All Comments (26)

Pop Quiz:

1. Federal Laws & War Against the US
Name the American religious sects that demonstrated their respect for federal laws by supporting secession from the Union and supporting the civil war against the Federal Government - resulting in more American deaths than any other war ever fought?

2a. Name the American religious sects that supported and sponsored the Klu Klux Klan - the most serious threat to the rule of law outside of organised crime?

2b. What percentage of Klan members were Mormon?

2c. Bonus question: 75% of the ministers of which American sect were Klan members at the height of its violence and lawlessness? (Clue: this church is regularly reported as the largest in the USA)

Religious Tolerance
1a. True of False? "Mormons picket other faith's church buildings."

1b. Which is greater: (A) The number of occasions Mormons have helped other faiths find, build or repair venues for worship or (B) The number of occasions "mainstream" sects have helped Mormons find, build or repair venues for worship?

1c. (Bonus Question) Who is more likely to burn, bomb or vandalize another's church - a Mormon or a member of a "mainstream" church?

2. Are you more likely to find books attacking other sects in (A) A Mormon-owned Deseret Books store or (B) A store owned by members of a "mainstream" faith?

3. True of False? The first states to elect Jewish governors were the two with the highest percentage of Mormon voters?

4. True or False: "Christ taught that his followers are obligated to witness to others."

4a. Did Christ teach that the best way to witness for Him was (A) By attacking the beliefs of others using any means possible or (B) By serving as a Christian example, humbly explaining one's own beliefs and by providing selfless service to others?

Racism
1. How many black churches have been firebombed by Mormons?

2. How many blacks were lynched by Mormons?

3. Name the American religious sect that was created specifically to allow its members to support the institution of slavery

4. True or False: "Mormons have always permitted blacks to worship in their churches."

4a. How many "mainstream" churches are still segregated?

4c. (Bonus question) Which "mainstream" church recently had one of its congregations try to exhume from its cemetery the body of an infant because it was found to be of mixed race?

Crazy Teachings
1. Are Mormons or "Mainstream" sects more likely to believe in:
(a) Creationism?
(b) Literal whole-earth flood?
(c) Conspiracy theories relating to the end of the world?
(d) Extreme Biblical inerrancy?
(e) Speaking/praying unintelligibly "in tongues"
(f) Law-breaking to fight abortion providers

2. Are (A) Mormons or (B) "mainstream" sect members more likely to believe the money-making claims of televangelists?

3. True or False "A recent study found that the higher a person's level of education, the less likely they were to believe in their religion - with one exception. For Mormons the reverse was true - their level of belief and observance actually rose with their levelk of education.

4. True or False "The vast majority of people of "mainstream" sects are unaware of the strong case that can be made from the Bible for most uniquely Mormon beliefs."

Horrible History
1a. True or False "Most members of "mainstream" sects know little of the historical origins of their own sects' teachings.

1b. True or False "Virtually every "mainstream" sect whitewashes the sins committed in the name of its God in the past.

Henry James:

It is true that I am idealistic. And optimistic.

It is clear that the two of us have had very different experiences regarding this issue, and it seems unlikely that either of us will be able to say much to change the other's views. You have not lived my life and I have not lived yours. I find it difficult to accept that someone such as President Benson could teach such wonderful spiritual doctrines and yet have the un-Christlike attributes of which you speak, but I trust God's judgment. He knows the whole story. He knows each of His children perfectly, and He loves us all. He Who ordered the uncountable worlds, the Prime Mover, will surely not lead His children astray. Of the divine appointment of Benson and the other Prophets of this era I testify; whatever their personal faults may be, when they speak in the name of the Almighty their words are desirable to make one happy.

I can only pray that the people of the Church will continue to improve themselves and progress towards achieving Christlike love for all their fellowbeings regardless of inconsequentials such as skin color. Is not that part of the threefold mission of the Church? To redeem the dead, take the Gospel to the world, and perfect the Saints?

