The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

I found this item via a link posted on the Politico website. If you go to the Post's own site, it's buried and buried deep. I have to wonder whether it would be buried quite so deep if Clinton, Edwards, or Obama were engaged in this sort of thing.

This one looks an awful lot like the recent case of Romney's anti-Mormon push polling. Romney pinned that on the McCAIN-Feingold act, and then his campaign trotted out two people who had received anti-Mormon calls and they also pinned it on McCAIN.

A day or two later, it turned out that those people who had gotten the calls were paid Romney staffers. Neither of them had told the media who they were working for, and the media had conveniently forgotten to ask. One of them had even said that she was "leaning" toward Romney but was still undecided -- this, after having received thousands of dollars as a Romney field organizer.

The obvious followup is to find out whether these "witnesses" have been on Romney's payroll. And, while you're at it, you might see if someone can write a more prominent story about Mitt Romney's habit of telling lies, and then telling more lies after he's been caught.

The MLK flap is not the first time that Mitt Romney's been caught lying. I congratulate the Post for its checking of facts, but now the newspaper as a whole has got to follow up and treat him and his lies exactly the same way that you'd treat it if he were a top-tier Democrat.

This story is a prime example of the tenous relationship Romney and other Mormon leaders have with truth.

However, Romney cannot run on his father's civil rights record. Whether or not his father did or didn't march with MLK is not a point for or against Mitt. The more important question is: What did Mitt do?

The LDS church maintained a racist policy of denying full membership to blacks until 1978. The text of the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scripture equate righteousness with skin color. 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 he still believe that he is more "valiant" or "worthy" than blacks by virtue of being born white? 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? Did he counsel members to not accept this church teaching when he was a church missionary, bishop or stake president? He admitted in NY Times interview that he never questioned or protested this racist doctrine and the policy it supported.

Why not?

Well, a partial explanation can be found in Mormon culture where Mormons are taught the when the church prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.

Mormons are taught that they must always follow the instructions of the church prophet, even if they think he is wrong. Here is their statement from an article in the Liahona a LDS publication from June 1981:

"First Presidency Message:

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet", especially points:

"Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time".

"Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter--temporal or spiritual".

"Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters".

"Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed--reject them and suffer".

"President Marion G. Romney [Mitt's father] tells of this incident which happened to him:

"I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home ... Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.'"(Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)"

It is intereating to 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. Pearl of Great Price). 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.

Marion G. Romney had a good civil rights record. I know this because my aunt was a firm and steadfast campaigner for civil rights in America.

What a pity that Mitt Romney now risk besmirching the proud record of his father's civil rights record. One thing is certain. Mitt Romney is no Marion G. Romney.

From the beginning, this story has been very poorly sourced. Originally, the Phoenix, an alternative rag with an obvious agenda called the county historical society to ask if the story was true. Having been a curator of a county historical society, I know that is no way to proceed. Holdings are donated and not exaustive and curators are no experts.
In history, it is the participants in events and their accounts that have the most authority. Dismiss two contemporaries and watch 30 more surface.
Smartaleck reporters too young to know anything are in no position to be calling people liars by taking a general allusion and then trying to tie it down to a day and time. WaPo should be better than this.

All it would take to put a end to this is for a few journalists to go to a Detroit library and look at some old papers and see what was reported "at the time". If George Romney was there with King it will say so. If not well it will say that too.

Has anyone mentioned? While Romney is trying to assume credit for his father's record on race relations, he himself did not attend Tavis Smiley's Debate centered around topics of race.

Dr. Claire, didn't you even bother to readn the item you commented on? T.this story is not sourced from a county historical society. The Washington Post and the Detroit Free Press have cross-checked the contemporaneous reports and contacted the so-called "eyewitnesses."

Mitt Romney lied about this one, pure and simple.

The previous comment is ridiculous.

Mormon apostle, L. Tom Perry, in an Oct. 2003 speech to the general membership of the church, said the following:

"We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.

"Brigham Young is reported to have said that the greatest fear he had was that members of the Church would take what he said as the mind and will of God without first praying and obtaining a witness of the same for themselves."

Young's comment was published in the Deseret News in 1857. Mormons have been taught to think for themselves throughout their history. George Romney being a Class A example.

In a similar vein, Mormon missionaries always ask others to think, study, and pray about their message. If they do, God will provide an answer through the Holy Ghost. This thoughtful approach to Church claims is probably why the church continues to grow at a rapid pace, despite the unfair attacks and anti-Mormon propaganda that has been poured upon it since its very inception.

