Mitt the Barber and the Church

A great devotee of the Gospel of Getting On.
G.B. Shaw, Mrs. Warren's Profession

I hope he remembers them. The explanations, that is. They could be handy if anyone ever asks him about his days as a missionary. Of course it's possible that no one will since everyone is reluctant to bring religion into what is an otherwise very civilized campaign for the presidency. Nonetheless, the answers he recently gave may prove handy if anyone ever does.

The answers to which I refer are the ones he gave when asked about his assault on John Lauber, a boy who had bleached-blond hair draped over one eye. A friend recalled Mitt saying: "He can't look like that. That's wrong. Just look at him." And with those words, Mitt the Barber and a group of friends gave a haircut to John Lauber, who, according to participants, was distressed at the assault and cried and screamed for help, to no avail. When asked about it on Fox news, Mitt said he "did not recall the incident." Philip Maxwell, a Michigan lawyer, who participated, was astonished that Mitt had forgotten saying, "I would think this would be seared in his memory. Certainly for the other people that were involved, nobody has forgotten."

I am not surprised that Mitt does not remember the Lauber incident since, as his classmates have pointed out, it was only one of a number of teenage pranks that amused Mitt, if not his victims. It would be more interesting, however, to engage Mitt in a theological discussion and explanation of his feelings about spreading the word of the Mormon religion in foreign lands when the official doctrine of that church considered people of black skin to be inferior beings.

Mitt went to France in 1966 as a Mormon missionary. He served there for 30 months. While working as a missionary he rose at 6 a.m. each day and rang doorbells from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., hoping to convert the residents to the Mormon faith. While going door to door, one of the things he might have been called upon to explain was why people with black skin were not as welcome in the Mormon Church as people with white skin. For almost a century before Mitt became a missionary, black people of African lineage could not join the Mormon priesthood. Brigham Young announced in 1852 in a speech to the Utah Territorial Legislature that: "Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the Priesthood and ... I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it." This official treatment of the black as inferior to the white was church doctrine throughout the time Mitt was propagating its faith and until 1978. During that time not only could male persons of black African ancestry not hold the priesthood, but they could not participate in some temple ordinances nor in celestial marriage.

It is commonly accepted that attacks on people's religions is not fair game and that in a campaign for the presidency discussion of the candidate's faith should be kept off the front burner and talked about only in hushed tones. Thus, it was accepted by most commentators (except right-wing-nut Fox equivalents) that if John Kennedy became president, the pope in Rome would not be dictating foreign policy. And this column is not to suggest that if Mitt were to become president, the people in secret temples in Salt Lake City would exert control over his actions. It is simply to assume that having so easily put aside his assault on John Lauber, he can with equal facility explain what he said to folks in France when he was knocking on their doors trumpeting the virtues of the Mormon faith, thus reassuring us all.

When, in 1978, Spencer W. Kimball, the president of the church, announced that he had had a revelation from God saying that every faithful and worthy man in the church "may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color," Mitt heard the news over his car radio. He said he pulled over and cried because he was so happy. However, he did not protest the policy prior to the revelation to Mr. Kimball. As he explained: "The way things are achieved in my church, as I believe in other great faiths, is through inspiration from God and not through protests and letters to the editor." Mitt participated in civil rights marches with his father and professed concern for civil rights. How he could encourage people to join a church one of whose most significant tenets ran counter to what he believed is hard to understand. Unless, of course, he simply flip-flopped. Or, perhaps, he doesn't remember what the church believed when he was a missionary and just considers that bigoted belief an "incident." He has to consider himself lucky that the Lord saw fit to give Mr. Kimball a revelation back in 1978. Had He waited until 2012 it would almost certainly ruin Mitt's chance to become president. As it is, it simply leaves one wondering what Mitt really believed back when he was a missionary.

Christopher Brauchli can be emailed at [e-mail]. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com

 

Comments

[sgbuck2]

09:38 PM on 05/20/2012

If I am ever in need of a lawyer it won't be Christopher Brauchli. He shoots from the hip.....