I look forward with hope and trust in Christ, that when He comes all vestiges of this and other hatreds will be swept away in the recognition that we are all children of God. I hope -- and believe -- that the Saints will be ready by the time He arrives.

I look forward to meeting you face-to-face in that great day,

Light Walker.

Light Walker

I like you. You are a kind and loving person. And idealistic.

I have hundreds of Utah relatives. My Grandfather, Grandson of Brigham Young's second counselor, was such a racist that even as a 7 year old in 1955 I could tell he was. He was typical of his generation. Most Mormons from Utah never talked about Blacks unless they had to: not to many in the state, but as Granpa said "I hate to see them on TV".

Benson was a notorious Racist. Unless one is an apologist on sees the thoroughgoingness of his bigotry. Nice Guy for God to choose as a Prophet. A really Ugly spirit on that Dude.

Brigham Young's quotes have HUNDREDS of racist statements included. Context Smontext.

The Church PRACTICED racism for 150 years in denying the priesthood to Black People because they were Black. God told them to. It was the Official Blinkin Policy.
The Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon have racistly disparaging comments about people with dark skin.

It really is not to ambiguous.

Love you
Henry

Responding to Roy:

IF what you say about racism in the Church is true -- and it runs counter to my life experiences -- than it will not remain so for very long. The number of people belonging to the Church who live outside of the US recently caught up with the number of those who live inside. Many of those baptisms are in Central and South America and Africa. In fact, so far as I know the majority of new converts in recent years have been people of color. This demographic does not seem likely to change in the near future, so the Church may eventually have many more colored members than white ones. In such a situation, I feel that those white Church members who are truly dedicated to the cause of Christ will overcome any lingering prejudice in their own hearts. Those whose dedication is less pure will fall away and follow other paths. I think it was Joseph Smith who once said that 'a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.' The LDS faith is a very demanding one -- a forgiving and merciful one also, but strict in many of it's requirements. Over time, the Church will self-purge. Being an optimist, I think that most of the members will get over any discriminative feelings they have rather than choosing to leave.

I should mention that I have never met any fellow Mormon in whom I ever detected the slightest trace of racist leanings. I have not, of course, met even a fraction of the Mormons in the world (about 13 million now) BUT I have lived not only in Salt Lake City but also in two cities in New York state, Colorado, and a number of other places.

Now I need to go eat lunch. :) Have a nice day.

There is a significant difference between Mormons in Utah and the rest of the world. I have found Mormons outside Utah to be like everyone else - many are racist but most aren't.

In Utah, where I grew up in the era of the notorious Bircher and racist Ezra Taft Benson, nearly all Mormons I knew were racist against Blacks and Mexicans touting scripture about the curse of God in the pre-existance. Ogden was a segregated town where I never encountered a Black or Mexican in school until I reached high school. My Mormon neighbors, including the Bishop were so upset at the prospect of a Black family moving into our neighborhood, that they pooled their money and credit to offer the seller a better price. Non-mormons, called gentiles, were discriminated against in school and in the workplace.

Have times changed there? I doubt it. In a strict ethnocentric environment, racism is passed from generation to generation. My ex-wifes Mormon brothers set the example for their children by lamenting the fact that a Black like Tiger Woods could be successful in golf, calling him the "n" word in the presence of their kids.

Mormons outside Utah are amazed at peoples dislike of the Church but if they lived in Utah or Southern Idaho, they might understand better.

Responding to Henry James:

Thank you for clarifying your references and points, and for offering me the opportunity to see yet another facet of how people view the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Context is everything.

1) Disregarding for the moment older Church history, which I will address more in a moment, all those reading this should be aware that in 1978 the Church issued an official declaration stating that all the blessings God has to offer mankind, particularly the Priesthood, were henceforth universally available. This revelation takes precedence over any previous statements and policies. As of the time of this writing, the Church treats all members equally regardless of race, and any church member who does otherwise is proceeding incorrectly and is in conflict with official Church doctrine.