To contact a Mormon missionary, go to this url and click "Ask a Question":

http://mormon.org

They will be more likely to provide accurate information on Church beliefs than anonymous posters like anyone on this message board.

By the way, I'm supporting McCain. Romney's weasely ways are his own, even though they open vicious attacks up on his faith, like the one above.

Edit to my recent comment above - I was responding to caedmon, not Magic Dog. I meant "previous comment" in a figurative way. :)

Here is a link with references to 4 historical books that claim George Romney and MLK did indeed march together.

occidentalvalues.blogspot.com/2007/12/george-romney-and-martin-luther-king.html

Responding to caedmon:
1) Marion G. Romney was not George Romney, Mitt's real father. President Marion G. Romney was a councilor in the Presidency of the LDS Church.

2) The LDS church leaders do not tell members how to vote or act politically, witness Harry Reid and Orin Hatch, two very different political philosophies.

3) The LDS church leaders do advise on how members should live their personal lives. The LDS church believes in allowing people agency in making their own choices and, therefore, allows its members to make their own decisions regarding voting about how society should be regulated as a whole. The LDS church values allowing people agency. Even though members are taught not to drink Coffee, I doubt you will find any members who want a law inacted to ban Coffee.

3) Elder Helvacio Martins was the first black in 'top leadership' of the church. He was called in 1990.

http://occidentalvalues.blogspot.com/2007/12/george-romney-and-martin-luther-king.html

SYNOPSIS:...at least four historical Books about MLK and 1960s politics state that King and Romney did March together...George Romney was a guest at King's funeral along with RFK...as Governor and HUD Secretary Romney was a noted non-black Civil Rights leader of his day...George Romney was recognized along with King and RFK as one of four leaders popular among disadvantaged black youths in a 1967 survey...link below to photograph of MLK and Lenore Romney (Mitt's mother)...link below to photo of Romney being heckled by racist protesters in 1960s for HUD efforts... and most important, George Romney himself, led a march of 10,000 people through Detroit to protest after Bloody Sunday occurred in Selma, Alabama...see below

David S. Bernstein did a shabby and extremely slanted job researching and writing his article Was it All a Dream? which questions Mitt Romney's assertion that his father, Governor George Romney marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dispensing with the issue of whether a teenage Romney ever actually saw his father marching arm-locked with King, Bernstein and the Phoenix have done an extremely one-sided job by insinuating that it is proven fact that the two never marched together and that Romney recently made up the story out of whole cloth. Either Bernstein failed to do basic research, or ignored the facts he found.

Bernstein's headline reads: "Mitt Romney claims that his father marched with MLK, but the record says otherwise".

I ask, what record Mr. Bernstein? Where does your article show us one "record" that says Romney and King never marched together? Not having after hours access to libraries or archives, and just using google I have found three books, here, here, and here that state that the two did march together (and that's not counting David Broder's book, written four decades ago which would be number four!)

Unlike Bernstein and the Phoenix, I am not going to make grandiose assertions that a King-Romney march has been scientifically proven to have occurred, and it is evident that some writers have Romney marching on June 23, 1963, whereas others say that he issued a proclamation but avoided that particular March because it was held on his Sabbath. My point is that the whole thrust of Bernstein's piece is to insinuate that Romney recently made the story up. That is hogwash. Take this extremely biased line: "Nor did Mitt Romney ever previously claim that this took place, until long after his father passed away in 1995 -- not even when defending accusations of the Mormon church's discriminatory past during his 1994 Senate campaign." Basically, Bernstein is saying that if the story were true, then Romney would have bragged about it in the past. In other words, Bernstein is saying that Romney recently made the up the story to guild his "Faith in America" speech.

But the overwhelming weight of facts show that it is entirely reasonable for Romney to have believed his father did in fact march with King (and--barring proof otherwise, may have actually done so). Allow me to list just a few...I found today:

