26 replies to this topic

[dougtheavenger]

Today, thanks to Mitt Romney's candidacy for president, we see the restored gospel under attack. In anticipation of this, I have been refining my own response and submit them to you for peer review and discussion.

When it really counted The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has always been on the side of the angels

FACTS
1. In 1844, Joseph Smith ran for president with a plan to free all slaves by 1850.
2. Mormon doctrine has always been antithetical to biological determinism and thus antithetical to racism as defined by the world view of Adolf Hitler.
3. The LDS doctrine of pre-Mortal existence makes it clear that the human race cannot be improved by any form of eugenics.

The core beliefs of racism that convinced the world, in the mid20th century, that racism was pernicious have always been at odds with the teachings and doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Your feedback is invited.

Edited by dougtheavenger, 30 April 2012 - 08:51 AM.

[Jaybear]

I think misleading the public can be a very effective political strategy.

[thesometimesaint]

dougheavenger:

1. Agreed

2. During WW2 The Saints fought for both the Allies and the Axis. While the racism of the NAZIS was horrible, the racism Allies wasn't a good thing either.

3. Because of the tragic use of eugenics by the NAZIS the subject has become verbooten. However we do practice a form of eugenics by whom we choose to marry.

[K-2]

1. They are liable to bring up that although Joseph Smith wanted to free the slaves, he also intended to "confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." The idea of a "national equalization" seems to contradict the idea of a law against miscegenation, so I'd prepare some kind of explanation of that phrase.
2. I think the average voter will not understand what biological determinism means, so I'd use a little more basic language in explaining this. I'm not sure what the value is of showing that Mormon doctrine is "antithetical to racism as defined by the world view of Adolf Hitler" either, if people are using a different definition of racism to apply to episodes and teachings from Mormon history.
3. The voters who are most likely to be swayed by anti-Mormon propaganda are firm unbelievers in the notion of a pre-mortal existence, and so I don't think they would be impressed if told this. How, by the way, does the LDS doctrine of pre-mortal existence make "it clear that the human race cannot be improved by any form of eugenics"?

[kolipoki09]

K-2, on 30 April 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

1. They are liable to bring up that although Joseph Smith wanted to free the slaves, he also intended to "confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." The idea of a "national equalization" seems to contradict the idea of a law against miscegenation, so I'd prepare some kind of explanation of that phrase.

He favored sending freed slaves to Texas after it was annexed, which is also another platform he favored. Texas would have also entered the union as a free state during the five-year phase-out of slavery.  Being "confined to their own species" called for - in theory - the "separate but equal" philosophy of the later (failed) Jim Crow laws.  However, it was assumed that in Texas, blacks would establish their own communities with proportional representation in state and local government. Having examined Joseph's Smith's post-Missouri abolitionist rhetoric at length, I can only assume that he would have also favored giving blacks (and women) the right to vote, had he been elected. That being said, virtually every "progressive" of Joseph Smith's day (and in the subsequent decades following his assassination) also called for anti-mixing laws. As I have written elsewhere:

Quote

Calling for the death of whites who “mixed their seed” with blacks wasn’t at all uncommon in 1863.  In the Union alone, at least sixteen states had implemented anti-miscegenation laws at the time of Brigham Young’s sermon. Even the great emancipator Abraham Lincoln, in his timeless September 18, 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas, declared unequivocally that he had not, nor ever had been “in favor of [allowing black people] to intermarry with white people.” Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, notes that in the period leading up to and even during the American Civil War, “virtually no one supported interracial marriage.” He continued that if Lincoln had “come out in favor of interracial marriage in 1858, he would have been regarded not only as radical, but as insane.”

It's worth keeping in mind that the Church wasn't always in favor of abolition, but then again most churches weren't either. As I wrote recently:

Quote

Actively advocating abolitionism in 1830s Missouri was akin to insurrection. Nat Turner’s Virginia slave revolt in 1831, served to solidify fears among white southerners that an end to slavery would lead to violence, schism, and even anarchy. Civil War historian Shelby Foote recalled that abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison was “hanged and burned in effigy” in reaction to the Turner rebellion (973). Early leaders in the antislavery movement were known to have “great capacity for wrath,” and were dismissed as extremists (Foote 962). In 1835, Smith and Mormon newspapers reflected these sentiments when they openly opposed abolitionist preachers whose positions were “calculated to disturb the peace and harmony of our Constitution and Country” (Bringhurst 19). Mormon missionaries were forbidden to teach slaves without the consent of their masters, and an official resolution detailing the policy was adopted that August (D&C 134:12). For another two years, Mormon presses would remain quiet on the subject of slavery, though suspicions between the Saints and their Missouri neighbors remained.

