I’ve never been all that interested in the subject before, but it was my understanding that prior to around 1978, the LDS church precluded the ordination of blacks as bishops (possibly even as Elders, but please don’t take that as authoritative), and that the policy was changed as a result of a “Revelation” as reported by the then-“Prophet.”
Romney’s father was an active advocate for Civil Rights during the 60’s, so whatever his religions official stance was, I don’t think Mitt was raised with a particularly bigoted background.
I have a hundred reasons not to vote for the guy, but having a racist heritage isn’t one of them.
This is incorrect. They were not allowed into the Priesthood until 1978. Which is actually in practice a ban on blacks (at least black males) because all adult mormon males are supposed to be priests of the faith.
Pretty interesting article:
Good for him, but you can still think black people deserve basic human civil rights and also think that God is punishing them with blackness, it isn’t contradictory. The latter believe itself, or lack of enough conviction to not be a part of such an organization is enough for me, personally to not vote for someone.
Technically the LDS has been a flip-flopping church in the past.
Whenever Joseph Smith or Brigham Young wanted something, they had a new “revelation” that what they wanted was what God “wanted them to have.”
African Americans could be members, but could not “hold the priesthood.” In Mormonism, every male over the age of 12 is ordained into the priesthood, so black members were quite explicitly second-class members, like children or women. Add to this the further insult that black members were not allowed to go to Mormon temples to be “sealed” to each other, which is quite literally the most important thing to Mormons. White Mormons were promised to be with their families for all eternity, black Mormons were told, “Sorry, maybe you should have been more faithful before you were born.”
Then perhaps they still practice polygaymy? Do you believe people can never change?
This is hilarious, and right-on.
They still do, just the revisionist aka mainstream mormons decry them as not true mormons…even though those mormons are the ones living exactly as their founder said they should.
People can, sometimes. But I don’t give organizations the benefits deserved only by actual human beings, I am not a republican.
I am not singling mormonism out because I have a bone to pick with them. Name any other white supremacist organization, make a scenario where in 1978 they just stop explicitly banning blacks, and ask me if I would in 2011 vote for a member of that group.
Mitt is also a total Wall Street stooge. That doesn’t play well with the Tea Party.
There it is.
Or with Occupy, for that matter.
Hey, guess what? He’s a centrist! 
So the Democratic Party is racist today because of its past support for slavery and segregation?
Mitt has not given me a single reason to vote for him.
“I’m not as crazy as those other candidates” doesn’t cut it.
You have to vote for one of the big two, you don’t have to be a part of a racist religion.
Well, if you’re determined to vote Republican, a low craziness factor is surely a plus.
Two differences here: 1978 is a bit more recent than 1865, and a political party doesn’t change its platform through divine revelation. I don’t care much about the doctrine one way or the other and other religious beliefs were used to justify slavery, but it’s true that Mormonism has a history of divine revelations at convenient moments. Things like that will tend to make people question your sincerity.
That being said, I don’t think it’s fair to hold Romney responsible for the failings of his church and I am not comfortable making assumptions about his own views based on what the Mormon church has done. I do think it’s fair to question the sincerity of changes in official LDS views, but that’s another subject.
mitt he cant be trusted as a conservative. we have had enough liberalism in Washington . we cant keep spending money we don’t have . there like drunks there is never enough [money] the more we give them the more they will squander[regardless of party]. in my view the biggest reason we don’t need Mitt is his record on the second amendment
I’d have to disagree to an extent. Mitt Romney went to France for 2.5 years (1967-1969) in order to convert people to a segregated church. That’s kind of a big deal to me. To my knowledge, he hasn’t expressed any regret or misgivings about this since.
And I say this as someone whose father did the exact same thing. But I wouldn’t vote for my dad for President either, no matter how nice a guy he is.
We are not on a fixed income, you know…