[sgbuck2]

06:44 PM on 05/20/2012

Some have said Mormonism is an elitist religion this is a distortion. We believe all of God’s children, those living, dead or yet born will be given the same opportunity for complete salvation as do Mormons. We believe our salvation is determined by righteousness and binding ordinances, not whether you are black or white.
I should add knowledge of the truth as a necessary component. In the New Testament Christ went to the world of departed spirits and taught his Gospel. (See 1 Peter 3:18-20 4:6) Gospel knowledge was presented and those in that realm could accept or reject it.
Baptism and other ordinances are likewise essential. All ordinances for the dead will be achieved so salvation will be offered to all persons. Hence we do genealogical research and ordinance work for the dead in our temples. Mormons spend many hours making sure all that have lived on earth, through research, will have these ordinances preformed on their behalf. If they accept the work done for them they will be saved.
Some believe the un-taught (never presented Gospel of Christ) will perish at death because they knew nothing of Christ, we believe all will be taught of Christ now or as they await the resurrection. There is nothing elitist about that.
Salvation includes all nations; whites, blacks, Asians you name it. You may recall that only after the death of Christ was the Gospel taught to the Gentiles. Christ immediate mission was to the house of Israel.

[brlark]

01:28 AM on 05/20/2012

While the restriction on who could hold the priesthood in the church is well known, the reason for that is not completely understood. Past statements by church leaders and members trying to explain that have, frankly, not been helpful, and have been speculative. I am certain that many past leaders regret having made some statements which reflect their own human weaknesses and not God's will on the matter. But, it has never been church teaching, policy, or doctrine that any person is inferior in any way than another. The church holds to the teaching of the Savior that God is not a respecter of persons --that He loves and regards them all equally. Holding the priesthood, then, is not a superior, or "better than" designation in the church. Accordingly, women and children for example, are not considered inferior in any way in the church, yet they do not hold the priesthood.

[LorrenVissor]

05:08 PM on 05/20/2012

"Holding the priesthood, then, is not a superior, or "better than" designation in the church. "

I have no idea where you guys come up with this stuff. Considering the fact that blacks were not allowed to participate in the temple ceremony, how can you possibly say that holding the priesthood does not make you superior.

The Mormon temple ceremony is very clear. Attendants are annointed "kings and queens, priests and priestesses". If blacks weren't allowed to even participate in these rites, it's pretty clear that Mormons didn't consider them worthy of such a calling.

Mormonism is all about elitism. Mormonism cultivates elitism because it aids in the brainwashing. An obvious fraud can be perpetuated if those that are carrying it forwared are given promises of royalty and power in the life to come. It creates a proposition that's impossible to deny. This is why you see Mormons defending it so fervently. To most the fraudulant nature of its founding is so obvoius. For those who have callings in God's heavenly court as kings and queens, denying Mormonsim makes you just like everyone else. No ammount of history or scientific proof will sway your fantasy.

[brlark]

06:25 PM on 05/20/2012

Lorrenvissar,  you would do well to investigate a little more before making a judgement.  The first thing to consider is the term 'Mormon' and 'Mormonism'.  Members of the church do not primarily consider themselves 'Mormon'.  That is a nickname given early in the Church's history by its enemies and persecutors and comes from a book of scripture that was compiled by an ancient Prophet of the American Continent by the name of Mormon.  This book of scripture, like the Bible is another testament of Jesus Christ and His role in God's plan for the eternal happiness of His children.  As the name Mormon has become so widely used to identify members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, church members have embraced it as well.  But, we do not see ourselves as Mormons, but moreover as latter-day Christians.  

[brlark]

06:26 PM on 05/20/2012

Temple ordinances, like those performed in the Temple during Christ's time on the earth have to do with both the living (those currently in mortality), and the dead (those who have past on) and mankind's potential to "gain all the Father hath".  That divine potential of all of us as sons and daughters of God pertains to all of His children and includes "male and female, black and white, bond and free" --in other words all people.  Notwithstanding that, God, for purposes known to Him, has placed separations between people's from time to time during mortality (confounded languages at the time of the tower of babel, placed marks and distinguishing features on various peoples at various times for various reasons).  Typically when imperfect men (including those called of God as prophets), try to understand and explain the reasons for these seperations, they sometimes create more confusion than clarity.  But God is patient and is able to bring about his purposes despite these imperfections.  So, once again, holding the priesthood and participating in temple ordinances at one point in time does not equate to superiority in God's eyes.  He will make sure that all of His children who will, will be offered that opportunity and the attending blessings that come with it.  