In 1838, following a series of statements condemning rabid abolitionism, Smith would attempt to mend fences by disassociating Mormons from contemporary religious organizations calling for an immediate end to slavery. To an inquirer he would write:
Are the Mormons abolitionists? No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the Negroes free” (HC 3:29).

Still, Smith’s efforts to pacify the growing anxiety of local Missourians fell on deaf ears. Though the Saints – like many Methodists,[8] Presbyterians,[9] and even Quakers[10] at the time – viewed abolitionists as fanatics, their conflicts with non-Mormon Missourians escalated into all-out war by August 1838.


8 See Mathews 142.
9 See Staiger 395-401.
10 See Drake 132-133, 144-45.


Bringhurst, Newell. Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People Within Mormonism. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1981, Print.


Staiger, Bruce. “Abolitionism and the Presbyterian Schism of 1837-38.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 36 (1949-1950). Print.


Foote, Shelby. The Civil War: A Narrative, Volume 3, Red River to Appomattox. New York: Random House, 1974, Print.


Mathews, Donald, Slavery and Methodism: A Chapter in American Morality, 1780-1845, Westport: Greenwood Press, 1978, Print.


Staiger, Bruce. “Abolitionism and the Presbyterian Schism of 1837-38.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 36 (1949-1950). Print.

Edited by kolipoki09, 30 April 2012 - 11:44 AM.

[sjdawg]

dougtheavenger, on 30 April 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Today, thanks to Mitt Romney's candidacy for president, we see the restored gospel under attack. In anticipation of this, I have been refining my own response and submit them to you for peer review and discussion.

When it really counted The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has always been on the side of the angels

FACTS
1. In 1844, Joseph Smith ran for president with a plan to free all slaves by 1850.
2. Mormon doctrine has always been antithetical to biological determinism and thus antithetical to racism as defined by the world view of Adolf Hitler.
3. The LDS doctrine of pre-Mortal existence makes it clear that the human race cannot be improved by any form of eugenics.

The core beliefs of racism that convinced the world, in the mid20th century, that racism was pernicious have always been at odds with the teachings and doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Your feedback is invited.

I'm not sure I even agree the "restored gospel" is under attack.   There is a lot of curiousity but I don't think that equates to an attack.

[thesometimesaint]

sjdawg:

There is both. But as they say the squeeky wheel gets the grease.

[dougtheavenger]

Some of you have raised the subject of interracial marriage as an issue. I don't think it is as big an deal as you think. In the 1950s people talked about "absorbing the negroes" by interracial marriage. This passed for liberalism back then. Today it is regarded as racist an increasingly delusional. Interracial marriage is and was mainly an issue for whites. The goal of blacks has been freedom and equality not assimilation. Furthermore, failing to mention that Joseph Smith wanted to free the slaves will not prevent people hostile to the church from raising this issue.

[dougtheavenger]

thesometimesaint, on 30 April 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

dougheavenger:

1. Agreed

2. During WW2 The Saints fought for both the Allies and the Axis. While the racism of the NAZIS was horrible, the racism Allies wasn't a good thing either.

3. Because of the tragic use of eugenics by the NAZIS the subject has become verbooten. However we do practice a form of eugenics by whom we choose to marry.

Statement 2 was not about members of the church individually. It was about LDS doctrine.

[dougtheavenger]

sjdawg, on 30 April 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

I'm not sure I even agree the "restored gospel" is under attack.   There is a lot of curiousity but I don't think that equates to an attack.

I suggest that you watch MSNBC.

[cinepro]

dougtheavenger, on 30 April 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Today, thanks to Mitt Romney's candidacy for president, we see the restored gospel under attack. In anticipation of this, I have been refining my own response and submit them to you for peer review and discussion.

