Mormon Leader Expelled After Charging Church With Racism

By Jerald and Sandra Tanner

---

On September 2, 1989, the Salt Lake Tribune made this startling announcement:

The only American Indian general authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was excommunicated Friday after claiming church leaders are perpetrating a “silent, subtle scriptural and spiritual slaughter” of his race.

George P. Lee, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy since 1975, was stripped of his membership by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for “apostasy” and “other conduct unbecoming a member of the church.” He is the first Mormon general authority excommunicated in 46 years. . . .

His excommunication is significant because Dr. Lee, a Navajo, was considered a church “success story,” himself a product of the LDS program that places impoverished and disadvantaged Indian children with Mormon families.

He claimed church leaders have “turned their backs” on Native Americans and, in pride and arrogance, are discriminating against the very people Mormon scriptures say they must rely on for salvation.

“There is a racist attitude I could just no longer stand,” Dr. Lee, 46, said in an interview . . . “It is aimed at the poor, at the Indians . . .

“They have washed their hands of their responsibilities to the Lamanites,” he said. “My conscience would not allow me to go on.”. . .

Dr. Lee was called to the church leadership by President Spencer W. Kimball, who felt he had a “special assignment” from God to help Native Americans. He said Friday he believes the current church administration has betrayed the dead prophet’s trust. . . .

Church leaders have set themselves up as interpreters of the gospel, rather than its followers, he said. It has resulted in pride, Dr. Lee claims.

“I have heard a few of you declare that you are greater than ancient apostles such as Moses, Abraham, Noah, Isaiah, Isaac, Jacob. . . . This reflects the attitude of all of you,” Dr. Lee said in the letter. “I have heard one or more of you declare that you can change anything Jesus had said or taught. This also reflects the attitude of all of you.”. . .

On September 10, 1989, the Salt Lake Tribune reported the following concerning how the church authorities reacted to his letter to them:

After reading in person a 23-page letter detailing his concerns, Lee said he was astounded at the speed with which he was ousted. Within minutes, two officials came to his office and told him to turn over all church property, including a credit card and a signed pass with which faithful Mormons gain entry to their temples. “I was stripped of everything,” said Lee, 46, a father of seven who is without pension or immediate job prospect. “It was just absolutely cold.”

In a letter that he read to the church hierarchy (photographically reprinted in our booklet, Excommunication of a Mormon Church Leader), Dr. Lee charged church leaders with materialism, pride and having

an attitude of superior race, white supremacy, racist attitude, pride, arrogance, an[d] love of power, and no sense [of] obligation to the poor, needy and afflicted. . . . You are loving the Indians and other Lamanites at a distance . . . you are telling the Lamanites that you are No. 1 and they are second class.
. . .
6. Love of Money. The rich seem to get richer and the poor get poorer . . . In fact you told me to not talk about [the] poor nor pray for them.
. . .
A lot of our Priesthood leaders depend on being paid to attend important priesthood meetings . . . Of course most of these Brethren would go anywhere in the name of ‘The Lord’s Work’ as long as they are being paid and as long as all of their expenses are being paid. Brethren this would include your board memberships and meetings, royalty from written books, and all donations and gifts from friends, speaking engagements and etc.

Dr. Lee’s charge of racism is certainly not new. From its earliest days, Mormonism has had some very unusual teachings with regard to race, skin color and blood. When George P. Lee was called to be a member of the First Quorum of Seventy in 1975, the Mormon leaders had a doctrine which denied blacks the priesthood and marriage in the church’s temples. Indians, on the other hand, were permitted to hold the priesthood, and this made it possible for President Spencer W. Kimball to elevate Lee to the position of a General Authority in the Mormon Church.

In 1978 the Mormon Church leaders announced that their prophet, Spencer W. Kimball, had received a revelation which opened up the priesthood to blacks. The doctrine which the Mormon leaders formerly taught concerning blacks was clearly set forth in a letter written by the First Presidency in 1947: “From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel” (Letter from the First Presidency of the Mormon Church, July 17, 1947, as cited in Mormonism and the Negro, by John J. Stewart, 1960, pages 46-47).