My own personal experience growing up in an inner-city branch in New York State also shows the depth of Christlike love which extends between members regardless of race.

Now that the Church's current position on the issue is established, let us move on to history.

A random positive side note I stumbled across while researching this: Utah was the second place in the world where women had the right to vote.

2a) The quotes you offer are taken from the Journal of Discourses. As you are probably aware, this Journal is a publication which is not embraced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as scriptural or canonical. The Church's official stance is as follows:

"The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It includes practical advice as well as doctrinal discussion, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest."

2b) As I stated in my previous post, the critical question here is not whether these two men made racist comments. The question is whether they made racist comments while acting as Prophets of God -- which is the part of your original post that I disagree with. As I stated previously, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines "discrimination" in this context as 'to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.'

Similarly, it would be discriminatory to judge an entire religion based on the personal beliefs of two individuals, however important to that religion those two might have been.

Also note that the site you cited contains numerous references to personal conversations, confidential letters, and other unverifiable sources of information which clearly represent the personal opinions of President Benson (and may not actually do so accurately as the author seems to have a definite prejudice against the man transcending mere disagreement). Indeed, the author on this site sometimes does not even quote his source materials and essentially says "you'll have to trust that my interpretation of this is unbiased and accurate."

SO: If these two made racist remarks in their role as Prophets, then your statement "Two Prophets make up for a lot of nice Mormons like you and Me" would hold true. If these two made racist remarks as individuals not acting in God's name at the time, then their opinions could be assigned approximately the same weight as your own. Their opinions would then be far outweighed by all of the pro-equality statements made by Prophets who WERE acting in the name of God when they did so.

Having read through both the entire document you referred to regarding Benson, and both Discourses by Young ("Intelligence, etc." and "The Persecutions of the Saints"), I have not found any point at which either Prophet made racist remarks while acting as Prophet. If you spotted an instance that I missed, please point it out.

3) I feel that the quotes you offer are taken out of context in more than one way. First, in neither case does the segment of quotation offered in your post cover everything said in the given discourse regarding the issue of race. Also, to one not familiar with a) LDS terminology and thought processes, b) the historical context and trends of the times, c) the speaking styles of the individuals in question, and d) other statements regarding race by Church leaders, the statements in these quotes would be interpreted very differently from the way in which someone with the proper context would interpret them.

A similar example of the need for contextual accuracy can be found in the Old Testament of the Bible, where the Israelites (God's covenant people) wipe out the populations of several other nations. To someone without the proper contextual references, this could convey the idea that God approves of genocide and hates those who do not worship Him. Yet, as many pastors, priests, etc. would tell you, this is not the truth at all. God loves all of his children. Other examples of God taking action that seems strange to us today include the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Flood. NOTE THAT I AM NOT SAYING THAT the statements in the Journal of Discourses are expressions of God's Will -- if I said that I would refute my own point that Brigham Young and Benson weren't necessarily speaking as prophets at the times they made these statements. It is simply that I am more familiar with scriptural history than any other kind, so examples from the Bible spring to mind most readily. The Law of Moses, for example, seems harsh to our current worldview. Yet for it's time it was merciful. An eye for an eye was a definite improvement over the more commonly accepted "you take my eye and I and my tribe wipe out you and everyone who ever knew you" standard of the time.

For convenience, I repost those quotes from Brigham Young in fuller context here.

[Begin quote]

I am no abolitionist. Neither am I a proslavery man; I hate some of their principles and especially some of their conduct, as I do the gates of hell. The Southerners make the negroes, and the Northerners worship them; this is all the difference between slaveholders and abolitionists. I would like the President of the United States and all the world to hear this.

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.

The following saying of the prophet is fulfilled: "Now also many nations are gathered against thee, that say, let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion. But they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither understand they his counsel; for he shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor. Arise and thrash O daughter of Zion, &c." God rules in the armies of Heaven and does his pleasure upon the earth, and no man can help it. Who can stay the hand of Jehovah, or turn aside the providences of the Almighty? I say to all men and all women, submit to God, to his ordinances and to His rule; serve Him, and cease your quarrelling, and stay the shedding of each other's blood.