[Raymond Swenson]

04:19 PM on 05/19/2012

Christopher, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1978 was an organization of over 3 million members. It was not a local congregation in which the pastor was selected by popular vote and a local council decided policies. If you attack Romney for simply being affiliated with his church when he had no significant ability to change its policies, it woyld be even more interesting to ask about the many hundreds of thousands of Mormons who belonged to the Church in 1978, who belonged to racial minorities, including blacks. There have always been blacks in the Mormon Church, who believed that they were closer to God by being Mormon than if they left to join another church. Thete wete black families in my congregation in the 1950s in Salt Lake, and in Colorado in 1974 and Maryland in 1978, just as they are in my congregation here in Washington in 2012. The discrimination about priesthood ordinatuon was never a basis for segregation, nor did Utah have segregated schools or other public facilities. And for 150 years the Mormons have been investing many resources in recruiting new members in Polynesia, among American Indians, in Japan and other Asian countries, and in Brazil and other parts of Latin America, including many people who are descendants of African slaves. There are 100,000 Mormons in the Dominican Republic, almost 400,000 in African nations like Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda, and half of all Mormons live outside tbe US.

[LorrenVissor]

05:20 PM on 05/20/2012

"The discrimination about priesthood ordinatuon was never a basis for segregation, nor did Utah have segregated schools or other public facilities. "

I see what you did there.. Utah didn't have segregated PUBLIC facilities. Of course the church did have a policy that any member of the Negro race was not allowed to enter their sacred Temples.

My father was a missionary prior to the 1978 "revelation". If they happened upon a black individual while searching for members, they were instructed to hand the prospect a pamphlet and leave. They were instructed not to teach blacks the discussions.

It's hard to erase 100+ years of racism without a proper repudiation. I feel sorry for those in your position. Mormon apologists are made to look a fool for the sake of maintaining the facade that God ordained this racism.

[Bruce Johns]

11:02 PM on 05/20/2012

Lorren, Like your father, I served a mission prior to 1978. I found it extremely hard to not be able to teach black families. I didn't understand then. I don't pretend to understand now. But never was I taught not have I believed that blacks were inferior. It's true that they were not given the priesthood or access to the temple before 1978. That was hard to understand for missionaries and black converts alike. We cried together over those limitations because they were my brothers and sisters. I told myself that this must have been similar to what gentiles felt who were denied baptism in Christ's church before Peter had his vision that instructed him to baptize gentiles. I don't know that my explanation was right. But what I did know was what I felt when I read and prayed about the Book of Mormon. Because of that spiritual knowledge, I was able to trust that in time God would make the way for all my worthy brothers (because they were worthy) to hold the priesthood. I wish to know the rest of the story--what led to blacks not being allowed to hold the priesthood for that period of time, but what I know leads me to trust God for what I don't know.

[psmithphd]

12:45 PM on 05/19/2012

There is much misinformation about the relationship historically and today of African-Americans and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Several factors, though not that clear from our present perspective, appear to have led to the original phasing in of the exclusion policy in about the 1850s. The leaders of the Church and most members rejoiced at the change in the policy that took place by revelation in 1978. Recent Church statements against racism are unequivocal.
References in the Book of Mormon to skin color are not related at all to African Americans. None of these observations on race by ancient prophets of God have any relevance today to the beliefs and operation of the Church.
Isn't it wonderful for all of us to know through this revelation that God loves all of his children equally, regardless of color or ethnic origin! Our black members are a wonderful part of our faith. The non-blacks in the Church are expected, as are our black members, to develop love for these and for all other peoples, to treat all as equal to themselves. Anything said or done by anyone in the Church prior to June 1978 that is not consistent with this equality and love ethic should be put aside and forgotten. It does not reflect the mind and will of the Lord Jesus Christ today, and that is what is really important.
Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D.

[LorrenVissor]

05:58 PM on 05/20/2012

How does it feel to be a PHD that has provided the world a perfect example of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

"Anything said or done by anyone in the Church prior to June 1978 that is not consistent with this equality and love ethic should be put aside and forgotten. "

This has to be the last thing I would expect from a PHD. Let's just put the facts aside and ignore history. I have a hard time believing that you truely feel this way. Perhaps your scientific method has been so warped by your elitism that facts and history are far less important than spinning the lies that tell you that you'll be an King and ruler in the life to come.

I guess your belief is yet another example of Francis Bacon's observations,

And such is the way of all superstition, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, though this happen much oftener, neglect and pass them by.