First, four published books by historians and reporters published long before 2007 say King and Romney marched together (see above). That would generally be good enough for a Presidential campaign to make a historical assertion without being accused of lying; second, Mitt's older brother Scott Romney says he recalls his father saying he marched with King; third, George Romney himself led a Civil Rights march in Detroit to show solidarity with King after the defining Selma travesty (see here and here); fourth, Coretta Scott King's biography and other books indicate that George Romney, along with RFK, were guests at Martin Luther King's funeral (see here and here); fifth, I have not yet found a photo of George Romney and MLK together, but I did find this one of Mitt's mother, Lenore Romney with MLK; sixth, as HUD Secretary, Romney was a prime mover in making housing affordable for poor blacks (see here). In fact, when Romney sought to open white neighborhoods to blacks, like King before him he was heckled by racist protestors (check out the lower right-hand picture in this article, here); seventh, Romney visited Watts in 1967 (see here); eighth, Romney declared two days of statewide mourning for death of Viola Liuzzo during which time King went on Meet the Press to protest Viola Liuzzo's murder by the KKK (see here and here); ninth, Coleman Young writes that Michigan blacks reached a Zenith when Romney was governor (see here) and another writer describes George Romney as a Civil Rights Republican (see here). Yet another historian says that Romney "believed that Civil Rights of black Americans, deserved the unwavering support of the Republican party..." (see here); tenth, disadvantaged black youths in a 1967 survey cited Martin Luther King, Jr., Rev. Nicholas Hood, Robert Kennedy and you guessed it...George Romney as their most popular leaders (see here).

I could go on, but my point is that Bernstein is insinuating that Romney is lying and is ignoring a huge amount of information that is easily obtainable on the internet or in a university library. If being a reporter were MY FULL TIME JOB, I would have already flown out to Lansing to see MSU's collection of 50,000 photographs, where (I have a hunch) the Mitt Romney campaign might find a lot more things to brag about. So the fact that Bernstein failed to even check those historical records readily available on the internet beats me!

That a 60 year old Romney (between the ages of 15-21 during King's marching years), familiar with all of the above background information, believes that his dad marched with MLK, is highly understandable. The record shows that his dad MARCHED FOR KING. I think Romney may get the last laugh on this one...

Basically, George Romney was one of the most progressive white leaders of his day. He probably belongs in the ranks of the Kennedy brothers, Everett Dirksen, LBJ and others.

In Sum: If in fact thorough research (which will take some time) shows that either 1) Romney and King did march together or 2)These historians and reporters were citing each other on a mistaken fact as to the June 23, 1963 march, the fact remains that George Romney did indeed lead a march for Civil Rights (whether or not King was with him at the time) and that George Romney was a Civil Rights leader in general and that he marched in solidarity with King in immediate response to Selma--the most defining Civil Rights episode of the era.

This story really isn't about finding truth or if a politician used the word "saw" literally or figuratively, it's about MSM Democrat newspapers & journalists not wanting Republicans to have any credentials when it comes to civil rights.

When in fact the GOP has a rich history of civil right achievements. Mitt was quite right to call out his dads legacy on this issue.

Especially because the context that liberal MSM was implying that he is a racist because he's a Mormon.

I only want to say that CAEDMON who posted the comments on the church, should get their facts straight. Starting with the fact that Marion G. Romney is not Mitt's father.... you have know idea what you are talking about and should know before you post slanted lies...Blacks have always been in the church...you my friend have know idea what you are talking about.

The difference between things literal and things figurative has long been a problem for Mormons and Mormonism.

If you read the first few pages in any copy of the Book of Mormon you will read the testimonies of witnesses who saw and angel and held the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

It's only when you look further into this that you will discover they didn't literally see or touch the golden plates but rather did so with their "spiritual eyes" (whatever that means).

So Mitt is simply following an age old Mormon tradition of being somewhat economic with the actualite.

It turns my stomache to see my cherished beliefs defined by its antagonists and then skewered. Anyone want to volunteer YOUR beliefs to be next on the chopping block? Mormons don't have to renounce doctrines they never held. When the prophet speaks, and it isn't ratified as doctrine, it ISN'T DOCTRINE! But that really frustrates me is anti-Mormons who want to seize on every statement made by a church leader or member, call it Mormon Doctrine, and then mock it. Well, again, I ask you the reader, could YOUR beliefs, or anyone else's EVER withstand that kind of scrutiny?

George Romney marched in civil rights marches. MLK marched in civil rights marches. Mitt remembers his father saying that he marched with MLK, and says "I saw my father march with MLK." He didn't say, "I was standing on the sidewalk and watched them march by." If he had said "I was a witness of my father's involvement in the civil rights movement." That would have been more accurate. He was making a point, and that point stands. His father before him, and now he himself, champion the belief, the cherished Mormon belief, that we are all equal before God, and ought to treat each other accordingly. Incidentally, my own notion is that God held back the church from full acceptance of blacks in leadership because we were falling short of what it would take to be as accepting as we ought to have been, and none of us should be proud of that. Unfortunately, it has never been as easy to BE a Christian as it is to claim to be one. I think we're doing pretty darn well on that account these days.