If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.

I am neither an abolitionist nor a pro-slavery man. If I could have been influenced by private injury to choose one side in preference to the other, I should certainly be against the pro-slavery side of the question, for it was pro-slavery men that pointed the bayonet at me and my brethren in Missouri, and said, "Damn you we will kill you." I have not much love for them, only in the Gospel. I would cause them to repent, if I could, and make them good men and a good community. I have no fellowship for their avarice, blindness, and ungodly actions. To be great, is to be good before the Heavens and before all good men. I will not fellowship the wicked in their sins, so help me God.

[End quote, begin next]

The whole object of the creation of this world is to exalt the intelligences that are placed upon it, that they may live, endure, and increase for ever and ever. We are not here to quarrel and contend about the things of this world, but we are here to subdue and beautify it. Let every man and woman worship their God with all their heart. Let them pay their devotions and sacrifices to him, the Supreme, and the Author of their existence. Do all the good you can to your fellow-creatures. You are flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone. God has created of one blood all the nations and kingdoms of men that dwell upon all the face of the earth: black, white, copper-coloured, or whatever their colour, customs, or religion, they have all sprung from the same origin; the blood of all is from the same element. Adam and Eve are the parents of all pertaining to the flesh, and I would not say that they are not also the parents of our spirits.

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race-that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

[End quote]

In light of the 1978 declaration, this last paragraph becomes particularly noteworthy; even if the blacks were cursed at one time (which would not have been their fault anyway, but rather the fault of Cain, and thus no reflection on their own character) then the cursing is now ended.

Sorry for being so long-winded; I get like that late at night.

TO SUMMARIZE:

1) The Church is now unequivocally welcoming to people of all races as equals.

2) The two Prophets to whom you refer did not make racist comments while acting as Presidents of the Church.

3) Considered in proper context these comments appear to a) no longer be very relevant & b) not mean what they initially appear to mean when they are being considered from a modern perspective.

For these reasons I disagree with your statement that the Church's stance on race, and blacks in particular, '... is a mixed story.' The stance of the Church as a whole has always been the same as Christ's own position: loving all of God's children. How could we claim to be led by God if we engaged in something as contrary to the teachings of Christ as bigotry?

Patrick,
as one who is informed as to the beliefs of the LDS faith, I wish I could apologize for whatever source you have encountered that would cause your statement "Mormons are taught to be biased towards Black Americans, and not picked on due to their desire to have multiple marriages."
Simply, we are not taught to be bias against Black Americans or anyone else. Also, the practice of polygamy today is a reason one would no longer be recognized as a member of my faith. It might interest you to know that just as was the case in the Bible, polygamy was needed for a specific cause in the history of our church and now it is not.

The Racismof Brigham Young and Ezra Taft Benson

One of hundreds of quotes from Young: (google Brigham Young racism, or Ezra Taft Benson racism for thousands of references_)
RIGHAM YOUNG
Journal of Discourses

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Vol. 7, pg. 290-291

Cain slew his brother. . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed.

On Benson
his Grandson at web site http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon409.htm gives much documentation and writes:

Based on the information from a variety of sources (including many of my own personal encounters with him), it is conclusive that:

--Ezra Taft Benson was a racist, as amply demonstrated by his own words, actions, beliefs and associations

--Typical of many White racists, Ezra Taft Benson was condescendingly tolerant of Blacks—as long as they “knew their place” and behaved as he insisted they should.

--By contrast, Ezra Taft Benson was viciously accusatory and patronizingly dismissive toward Blacks when they engaged in activities that he viewed as politically in opposition to his (and, by extension, God’s) interests and purposes. He frequently portrayed Blacks as a threat to the American Way of Life—at least as he defined it
______

This comment includes responses to the original article and to the previous comments by "Henry James," "Lincoln," and "Ashley," in reverse order.

