon faith stand and begin (or ends) the testimony with this statement “I know the (Mormon) church is true” and “I know Joseph Smith is the true prophet”.

The statement (“…all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color” June 9, 1978 press release to the Deseret News), IS INADEQUATE.

Combined, the statements articulate;
“YOU ARE STILL INFERIOR BUT YOU MAY HOLD THE PRIESTHOOD.”

Black skin as a curse was taught at BYU after the June 9th,1978 aforementioned statement. As of the 1984 Winter Semester at Brigham Young University, in the Genealogy 263 class, the instructor Brother Bloxham explained the curse to a student. The subject came up when Brother Bloxham was explaining the Mormon concept that a spirit in heaven selects the body to live within. A student asked “Why would a spirit select the body of a baby who was born to starvation in Africa?” Brother Bloxham gave the explanation of the curse. The same student asked “Why would a spirit choose the body of a white baby who is born addicted to crack?” Brother Bloxham’s answer was; “Poor choice”. I was a student in that class at the time Brother Bloxham made that above mentioned statements.

Mormon scriptures, (Pearl of Great Price-Book of Moses 7:8; Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 5:21,22, Alma 3:6, Mormon5:15) and many statements made by Mormon church presidents that Blacks are inferior STILL STANDS.

The foundation of Mormon theology (stating people of dark skin people are inferior), is not erased by as simple statement that blacks can now hold the priesthood. Stating that blacks can hold the priesthood does not equate and is immaterial to the Mormon scriptures and the Mormons racist beliefs.

Go to the below referenced website (Institute for Religious Research) for further information.
http://www.irr.org/mit/skin-color.html

I refuse to accept any defensive rationalizations. Until the scriptures are renounced and statements regarding people of color have been cursed by God is removed, I see Mormon theology as white supremacy.

I think the reason that the Mormon church has never renounced the doctrine that blacks were less valiant or worthy in the pre-existence is that that view has never been doctrine in the first place. I can see how you might think that it was that reasoning that led to the ban on blacks holding the priesthood, but in fact it was the other way around.

As far as leadership positions go, the Church hierarchy is structured in such a way that significant changes in demographics take a very long time. About 1/2 the members of the Church live outside the US, but every single member of the 12 Apostles is a US citizen. This is because they are chosen from the lower ranks (as a general rule) who were in turn chosen from yet lower ranks. It takes decades for the change in Church membership to be reflected in leadership.

But it is being reflected. Even a quick survey of the echelons just below the 12 (these are called the Quorums of the 70) reveal an increasing number of leaders from areas where the Church is spreading: predominantly S. America. It’s quite common for high-ranking leaders who address the the congregation during the semi-annual general conference of the Church to speak with a heavy Spanish accent. There is one member of the 12 from Germany, and there have also been high-ranking members from Japan and other countries.

But most Church leaders are white Americans because they are chosen from the church members who started various adult church service when they were in there 30’s and 40s and are now in the there 70s and 80s. In other words the leadership now reflects the population 30 – 50 years ago.

The Church’s growth in the African Americans is such that they still constitute a very small minority of membership, and as a result it shouldn’t be a surprise not to find many of them in high leadership positions. This will change. In point of fact, the first General Authority (level just below the 12) of African American descent was ordained nearly 2 decades ago in 1990. His name was Helvecio Martins: http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/martins.html

The ban on priesthood ordination of blacks was, by definition, racist. But the supposition that it reflects an overall racist institution is without basis. There have been, and for all I know still are, racist Mormons. This is a fact. But Mormon doctrine, since 1978, has not been racist and there is no discrimination whatsoever based on race within Church leadership.

(Full disclosure: I am a Mormon.)

The US Government cannot eliminate a candidate from running for office because of religion. However, individuals are free to apply any standard of measurement they wish when deciding who to vote for. Romney has stated that he believe the American people want a “person of faith” in the White House. If so, then the details of that faith are open to discussion.

When Romney went through the secret LDS temple endowment ceremony he would have taken the oath to observe the Law of Obedience. He would also have promised before God, angels and witnesses to “accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”

The LDS church maintains a racist doctrine which teaches that blacks were “less valiant” spirits in what Mormons believe to have been a pre-existence. Church leaders have taught for 175 years that being born with black skin and features (the mark of Cain) was punishment by God for their “less than faithful” actions. Based on this doctrine, the Mormon Church prohibited blacks from holding the LDS Priesthood until 1978 when it lifted the ban following tremendous public pressure including a threat to revoke their tax exempt status.

Romney has publicly stated that he is not a “cafeteria” Mormon who picks and chooses which doctrines he will accept. Romney was 31 years old at the time the Church lifted the ban which means that for a significant portion of his adult life he accepted his church’s teaching that blacks are inherently inferior.

Does Romney still believe that he is more “valiant” or “worthy” than blacks and other non-whites by virtue of being born Caucasian? If he didn’t believe that people of color were inferior during his adult life before the ban was lifted, then why did he remain a member – tacitly supporting the ban and its doctrinal underpinnings? Why did he support church leaders who repeatedly taught black inferiority as doctrine? Did he counsel members to not accept this church teaching when he was a church missionary, bishop or stake president? Did he publicly criticize or renounce any of the racist statements made by his church leaders? Did he lobby his church leaders to disavow the doctrine and change their teaching?

Please note that while the church has changed its policy of prohibiting blacks from holding its priesthood, it has never renounced the doctrine that led to the ban in the first place. It has never disavowed or removed from the church cannon the scripture that the doctrine is based upon (i.e. Book of Abraham). It has never renounced or apologized for racist statements made by its leaders. It is interesting to note that while nearly 30 years have passed since the ban was lifted, not a single black face appears in the upper echelons of Mormon church leadership.