Bruce R. McConkie, who later served as an Apostle in the church, made this statement in 1958:

Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. . . . The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them . . .

The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, . . . (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, page 477)

[Bold in quotations is added for emphasis and does not appear in originals.]

After the anti-black doctrine was altered, Apostle McConkie’s book was revised to reflect the change of doctrine (see 1979 Mormon Doctrine printing, page 529).

Although the church has never had a doctrine forbidding Indians from holding the priesthood, Mormon theology has always taught that a dark skin is a sign of God’s displeasure. This teaching comes directly from Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon. In 2 Nephi 5:21, we read that the Lamanites, who were supposed to be the ancestors of the American Indians, were cursed with a black skin:

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity . . . wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

In Alma 3:6 we read: “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression . . .”

Joseph Smith claimed that the Lamanites eventually destroyed the white skinned people (Nephites) and that the American Indians are the descendants of the ancient Lamanites. Although Mormon theology taught that anyone born with a dark skin was inferior, the Negro was considered to be at the bottom of the scale and therefore could not hold the priesthood. To really understand the anti-black doctrine, however, a person must know something about the Mormon doctrine of pre-existence. One of the basic teachings of the church is that the spirit of man existed before the world was created. From this doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul emerged the idea of some spirits being more noble than others. The Mormon leaders teach that the “more noble” or choice spirits are born as Mormons.

At the time George P. Lee was called to be a General Authority in the Mormon Church, Mark E. Petersen was serving as one of the Twelve Apostles. Apostle Petersen, who died in 1984, held some very strong views concerning Indians and other dark-skinned races. In a speech given at the church’s Brigham Young University, Apostle Petersen gave the following information concerning the doctrine of pre-existence and how it affected the various races:

We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments . . . Is it not reasonable to believe that less worthy spirits would come through less favored lineage? Does this not account in very large part for the various grades of color and degrees of intelligence we find in the earth? . . .

Now let’s talk segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation. . . . In placing a curse on Laman and Lemuel [i.e., the ancestors of the Indians in Mormon theology], He engaged in segregation. . . . When He forbade inter-marriages . . . He established segregation. . . . Who placed the Chinese in China? The Lord did. It was an act of segregation. . . . in the cases of the Lamanites [Indians] and the Negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse—as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. (2 Nephi 5:21) . . .

Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn’t the mercy of God marvelous?

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the Priesthood . . . This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin . . . In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel . . . he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory. (Race Problems—As They Affect The Church, address by Apostle Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)

Ezra Taft Benson, who is now serving as the thirteenth president of the church [1989] and apparently approved the excommunication of George P. Lee, openly opposed the civil rights movement in the 1960’s. The church’s newspaper, Deseret News, December 14, 1963, reported:

Former agriculture secretary Ezra Taft Benson charged Friday night that the civil rights movement in the South had been “fomented almost entirely by the Communists.”

Elder Benson, a member of the Council of the Twelve of the Church . . . said in a speech at a public meeting here that the whole civil rights movement was “phony.”

As we have shown, Mark E. Petersen felt that there should be no intermarriage between “Caucasians” and Indians because there would be an “extension of the curse.” The Book of Mormon itself contains this statement:

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, . . . which was a curse . . . whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed. (Alma 3:6, 9)

It is interesting to note, however, that Joseph Smith had predicted in the Book of Mormon that after the Indians received Mormonism they would eventually become “a white and delightsome people.”

He apparently became so concerned about the Indians becoming “white” that he encouraged intermarriage to speed up the process. Although the church suppressed the fact for well over a century, Joseph Smith even claimed to have a revelation from God encouraging Mormons to marry Indians so that they would eventually become “white.” The important part of the revelation reads as follows:

Verily, I say unto you . . . it is my will, that in time, ye should take wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

In 1976 we were able to examine a microfilm of the original revelation, which is in the Church Historical Department, and sometime later obtained a photocopy of it (appears in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? page 230-B). Finally, in 1979 Church Historian Leonard Arrington and his assistant Davis Bitton published the important portion of the revelation in The Mormon Experience, page 195.