Responding to Ashley: I agree with your assertion that religious intolerance is poison. As the Book of Doctrine and Covenants (the third book of scripture considered canonical by Mormons) states in Section 134 'We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life ... We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.'
I feel that intolerance poisons not only the souls of individuals but also entire nations. It is refreshing to discover that we have some common ground even with atheists! Also, I take this opportunity to express my genuine admiration for your courage in supporting a life philosophy which embraces a universal negative. Truly, atheists ought to be admired by us religious folk for their great degree of faith.

Responding to Lincoln: You said that 'Many Mormon's missionary zeal would diminish to proper levels if they fully understood the truly tenuous nature of Mormonism’s truth claims, from a historic perspective.' I suggest that most Mormons would be relatively unfazed by such "understanding." Many members of the Church, such as the FAIRLDS group, are quite candid about events such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. This has not in any way damaged their faith. We believe that 'The glory of God is intelligence ...' (Doctrine and Covenants 93:36) To fail to consider the viewpoints of others is a weakness which inhibits one's ability to be a disciple of Christ and emulate God.
Chances are that many of the Mormons you talk to may know more about anti-Mormon argumentation than you do -- either they've run across it on the net or talked it over with friends of other faiths. President Joseph F. Smith, a now-deceased prophet who led the Church, said "We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never." The First Presidency, by the way, is the highest earthly authority in the Church, and answers directly to Jesus Christ. The Church holds that faith and reason work best as complementary forces and do not necessarily contradict each other; God encourages Church members to gain as much education as they can. Perhaps the prophet Brigham Young said it best when he said that he was 'afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.'
There is a reason why LDS people generally say "I know" rather than "I believe." It is not merely a convention of speech. We believe that God answers prayers offered in faith. And by such answers we gain proof that what we believe is correct, stronger proof even than what our own eyes and ears tell us. In the words of Bruce R McConkie, who for all his faults was a person mighty in the testimony of Christ, '...I testify that He is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King. This I know of myself independent of any other person. I am one of His witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in His hands and in His feet and shall wet His feet with my tears. But I shall not know any better then than I know now that He is God's Almighty Son, that He is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.'
Finally, if the beliefs of LDS people are true than it is entirely proper that they be at least as enthusiastic as they are about sharing and living the gospel, so that others may share they joy and happiness they feel. Courtesy should always be observed, of course, but it is perfectly possible to be courteous AND enthusiastic at the same time.

Responding to Henry James: You say that President Benson and President Young were racist. In the future, please provide references to the source material on which you are basing your statements. This will facilitate discussion and improve your credibility.
Remember: Prophets are not avatars of God; they are imperfect beings who retain their agency and still have growth and progress ahead of them. As wonderful as they are, they have opinions of their own which may not always be perfectly in line with God's. God has promised us that no Prophet will be permitted to teach something untrue WHILE ACTING IN THEIR CALLING AS A PROPHET. So the question is one of context and content: what exactly did these two men say, and did they say it in the context of their own opinions or did they say it in their roles as Prophets of God?

Responding to the article: A good article overall, and one which helps me understand the perspective of those who belong to other faiths. (I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - "Mormon" is a nickname for our religion) That said, I respectfully disagree with the wording of your third-to-last paragraph regarding homosexuals, etc; specifically I take issue with your blanket use of the word "discrimination." I do not consider myself a member of the "religious right," but many would probably term me to be such. So far as I am aware, though, I do not "discriminate" against homosexuals. Before proceeding, let me clarify that by "discriminate" I mean 'to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit' rather than 'to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features.' (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary) My opposition to pro-homosexual policies is born not from disgust, fear, ignorance, or discrimination. It is grounded in logic, history, and sociology. Studies of past cultures and analysis of United States law (although inexpert; I am no professional in these areas) indicates to me that the success of -- for example -- homosexual marriage will have negative consequences which will permanently destabilize the structure of our society in ways which will seriously harm hundreds of millions of people and help only a few million. I pray that such movements do not succeed; if they do become law their proponents will probably be harmed by and come to regret their actions within six decades, if not sooner.
There may be many who oppose pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-whatever policies because of hatred or ignorance -- but there are many others who object in a rational and Christlike way.