Contemporaneous news reports carry more weight than eyewitnesses?

Since when?

Try arguing THAT in a court of law.

You get "4 Numbskulls" for being such an idiot.

I'm raising my BS count to 5 heaping loads of crap for Dobbs "fact checking".

"Any doubts on this score were dispelled on July 23, 1963 when a massive civil rights demonstration lead by Reverend King took place in Detroit. Between 150,000 and 200,000 people participated, about 90 per cent of them black...Mayor Cavanagh, Governor George Romney, and Walter Reuther were among the prominent whites marching with Reverend King."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fa_f3oz0Q2kC&pg=PA487&dq=%22Governor+George+Romney%22+%26+King&lr=&sig=GWo5eaPFVy1dyIMgA4eVSPCrQ14

Next time, try actually checking some facts.

I'm glad the Washington Post officially looked into this instead of letting Mitt "Flip FLopper" Romney's team steer the conversation.

It is clear and should be for ALL Republicans that Romney can not be trusted and will change his mind to get elected. He is a poor politician and the worst version of a flip flopper. The only reason he is in this election is because he is super rich.

He can't win in the General Election. He couldn't beat Kennedy in 1994 what makes any sane person think he can beat Clinton.

"Well, it was somebody who certainly looked like him."

I can see how Ms. Robertson was mistaken. Gov Romney was standing next to some black guy and she just assumed it had to be MLK. Why else would a black person be in Grosse Pointe. You know what they say: They all [black people] look alike.

Mitt Romney is a liar.

This doesn't surprise me. Romney's latest spin on this topic rue's Slick Willy (Clinton).

Only one candidate from any Party is a straight talker - John McCain: straight talk confuses political spin-meisters.

http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/search?q=straight+talk

This is just a straight time line, no editorializing. It's amazing.

Romney welled up on "Meet the Press" when he told Tim Russert that he pulled over to the side of the road and literally wept when he heard that the Mormon Church had reversed it's position on blacks in the church. He buttressed that story by saying that he saw his father March with Martin Luther King.

A day or so later we find out that Romney did not in fact ever see his father march with King.

Romney responded:

"If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes being aware of in the sense I've described," he said. "It's a figure of speech and very familiar and it's very common and I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/romney-questioned-about-king-and-other-statements/

He also said:

"I saw him in the figurative sense," he told reporters.

"The reference of seeing my father lead in civil rights," he addedd, "and seeing my father march with Martin Luther King is in the sense of this figurative awareness of and recognition of his leadership."

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/romney_did_he_s.html

Then this came out in the Boston Globe:

Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he

said: "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."

Then, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true. "Mitt Romney did not march with Martin Luther King," he said in an e-mail statement to the Globe.

Just follow that...

Remember boys, you have upheld me as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.

When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking is done.

Have you boys forgotten my words about the Children of Cain?

I have told you that God has marked them with dark skin as a punishment and that they have no right to authority over us, the Seed of Adam -- be it either in church or in civil government.

"Speach by Gov. Young in Joint Session of the Legeslature.
Feby. 5th 1852 giving his veiws on slavery.

I rise to make a few remarks...

It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants...

Under these sercumstances there blessings in life are greater in proportion than those who have to provide the bread and dinner for them...

I will not consent for one moment to have an african dictate me or any Bren. with regard to Church or State Government. I may vary in my veiwes from others, and they may think I am foolish in the things I have spoken, and think that they know more than I do, but I know I know more than they do. If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?

...

But say some, is there any thing of this kind in the Constitution, the U.S. has given us? If you will allow me the privilege telling right out, it is none of their damned buisness what we do or say here...

What we are trying to do to day is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privilege. My voice shall be against all the day long. I shall not consent for one moment I will will call them a counsel. I say I will not consent for one moment for you to lay a plan to bring a curse upon this people. I shall not be while I am here."

Reproduced here:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm

Brigham Young's Speech on Slavery, Blacks, and the Priesthood

Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852,
located in the LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah

"FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHET
BY
ELDER Ezra Taft Benson
February 26, 1980"

(Speaking five years before he became the senior Prophet of the LDS church.)