While President Young never released the 1831 revelation, there is evidence that he was familiar with its teaching that the Indians should be made white through intermarriage. In a book published in 1852, William Hall gave the “substance” of a speech delivered by Young:

“. . . We are now going to the Lamanites, to whom we intend to be messengers of instruction. . . . We will show them that in consequence of their transgressions a curse has been inflicted upon them—in the darkness of their skins. We will have intermarriages with them, they marrying our young women, and we taking their young squaws to wife. By these means it is the will of the Lord that the curse of their color shall be removed and they restored to their pristine beauty . . .” (The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, pp. 58-59)

Although Joseph Smith’s 1831 revelation commanding Mormons to marry Indians to make them “white” was suppressed, recent leaders have continued to teach the Book of Mormon doctrine that the Indians become white when they tam to Mormonism. President Spencer W. Kimball, the church prophet who appointed George P. Lee, strongly endorsed that teaching. In the October 1960 LDS General Conference, Kimball observed:

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today . . . they are fast becoming . . . white and delightsome, as they were promised. . . . The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans. . . . These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-923)

The reader will notice that Spencer W. Kimball used the Book of Mormon phrase, “a white and delightsome people.” This is actually a quotation from 2 Nephi 30:6. Nephi prophesied that in the last days the gospel would be declared to the Indians, and “many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people.” Mormon critic Gordon H. Fraser, who worked among the Indians for many years, did not accept the claim that the Indians were becoming white. He maintained that the “skin color” of the Indians “has not been altered in the least because of their adherence to the Mormon doctrines” (What Does the Book of Mormon Teach? p. 46). The Mormon leaders were obviously embarrassed about this Book of Mormon doctrine, and three years after President Kimball gave the revelation removing the curse from the blacks, the very verse President Kimball used to support the idea that the Indians were becoming white was altered. As we have shown, the verse originally stated that the Indians “shall be a white and delightsome people.” In 1981 this embarrassing statement was changed to read that the Indians “shall be a pure and delightsome people.”

Although this one passage has been altered, the doctrine that God cursed the Lamanites with a black skin is still found in a number of other verses (see 1 Nephi 12:23, 2 Nephi 5:21 and Jacob 3:8). In addition, in 3 Nephi 2:15 we read this concerning some of the Lamanites: “And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.”

In the 1979 printing of his book, Mormon Doctrine, pages 428-429, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie proclaimed that in the resurrection righteous Lamanites would have their “skin of blackness” changed to “white”:

. . . a twofold curse came upon the Lamanites . . . “they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations” (1 Ne. 12:23). So that they “might not be enticing” unto the Nephites, “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Ne. 5:20-25; Alma 3:14-16). . . . when groups of Lamanites . . . turned to the Lord, the curse was removed from them. . . . a group of Lamanite converts . . . became white like the Nephites (3 Ne. 2:15-16). . . . in our day . . . the “scales of darkness” shall fall from their eyes; “and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people” (2 Ne. 30:6). Finally, before the judgment bar of God . . . Lamanites and Nephites alike, will be free from the curse of spiritual death and the skin of darkness (Jac. 3:5-9).

In recent years there has been very little discussion concerning the curse of a black skin. The church no longer seems to be proud of its teaching that “a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind” (Juvenile Instructor, vol. 3, p. 157).

[Click here to see the page from the Juvenile Instructor.]

One of the most serious problems George P. Lee seems to have had with church authorities related to the question of who possesses the true blood of Israel. From the time of Joseph Smith until the present there has been a great deal said on this subject. In the History of the Church, vol. 3, page 380, we find these puzzling comments by Joseph Smith concerning a heavenly blood transfusion that the Gentiles must have:

. . . as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence.