Any of you care to comment on Spong's latest book being discussed here. I am interested in how this approach is being received in Christian circles

http://lookinginthedistance.blogspot.com/2007/05/religionless-christianity.html

Thanks,
Maureen

Alex
I didn't know you could have SEVEN generations of Mormons. My Great Great Grandfather was with Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, and that is five generations, isn't it.

I agree that I never met a mormon among my 500 mormon relatives (except my Grandfather) who was overtly prejudiced against Black people.

I don't think Mormons are haters. None of my 500 relatives are (well, maybe one or two).

ON THE OTHER HAND, Prophet ET Benson was one of the most egregious racists in American History. And Brigham Young was not far behind.

Two Prophets make up for a lot of nice Mormons like you and Me (I am still on the rolls. one of the 12 million).

So it is a mixed story. You are right in your stories and I am sure you are one of the 99% of Mormons who are loving kind people.

I am a 7th generation member of the church and have never been taught in church or in my family to disrespect African Americans...ever. When I was in grade school, I had one friend that was Filipino, one that was Mexican, one that was Anglo, and one that was African American. Do you know what my Mormon Dad said to me about that? Absolutely nothing. Do you want to know why? Because frankly, he didn't care. He really didn't, and neither do I. My family could just as easily have eaten dinner with a white family as an African American family. There were no speeches about white guilt and discrimination. My parents just treated everyone the same, regardless of color.

My family frankly doesn't give a dang what your color is and I am the biggest supporter of the teachings of the church. Not only that, but my family are strong Republicans (wait, that doesn't fit the template either does it?) and have been so since before Hoover. The way I treat people of other races I derive from my religion and not from the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. I know what some in the past in the church have speculated about Blacks and the Priesthood and I know there are many that want to hyperventilate over that. I believe that their statements were said in absence of further revelation through a prophet. Since 1978 those who were in error have been straightened out, or have left the church.

I have been a member of the LDS church all my life, and we most definately are not taught to disrespect African Americans. If that were true, why would there be African American members of the church? I see them at church every week. I have a really hard time believe that they would keep coming if that were true.

Thank you Patrick, for the second half of your comment. I don't know that I believe Mormons are taught bias against African-Americans, but the older I get and the more steadfastly atheist I become, the more convinced I am that religious intolerance and differences are poison. This country was founded with the idea of freedom of religion, flawed in practice though it was. I encourage us all to reclaim those roots and keep religion out of politics, schools and other people's lives.

Before discarding the mormon religion, it and the society it spawned should be torn apart in a public forum, with a view to creating some honest understanding. There is, most definitely, a generic lack of knowledge about mormonism and its followers in this country. We wouldn't want as large a social force as our fellow citizens in Utah to be judged solely by their belief in polygamy, or by the Mountain Meadow Massacre or by the questionable content of their Book of Abraham or by the way they spurn outsiders, or by the way they baptize dead people, or by their cornerstone belief in multiple gods who became gods after living as humans. We should be giving them a chance to explain themselves, their history and their beliefs without the use of 18 year old kids on the street. It's time for some mature discussion, and it's not going to happen in a forum like this.