When it really counted The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has always been on the side of the angels

FACTS
1. In 1844, Joseph Smith ran for president with a plan to free all slaves by 1850.
2. Mormon doctrine has always been antithetical to biological determinism and thus antithetical to racism as defined by the world view of Adolf Hitler.
3. The LDS doctrine of pre-Mortal existence makes it clear that the human race cannot be improved by any form of eugenics.

The core beliefs of racism that convinced the world, in the mid20th century, that racism was pernicious have always been at odds with the teachings and doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Your feedback is invited.

I would suggest sending your suggested "list" to the most knowledgeable and respected black LDS that you can find.  I would start with Darius Gray.

Their feedback would probably be the most helpful.

I would also watch "Nobody Knows".  And read "Neither White Nor Black" (you can read it for free online).

I also wouldn't mention Hitler or eugenics.  You can still have terrible, evil racism without full-blown eugenics.

Edited by cinepro, 30 April 2012 - 01:14 PM.

[Jaybear]

dougtheavenger, on 30 April 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

  Furthermore, failing to mention that Joseph Smith wanted to free the slaves will not prevent people hostile to the church from raising this issue.

What does Smith's personal political view of slavery have to do with the LDS church or doctrine?

[kolipoki09]

Jaybear, on 30 April 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

What does Smith's personal political view of slavery have to do with the LDS church or doctrine?

Because for Smith, his political views were likely informed by his faith, rather than his politics informing his faith.

Smith's views on slavery have been deliberately misrepresented during full-blown attacks on Romney as a candidate, as per Lawrence O'Donnell's 2007 diatribe on the McLaughlin Group.



As an interesting side note, President Obama's forebears also included followers of the man O'Donnell attacks as a lying, fraudulent, pro-slavery adulterer. It's also interesting to note that Obama was the result of a bigamist union (though his mother wasn't aware that Obama Sr. had another wife) and his father was a practicing polygamist outside the United States, and that Obama himself has ancestors who owned slaves.

[rpn]

First, eugenics movement happened in the US too and some state laws allowing forced sterilization of certain categories of women persisted at least through the 1970's.

Second, interracial marriage, tacked on to polygamny was pretty incindiery (sp?): the last state law prohibiting it were overturned by supreme court in the 1960's so its reach and sway lasted a very long time.

Third, we've rehashed this numerous times on this board alone.  Sure some must have been archived.  The trilogy, Standing on the Promises by Darius Gray and Margaret Young, and Blacks in the Scriptures are two very important works for anyone interested in the issue.  (So is the David o McKay autobiography and the Spencer W Kimbal biography (the unedited version).

[Jaybear]

kolipoki09, on 30 April 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

Because for Smith, his political views were likely informed by his faith, rather than his politics informing his faith.

Likely?  Do you have any evidence, or is this pure bald supposition?
Smith was born and raised a northerner.  


Smith told his followers that God wanted them to give up hot drinks and booze, but not their slaves.

[thesometimesaint]

dougtheavebgar:

Were the German Saints not expected to obey, honor, and sustain the laws of the land in which they reside? Some fled, some stayed low, and some served in the German military. Though I don't know as any were very high up in the NAZI political organization. It is a fair supposition that at least some were members of the NAZI party.  

See http://www.mormonthi...QUOTES/nazi.htm

[kolipoki09]

Jaybear, on 30 April 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

Likely?  Do you have any evidence, or is this pure bald supposition?
Smith was born and raised a northerner.  

Smith's appeals to apocalyptic rhetoric made up the bulk of his presidential platform. Smith's primary concern as a presidential candidate was the future of the Church. In November 1843, Smith sent out letters to the five leading presidential candidates at the time as to their "rule of action" regarding the Mormons. Smith wanted federal intervention to force the state of Missouri to compensate the Mormons for their losses. Having not received a satisfactory solution from any of the candidates, Smith announced his candidacy the following January. Four weeks before his announcement, he would write to John C. Calhoun:

Quote

[Remember,] if the Latter-day Saints are not restored to all their rights and paid for all their losses, according to the known rules of justice and judgment, reciprocation and common honesty among men, that God will come out of His hiding place, and vex this nation with a sore vexation: yea, the consuming wrath of an offended God shall smoke through the nation with as much distress and woe as independence has blazed through with pleasure and delight (HC 6:158).