Brigham Young, the second prophet of the church, declared:

Take a family of ten children, for instance, and you may find nine of them purely of the Gentile stock, and one son or one daughter in that family who is purely of the blood of Ephraim. It was in the veins of the father or mother, and was reproduced in the son or daughter, while all the rest of the family are Gentiles. You may think that is singular, but it is true. . . . Joseph Smith was a pure Ephraimite . . .

Again, if a pure Gentile firmly believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and yields obedience to it, in such a case I will give you the words of the Prophet Joseph— “When the Lord pours out the Holy Ghost upon that individual he will have spasms, and you would think that he was going into fits.”

Joseph said that the Gentile blood was actually cleansed out of their veins, and the blood of Jacob made to circulate in them; and the revolution and change in the system were so great that it caused the beholder to think they were going into fits. . . . we are of the House of Israel, of the royal seed, of the royal blood. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, pp. 268-269)

The Book of Mormon makes it very clear that Indians are literal descendants of the house of Israel and that they will perform a mighty work in the last times. The Gentiles, on the other hand, are threatened with destruction at the hands of the Indians if they do not repent: “And my people who are a remnant of Jacob [i.e., the Lamanites] shall be among the Gentiles, yea, in the midst of them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he go through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver” (3 Nephi 21:12). Instead of playing the major role, the Gentiles who repent will “assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem” (3 Nephi 21:23).

George P. Lee believed the Book of Mormon prediction that his people will play the major role in the last days and felt that the Mormon Church leaders were deliberately trying to circumvent what God had ordained. In the letter which he presented to the hierarchy the day he was excommunicated, he wrote the following:

1. You have set yourself up as a literal seed of Israel when the Lord Jesus designated you as Gentiles or “adopted Israel[.]” You have set yourself up as [the] true seed of Ephraim thereby displacing the true seed of Israel[.]

You have shoved true Israel out of his own home or house and have given great importance and status to your own role as Ephraim . . . Gentiles or “adopted Israel” have set themselves up as true Ephraimites with little or no obligation or sense of responsibility to the Lamanites and other true seed of Israel. This kind of teaching runs counter to the instructions of the Lord Jesus and collides with the will of God. I cannot be a party to this type of policy or doctrine. It is not God’s but man-inspired[.] It is getting to the point where every Gentile that is baptized is told and taught that he is literal seed of Ephraim unless he is a Jew, Indian or Black. This type of teaching encourages an attitude of superior race . . . I cannot be a party to false teaching, teachings which are man-inspired. . . . You have come very close to denying that the Book of Mormon is about Lamanites. You have cut out Indian or Lamanite programs and are attempting to cut them out of the Book of Mormon. (pp. 13-16)

While George P. Lee is probably correct with regard to the teachings of the Book of Mormon concerning Lamanites and Gentiles, from a Biblical perspective both his view and that held by the Mormon leaders seems to be out of step with the teachings of Jesus. In Mark 9:33-37, we read that some of the Lord’s disciples had been arguing over “who should be the greatest.” Jesus, therefore, “called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.” In the book of Matthew 18:1-4, we find that Jesus answered the question of who was the greatest in the kingdom of heaven by calling “a little child unto him.” He “set him in the midst of them” and then said:

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Apostle Paul made it clear that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). To waste time debating over who has the “royal blood” seems to be an exercise in futility. It is unlikely that either the Mormon leaders or the Lamanites have the blood of Israel.

While it is undoubtedly true that George P. Lee and his people have suffered a great deal because of the racist views held by some of the present church leaders, Dr. Lee must face the fact that a great deal of the prejudice against Indians originated from the Book of Mormon itself. It is that book which tells of God putting a “curse” on the Lamanites and causing “a skin of blackness to come upon them” so that they would be segregated from those with a “white” skin.