Anyone (ie: Lincoln) who truly believes that this country would be in danger should a Mormon be elected president, based on the assumption that he would hold prophetic counsel above the interests of the country obviously has no clue what our beautiful constitution and democracy is all about. The executive branch is not a dictatorship. There's a reason we have 2 other branches! We are protected from such idiotic fears. Since when did Americans completely forget the basic civics associated with the way in which our country's government operates and succeeds?? A President doesn't "rule", he provides leadership, something that Mitt Romney is good at. This whole "Mormon" issue is a red herring because people simply don't want to bother getting to know who Mitt Romney really is and what he really stands for (the whole "flip-flop" mantra is a red herring too, IMO, for the same reasons.) There is a lot of policy substance to this man, and I am personally fascinated and excited at the economic reform I know would take place under his leadership. It's about time we return to the competitive educational and economic advantage we have always enjoyed! Look at his policies, read the constitution, get over your religious conspiracy theories, and get informed!

Mormons are taught to be biased towards Black Americans, and not picked on due to their desire to have multiple marriages.

Religious beliefs should remain private just as a Jutice/Judge should remain neutral in their political affilitations, while on the bench, working for the public.

Both are meant to be private understandings and not meant ot be used to sway public opinion.

In my immortal album "The First Family" i conjured an imaginary press conference with this exchange, which is how many people feel about Romney (mostly crackpot evangelicals)

Press: President Kennedy, now that you have been elected, what do you think the chances are for a Jewish President.

Kennedy: Let me say that I see no reason why a member of the Jewish Faith could not be President of the United States. Of course, myself being a Catholic I could never vote for him, but aside from that...

As a Massachusetts resident (albeit a dead one) I can testify that though I disagree with Mitt Romney on just about every political issue,

anyone who thinks that his Mormon Faith disqualifies him as a candidate is way off base.

And my point of view is one from a bitter angry in-need-of-therapy Ex-Mormon Anti-Mormon.

Bishop Spong continues to be on the mark with his commentaries.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132 was given as the reference refuting a falsehood needing correcting. Tom, I'm sure didn't mean to send you to an empty site. The correct address is: http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132
drop the en/ and the last period after 132 for the correct address.

Lincoln

Any chance you can cite just one example of the LDS Church not strictly adhering to federal laws in the past 100 years, or does your bigoted assertion purely rest on the fact that the Church didn't comply with an anti-Mormon, and probably unconstitutional, US law after being violently forced to live in Mexico?

Re "Lincoln" Post:

I think you have several things incorrect in your post. Your interpretation of Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants is way off the mark. If one wants to know exactly what it says, please read it for yourself at http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132.

As a member of the LDS church, I am very offended by your remark about members only viewing others as potential converts. I have many friends of other faiths who I am thrilled to have as my friends, as they are me, with no respect or ambition as to either of us converting. A full-time missionary, however, is somewhat different, in that they have volunteered and been specifically called to proselyte and teach 24/7. I do hope you are not trying to generalize that the colloquialism "every member a missionary" includes being anything more than a Christlike friend to all.

I'm sorry that your experience has been different than mine, but please allow others to form their own opinions without being subject to your obvious bias.

How refreshing it is to read your most objective and thoughtful comment Rev John Shelby Spong. I would expect no less from you,as I often read your comments on various issues of faith, although I admit to dis-agreeing with your considered opinions on an ocassion or two or three!
(My dear friend the Rev Wes Hartley from Western Australia has kindly forwarded your writings to us)
As an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it saddens me to often read some of the most ill-informed rubbish about our faith, particulary on blogs like this. Thank you for your objectivity, I know of several people who are looking forward to meeting you when you come down-under this year.

There are a number of issues that one should consider before endorsing anyone running for office who professes to follow Mormonism. Although relgious bigotry should not control one's decision, a careful analysis of the religion may be relevant to the decision making process the candidate utilizes while in office.