[KTC John]

12:03 AM on 05/19/2012

In Old Testament times, only the lineal descendants of Levi were allowed to hold the priesthood or perform temple ordinances. No mortal will be able to give an adequate explanation of the reason for that well known truth. The exclusion did not make persons having non-Levitical blood lines "inferior beings." During the mortal ministry of Christ, he did not extend the priesthood to the Gentiles. No mortal will be able to give an adequte explanation of the reason for that well known truth. It did not make Gentiles "inferior beings." As a 1973 convert to the LDS Church in the deep South, I have always attended LDS Church meetings with black members and associated with them as close friends in numbers paralleling the demographics of the area in which I live, and find it amusingly hypocritical to hear members of segregated non-Mormon Churches claim that Mormons are racists. Today, 55% of the 14-plus million members of the LDS Church are non-Anglo. You volunteer yourself to complain for black LDS members who have no complaint. You ignore George Romney's sterling record with regard to the manner in which blacks were treated during his government service. And with regard to Mitt the Barber, you totally ignore a more serious matter----Obama's admission that he smoked marijuana and snorted cocaine as a young adult. And what about Obama's racist religion? You are so biased in your writings that you foster no credibility whatsoever amongst your readers.

[TElden]

11:55 PM on 05/18/2012

In Chicago, I was surprised to find black members of the Church who were enthusiastic and who had no difficulty with the Church's position on priesthood because they believed the Church was the true Church of Jesus Christ, because they were willing to wait for the time that blacks could hold the priesthood, and because they did not experience any discrimination in the Church. I began to re-think my position, feeling that if they did not have a problem with the Church's position, why should I. Two years later, I served a misison for the Church. In 1978, when President Kimball announced that the time we had awaited had arrived, like Mitt Romney, I wept, as did almost all the members of the Church. Living in Chicago for 34 years I knew many great black members of the Church. The Church congregations in the South have always been integrated, unlike the congregations for other churches all across the South. Today, the Church has over 400,000 black members. Your quarrel about Church history and doctrine is with the leaders of the Church. Mitt Romney is not an official spokesman for the Church and your effort to cross-examine him about it is simply a manifestation of your own bigotry.

[TElden]

11:49 PM on 05/18/2012

Christopher Brauchli, I was one of those missionaries for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1970-72, before the Church changed its policy. I will tell you what we believed--that the priesthood was given to those that the Lord Jesus Christ had specified, just as in Old Testament times the priesthood was given to Aaron and the tribe of Levi, not the other eleven tribes of Israel. We knew that early prophets of our Church had prophesied that a time would come when all persons would be allowed to hold the priesthood and most of us prayed that it would come. In my own case, during my college years, 1965-1969, one of the reasons I did not actively participate in the Church, although I had been baptized in it at the age of 8 years old, was that I disagreed with the Church's position on blacks' holding the priesthood; consequently, I declined to serve a mission for the Church when I was 19. (I actually played in a soul music band during my college years). However, after graduating from college in Utah, I moved to Chicago. (continued in the next post)

[wwwelling]

10:25 PM on 05/18/2012

What might be interesting would be for some writer to compare what religions have actually DONE to black people rather than singling out the Mormon focus on the Priesthood. To my knowledge, there are still segregated congregations in other Christian denominations. To my knowledge there are still Christian congregations where white congregants will not allow a black pastor. While it is true black males could not be ordained into the LDS Priesthood prior to 1978, Mormons do not have a history of systematic racial discrimination in a whole host of other issues that went to actual physical safety and liberty. I am also intrigued as to why none of these writers seems to care a whit what the LDS Church is doing NOW in Africa and in disadvantaged nations and neighborhoods. They only seem to care about the past of this one denomination.

[edmondsg]

08:51 PM on 05/18/2012

Come on, Mr. Brauchli, don't you think the issue of the school incident is really a stretch? People care about the ECONOMY and world affairs, not some silly thing that happened many years ago. Also the issue of plural marriage in the LDS Church in the past has been beaten to death. Why don't you and many other so-called critics spend some time on the hundreds of positive things about the LDS Church, such as its welfare system, billions of dollars spent to aid the poor and victims of disasters, its emphasis on the family and on principles of honesty, decency, education, and on being a good neighbor? Talk about its people who donate millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours each year to help those in need. Emphasize the "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" called "America's Choir" by Ronald Reagan, that has 360 VOLUNTEER members and has sung all over the world, has the longest running radio program in history, has sung for both Democratic and Republican Presidential innaugurals. See 28,000 young and older men and women go out into the world EACH YEAR at their OWN EXPENSE to teach Christian principles and who become great ambassodors for us. Look at athletes, business people, such as Steven Covey and John Huntsman, scientists and others.
I could go on, but space won't permit it.
This is the kind of culture Mitt Romney comes from and is part of. Don't you think he could possibly make a fairly decent president?