Removing More Seventies

The Mormon leaders claim that they have Seventies because Jesus “appointed seventy” to preach the gospel (see A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, 1979, pp. 144-145). At the 159th general conference of the LDS Church, held April 1-2, 1989, Thomas S. Monson declared that because of the “continued rapid growth of the Church,” it had become necessary “to take additional steps to provide for the expansion and regulation of the Church. We announce, therefore, the organization of the Second Quorum of the Seventy . . .” (The Ensign, May 1989, p. 17). Instead of appointing 140 members (2 times 70), only “a total of 78 Seventies” were initially called to “Both Quorums of the Seventy” (Ibid., p. 1).

One would certainly think that the church would have replaced George P. Lee and filled the two quorums at the October 1989 general conference. Instead, however, 16 other members of the two quorums were either “excused from active service” i.e., put on emeritus status—or completely released. The Salt Lake Tribune, October 1, 1989, reported: “Eight members of the First Quorum of the Seventy were granted emeritus status because of age or health. . . . Eight members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy were released after completing five years . . .” No new members were called to either quorum. While the Second Quorum of the Seventy was supposed to be set up “to provide for the expansion and regulation of the Church,” the church now seems to have only sixty-one functioning Seventies! Why the church would cut down the number of Seventies at this time is certainly a mystery.

Another curious thing about this matter is the fact that Paul H. Dunn, who once served as one of the seven members of the “Presidency of the First Quorum of Seventy” was “excused from active service” because of age or health. Some people seem to feel that this was not the real reason. They, in fact, believe it was for the “health” of the church. As far as age is concerned, there appear to be sixteen Seventies older than Mr. Dunn who were not put on emeritus status, and while he may have some problems with his health, many of the other General Authorities are not in good health. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie died of cancer, but was never put on emeritus status, and President Spencer W. Kimball had cancer, heart trouble and other problems but remained president of the church. The current president, Ezra Taft Benson, is 90 years old and very feeble, yet he remains in office.

It is suspected that the church leaders felt that Dunn would eventually become a liability to the church because of some investigative reporting which had been done by Lynn Packer. Mr. Packer, a nephew of Apostle Boyd Packer, at one time worked for the church’s television station, KSL. He was working with that station when the Hofmann story broke but was later fired. Packer felt that his aggressive reporting on the Hofmann affair and his earlier work on the Afco scandal played a role in his dismissal. The church simply did not want all the truth to come to light.

Although he was never indicted for any crime, Paul H. Dunn’s reputation suffered because of the Afco affair. The Wall Street Journal for November 9, 1983, reported:

. . . Paul H. Dunn . . . whose church salary is $40,000 a year, was a director of Afco Enterprises, a real-estate venture until 1978. Afco collapsed four years later; and its owner, Grant C. Affleck, was recently indicted for mail fraud, securities fraud and bankruptcy fraud. Despite Mr. Dunn’s 1978 resignation, records in a U. S. District Court civil suit here show that he continued to have ties with Afco until it entered bankruptcy proceedings in 1982. . . . and gave advice to directors after he resigned. . . . A few days before Afco entered bankruptcy proceedings, Mr. Dunn wrote a disgruntled Afco investor a letter calling Mr. Affleck, a fellow Mormon, “fair and Christlike.” U. S. Attorney Brent Ward . . . says that about 650 investors lost over $20 million through Afco investments.

From what we can learn, Lynn Packer continued to investigate this subject after he was dismissed from KSL and found that Dunn’s involvement in Afco was far deeper than was previously reported. In addition, he came to believe that some of Dunn’s statements concerning his earlier life were not true. We contacted Mr. Packer on October 2, 1989, and he informed us that he could make no statement for the Messenger concerning these matters. Packer also refused to discuss a report that he had been threatened with retaliation if he published the story.

Notwithstanding Mr. Packer’s refusal to confirm these matters, we have very good reason to believe that he has been investigating Mr. Dunn. We do not know whether the charges can be proven, but we are very concerned that there may have been an attempt to suppress the truth concerning the Afco scandal. In any case, the church’s release of Paul Dunn from active service at this critical time does look suspicious. If the charges should prove true, it would raise another question: is it fair to merely retire Dunn with full honors while publicly humiliating George P. Lee with excommunication?

---

---