"My beloved brothers and sisters, I am honored to be in your presence today. You students are a part of a choice young generation--a generation which might well witness the return of our Lord. Not only is the Church growing in numbers today, it is growing in faithfulness and, even more important, our young generation, as a group, is even more faithful than the older generation. God has reserved you for the eleventh hour--the great and dreadful day of the Lord. It will be your responsibility not only to help bear off the kingdom of God triumphantly but to save your own soul and strive to save those of your family and to honor the principles of our inspired constitution.

To help you pass the crucial tests which lie ahead I am going to give you today several facets of a grand key which, if you will honor them, will crown you with God's glory and bring you out victorious in spite of Satan's fury. Soon we will be honoring our prophet on his eighty-fifth birthday. As a Church we sing the song, "We Thank Thee, O God, For a Prophet." Here then is the grand key: follow the prophet. And here now are fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet, the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

...

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter--temporal or spiritual.

Said Brigham Young:

Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs... .

In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, "Ye Elders of Israel.... will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the Kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?" Not one of them could do it....

I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be. [Journal of Discourses, 10:363-364]

Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

When a people are righteous they want the best to lead them in government. Alma was the head of the Church and of the government in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo, and Brigham Young was governor of Utah. Isaiah was deeply involved in giving counsel on political matters and of his words the Lord Himself said, "Great are the words of Isaiah" (3 Nephi 23:1). Those who would remove prophets from politics would take God out of government."

...

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

...

Full text reproduced here -> http://www.lds-mormon.com/fourteen.shtml

Bryan wrote>2) The LDS church leaders do not tell members how to vote or act politically, witness Harry Reid and Orin Hatch, two very different political philosophies.

"Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

"Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear," complained Nephi's brethren. But Nephi answered by saying, "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center" (1 Nephi 16:1, 3). Or, to put it in another prophet's words, "Hit pigeons flutter."

Said President Harold B. Lee:

You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life.... Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow.... Let's keep our eye on the President of the Church. [in Conference Report, October 1970, p. 152-153)

But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. "Even in the Church," said President Kimball, "many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterday's prophets and mentally stone the living ones" (Instructor, 95:257).

Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or mind their own business. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

Said President Marion G. Romney, "It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets." And then he gives this illustration:

One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me, an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted him enough so he would listen, I said, "Why did you come to America?" "I am here because a prophet of God told me to come." "Who was the prophet;" I continued. "Wilford Woodruff." "Do you believe Wilford Woodruff was a prophet of God?" "Yes, I do." "Do you believe that President Joseph F. Smith was a prophet of God?" "Yes, sir."

Then came the sixty-four dollar question. "Do you believe that Heber J. Grant is a prophet of God?" His answer, "I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old age assistance."

Now I tell you that a man in his position is on the way to apostasy. He is forfeiting his chances for eternal life. So is everyone who cannot follow the living Prophet of God." [in Conference Report, April 1953, p. 125]"