The Mormon church itself should be regarded with as much respect as any other church in the United States. In theory this is a true statement, yet on occasion, Mormon church leaders have encouraged the membership to disobey federal laws, such as the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds and the Edmunds/Tucker Act. Other religious leaders have not instructed their membership to directly disobey federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions. That is why many U.S. citizens would be concerned that Mormon Church President Hinckley could instruct the church membership to disobey federal laws again. Brigham Young and John Taylor were notorious for advocating disobedience to the "laws of men." This historic friction between the United States and a Mormon hierarchy with theocratic tendencies, has been an issue from the beginnings of Mormonism. I do not have any evidence that other religions have waged war against the United States in word and in deed, as the Mormon church has done in the past. Theoretically, President Hinckley could receive a new revelation to disobey the rule of law, and encourage the practice of polygamy again. This is a possibility under the current theological beliefs in Mormonism, especially with Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 remaining in full force. The Doctrine and Covenants are binding scripture in Mormonism, and Section 132 authorizes the practice of plural marriage, promising 10 virgins to righteous Mormon men. Given the doctrine of modern revelation, a distinct possibility exists that Mormon directives could take precedent over Federal law, as occurred in the past. What assurance does the U.S. public have that the Mormon church will not disobey laws in the future? A primary concern regarding Mormonism, is whether Mormons will choose to obey the Prophet or the laws of the United States should a conflict occur. This is a troubling issue, which has not been fully resolved.

Are Mormons afforded the same rights and privileges under the Constitution as other religions? Legally, of course they are. But on an individual basis, it is unclear whether Mormons respect other people‘s right of religious freedom. This is an interpersonal issue that is influenced by the institutional directives of the Mormon church. It rests on the ability of the church membership to make genuine friendships with people of other faiths, without the ulterior motive of converting them to Mormonism. Is it possible for a Mormon to make friends with a member of another religion, without the ulterior motive of someday converting that person to Mormonism? Yes, of course. But after watching the antics of Mormon missionaries on the PBS special, it is logical to conclude that many Mormons feel it is their duty to convert everyone to Mormonism. This concept is inherently offensive to many people who simply want to be considered genuine friends, without being viewed as a potential "convert baptism" in the future. Many creeds believe that they have the exclusive truth, not just Mormons. Many others are atheist or agnostic. Many other religions have developed a true tolerance for all humanity and do not feel the overbearing necessity of converting them to their own faith. Will Mormons ever be able to be genuine friends with non-Mormons without having the ulterior motive of conversion? This is a fair question, given the obvious harrassment of average citizens that was demonstrated by Mormon missionaries during the missionary segment of the PBS Frontline documentary. Maybe the reason Mormonism has not truly entered the mainstream yet, is that many people conclude, fairly or unfairly, that mormons are only interested in outside contact to the extent that they are fulfilling their duty as missionaries. This would be extremely shallow, superficial, and limiting, and would define Mormons as nothing more than scripted automatons. Mormons need to learn to have genuine friendships with people from outside their religion, on a wider scale. It is insulting to members of other faiths and non-believers, that Mormons believe they possess the exclusive truths of nature, when there is ample evidence in the history of the Mormon church, that it has just as many flaws (if not more) as any of the other faiths. Will the leadership ever encourage teaching true Mormon church history instead of a whitewashed version through its correlated lesson materials? Many Mormon's missionary zeal would diminish to proper levels if they fully understood the truly tenuous nature of Mormonism’s truth claims, from a historic perspective.

Before Mormonism is treated with the full faith and respect that other religions receive, it must demonstrate that it is deserving of such respect. The first step toward that respect would be a shift in emphasis away from converting every human being on the planet to Mormonism, toward loving every human being on the planet with the true Christian love, the love that Mormonism already professes to have. This shift will need to be generated from the upper levels of the Mormon church leadership structure. Until that happens on a broad scale, many will continue to view Mormonism collectively as a second-class religion.

John Shelby Spong:

Thank you for your objective post. I appreciated reading it.

as long as the voters dont take canidates out and hang them, they can say and do just about anything they want.
its up to the voter to determine if religion is a problem with them, or if the practices of the canidate are so contrary to their as to make them unacceptable as an elected official.
so freedom of religion does not extend to making others who have different beliefs, vote for you.
after all - we vote for people based on the color of their skin - blacks vote for blacks more than they vote for whites, even though discriminating against a person on the basis of color is a constituitional violation.
such is life.