[CarlosG2]

12:52 PM on 05/18/2012

It is not true that the Church didn't welcome Black people before the priesthood ban was lifted. Black people have joined the Church from the days of Joseph Smith, only in small numbers. The priesthood ban was not by any means a central tenet of Mormon doctrine; it was a policy which origin is not completely clear. Mormons don't believe that every word from their leaders is the revealed word of God. Even in my native land, Argentina, I have known in the 70s Black members, some of which in leadership position in auxiliary organizations of the Church. Church leaders are ordinary men, and they can have their private opinions, which can be right or wrong like anyone else's. Only when Mormon leaders speak by virtue of their prophetic calling, their word is considered revelation, and only as long as the Church accepts it as cannon. The Church has been learning line by line, precept by precept over the years, with new revelation adding knowledge and understanding as it was necessary. This article's reference to what Mitt Romney might have taught in France as a missionary is a disingenuous attempt to distract from the real issues that America is confronting, and that this presidential election is about.

[Robert Frano]

12:38 PM on 05/18/2012

Re: “…It's commonly accepted attacks on people's religions is/are not fair game & that in presidential campaigns, candidate-faith-discussion(s) should be kept off the front burner, etc.; (paraphrased)..."

From earlier today:
'http://www.bishop-ccountability.org/news2012/05_06/2012_05_17_TheLocal_MosquesAdvice.htm' describes mixed results from a semi-covert-effort, examining / documenting religio-response to
'spousal abuse'; ...Results?
Some advised the ‘morally correct’ course, (police-notification); some advised 'DON'T rock the boat'!
As a survivor...
I WON'T entertain lame 'justifications' of spousal-/ child-/ other's abuse, PARTICULARLY, under 'spare-the-rod-spoil-the-victim’ rules.

When religious / secular organizations promote anti-social-policies / violence, such as the Mormon’s 'hate-8-million$', W.Jeffs, R.C.C 'R.I.C.O.'-felonies, the recent ($2-3 Billion) JPMorgan losses, etc...
They make themselves 'fair game' for public excoriation, believer-shareholder-customer defections, police intervention, etc.!!

...The alternatives?
A speeded up Neo-Darwinian.Extinction...
Affecting either the anti-social-policies, (hopefully), the organizations, (...for better / worse), AND/OR, human civilization, as these crimes / scandals fail to be corrected!
I label it ‘Neo-Darwinian’ because...it's reminiscent of Dinosauria! Despite archaic-theologies / other obstacles, mono-&-polytheisms accomplish much good, I.M.H.O.!

It would be shameful to see them become mere historic_footnotes because molesters, money-launderers, baby traffickers, religio-terroristas, (&/or, imprimatur / fatwa granting-supervisors, etc.) continued, uncorrected!

[Paulie21]

11:26 AM on 05/18/2012

Lying for the Lord. That's mittens.

[edmondsg]

09:02 PM on 05/18/2012

I've never quite understood this business of "lying for the lord." Please explain. Does it mean Mormons are told by the Lord to lie? Or do they do it on their own? Exactly what lies are you talking about? I would really like to know.

[Paulie21]

10:10 PM on 05/18/2012

google "lying for the lord" it's apparently big in the mormon... religion? cult? read about it.

[lindasdf]

08:37 AM on 05/20/2012

There is no "lying for the Lord" done by us. Now, I have heard where anti-Mormons have proudly claimed to be "lying for the Lord" about what we believe.

[SuperKK]

09:58 AM on 05/18/2012

"in 1978, Spencer W. Kimball, the president of the church, announced that he had had a revelation from God saying that every faithful and worthy man in the church "may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color,""

The only revelation he experienced was that more potential contributors would further enrich the Mormon Church, irrespective of skin color!

[wwwelling]

10:31 PM on 05/18/2012

Sounds like you are claiming a revelation of your own, or is your cynicism simply getting the better of you? Every Church accepts donations from it's members. President Kimball was an extremely humble man and very well respected by world leaders. There is little hope you will ever achieve a thousandth part of what he did that is positive or uplifting.