Full text reproduce here -> http://www.lds-mormon.com/fourteen.shtml

I have a few comments about how wrong you are about my church

1) Blacks were not denied full membership into the church until 1978. The men were given the right to the Melchezedic priesthood at that point. That has nothing to do with full membership into the church. Full membership is obtained through baptism by emersion and the laying on of hands confirming you a member of the church. Priesthood is NOT required membership if so there would be no women members of the church because women do not hold the priesthood. The subject of the priesthood with African American men is a subject that needs to be studied and looked into carefully. I looked into the church for years until I joined and this was a topic that I had issues with primarily being from VA. But please note how quickly the church is growing in Africa and among African Americans. I would suggest talking to an African American LDS member as they tend to know and understand and know the history of this subject more than anyone else. The church is not going to apologize for the Ban on blacks holding the priesthood because it has no need to. THe church presidency is not concerned with your feelings on the subject. The church is not going to apalogize for statements church members have made that have a racist edge because for one it has never been endorsed or considered church Doctrine and it's not the responsibility of the church to do so. If you believe otherwise thats fine but church members, including African Americans...don't really care. The fact that you would comment stating that there are no blacks that have held high church offices shows how ignorant you are on the issue. there are black bishops all over the US. My bishop in VA is black, My stake president in the Philadelphia stake is black and I'm going to guess that 99.9% of church offices in Africa are held by blacks. But hey...that's just me. It could be that my knowledge that Africa is made primiarly of blacks and in fact is mostly populated by whites could be false. There are blacks currently serving in the quorums of the seventy. Just look it up at the church website. There is no basis or Doctrine concerning the issue of blacks and the priesthood because there has never been any doctrine or statement released as to why. The comment that the basis of this being in the Pearl of Great price is completely false. I've read the Pearl of Great Price countless times have scriptures memorized and I have no idea where you get this from. There is no doctrine or basis in church scripture over the issue. One reason it is presumed that this law was made because of growing persecution of black slaves and of the church. This included murder, driving members from their homes. Killing and raping slaves. In Missouri it was legal and encouraged for people to kill Mormons. It was legal to murder a slave or a black for whatever reason. Now from I gather of American history, and I could be wrong, there was an issue in the contry called "slavery". It's the opinion of many church members that one of these reasons for both the safety of the church (including the black members) and the black slaves. TO have a large black LDS population would have meant to have primarily slave LDS members. The only black members of the church were free. And since the church's growth took place modtly in the south there weren;t a whole lot of free blacks walkign around. The church is not going to break the laws of the land to obtain church membership that would greatly risk the lives of everyone else (even more so than there already were). To have a slave join the church and join the movement would mean great danger for the church, the slave, and the remaining slaves of wherever the person came from. I could go on and on and on. Also in the early establishment of the church black members were given the rights of the priesthood. When this was banned it was in the middle of great persecution of the church and the peak of many atrosities to black slaves. The blacks who had the authortiy of the priesthood given to them already were not stripped of this. There were (very very very scarce) black members that had church offices. But like I said previously and I am very serious about this, the best persepectives and information on the history are of black members of the church. There were also issues in Africa in modern times that I believe pertained to this issue. For one the only country that would allow the LDS church until right before 1978 was South Africa and blacks could not be members of the church because of the countries policies of the whites and blacks intergrating (not the churchs) . And in order for them to be able to join the church and be given the priesthood a white person would have to baptise them and give them the gift of the priesthood. When this idiotic anti intergration law thousands of blacks were baptised immediately and at that time other African countries lightened there laws that prevented blacks from joining the church. As these laws changed is when the church announced that blacks would be once again given the the priesthood. There are countless things that could attribute to why this law was put to place. It's all matter of opinion however no matter how true it may seem to some because there has never been any doctrine or official reason why this took place. Talk to a black member if you are really concerned about this issue. But I have a feeling you would rather be a know it all punk about the issue. Word of advice don't talk about something you know nothing about. Because to people who know their church and church policies you look like an idiot. It's one thing to say "I don't understand therefore based on what little understanding I do have I don't agree." That is very understandable and respectable since people including members of the church such as myself who is a convert understand how these things can seen as negative when not fully understood. However don't run your mouth as if you do.
2.) Marion G Romney is NOT Mitt Romney's son. Marion G Romney is the first cousin of former MI governor George Romney, Mitt's father. Do your research.
3.) The BOM does not equate righteousness with skin color. One of the greatest prophets in the BOM is "SAMUEL THE LAMANITE" who had dark skin.
3) The church does not say that the members HAVE to follow the president of the church if they believe he is wrong. The church Doctrine on this issue is the member should pray and go to God for the answer before blindly following any church official. We believe prayers are answered. I will also stress how inportant the Doctrine of Free Agency is to the church. I quote the 11th article of faith.
"We claim the privilege to worship almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same priveldge. Let them worship how where or what they may" The fact that you quoted a story that a man shared in a 1960 conferebce has absolutely no merit. Some guy told a story about an event in his life that meant something to him and you translate that into "the church says you have to listen to the president if you yourself think he is wrong" is crap get a life but I hope you enjoyed the story.
Also lets go on the theory (which is my solem belief) that the presdient of our church is the true mouth piece of God. Make sense to me the mouthpece of God wouldn't lead people astray. Makes sense. I do appreciate you though listing the church's stances of the Prophets role in the church it was nice to revise them.
4.) Romney has never tried to run on Father's civil rights record. This country's civil rights issue is not issue it once was. I've been watching this campaign very closely read all articles and quotes of Romney as well as watching the debates and I have seen almost nothing on his fathers civil record other than this one stupid topic in the news.

should we start a fact checker blog checking the facts used on washington post's fact checker site?

for anyone interested, here's a great timeline of black history in the Mormon church, alongside other historical events. While it is true that many of its leaders said some things that are often quoted by anti-Mormons, one should know that Mormon leaders are human too and at that time there was a strong general attitude among all Christian whites in America that some Mormon leaders carried over into their speeches. A speech or interview or other quotes made by these men are something quite different than official doctrine or policy ... and this timeline highlights the true Christ-like attitude that Mormons had towards blacks from day one. Even Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, took a black into his home and treated as one of the family.

http://www.blacklds.org/history