Smith would repetitively focus his arguments around the Missouri persecution narratives throughout his campaign, and each political position was taken on grounds that it would be advantageous to the Church's future. His position of granting executive power to control mobs was specifically designed to avoid a repeat mass exodus without any compensation. His meeting with Josiah Quincy and Charles Francis Adams especially underscores this point, as Adams would later write:

Quote

Then came another long conversation, in which a brother of his and some other persons joined, detailing the severe and shocking persecution which they suffered at the time of their cruel expulsion from Missouri four years ago. This is one of the most disgraceful chapters in the dark history of slavery in the United States, and shows that the spirit of intolerance, religious and politcal, can find a shelter even in the fairest professions of liberty.

Likewise, his establishment of the Council of Fifty indicates that Smith seriously envisioned a theodemocracy, and that he would co-govern with Christ in the political Kingdom of God. Most Mormons, including Smith himself, believed the Second Coming was imminent. Smith viewed the Council of Fifty as a crucial step in ushering in Christ's appearance.

I very much believe Smith's political views on slavery were influenced by his premillennialist Mormon theology. He called 337 "electioneer missionaries" that would both advocate his platform, and preach Mormonism alongside it. To the Nauvoo Saints, Smith's platform echoed the very doctrine of the Church. I'm not saying that his reading of other abolitionist literature - beginning in 1842 - didn't also have an impact on his position, but I do believe, based on ample amounts of evidence available, that Smith viewed slavery as fundamentally opposed to the laws of God that he believed had been revealed to him.

The destruction of W.W. Phelps' press in Independence (for publishing an abolitionist-sounding article) and the subsequent forced migration out of Jackson County into Clay County, served as a catalyst for Smith's December 1833 revelation stating that "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another” (D&C 101:79). And while Smith tolerated Mormons who owned slaves, there were only six known Mormon slave owners between 1836 and 1844, with only 14 documented slaves among them (see Bringhurst, Saints, Slaves, and Blacks, 220). Twice he refers to the slavery issue as a means of impending civil war (D&C 87:1-8; 130:12-17) and even alludes to it in his published presidential platform (HC 6:199).

[alexlds]

"Refining my own response" to attacks on the restored gospel . . . was, I thought, the topic of this thread ??

As far as actually contributing to comments sections of articles posted about the church / romney / mormonism . . . Ive found the best method is to entirely avoid all the esteroic and celebral stuff (very interesting though it may be) . . and just say something simple, short, factual and personal that they are entirely unable to dispute or argue with.

For example - here is a general purpose "template" response that I often use - of course edited / adapted as necessary . .

"I have been a member of the "Mormon" church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) in the UK for about 40years now. I honestly don't know of any other church that encourages and promotes among its members such a serious and detailed study of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ FROM THE BIBLE. Or so strongly emphasizes His divinity. The vast majority of Mormons simply would not be able to recognize themselves at all in some of the previous comments that have been made. The real fact is that at the core of Mormonism is a rather plain, low church Christianity, with decaffeinated adherents who go about their lives paying their taxes, loving their families, serving in their communities, helping the poor, and making mistakes along the way."

(The last sentence has been "borrowed" from a response to an unfavourable  TV program by Mike Otterson in public affairs.)

A response of this type leaves them absolutely no wriggle room to challenge or dispute anything that you have said. It also closes the door on the spirit of contention, which they thrive on. Sadly they often then just revert to name calling - but any reasonable person reading a such a comments section will then easily see them for what they are.  

Some excellent guidelines and helps on responding in this sort of way can be found at the MormonVoices site. I believe that dignified, factual, personal, simple for simple people to understand is definitely the best way for us to go.

[alexlds]

Multitudes in the valley of decision. The battle for hearts and minds on the subject of the restored gospel is being stoked up by the romney thing - and I believe that it is being increasingly played out in the comments sections of articles posted in online media - so  hence my previous comment.  

Apologies if my comments are somewhat off the topic that this thread has developed into.

[alexlds]

Dougtheavenger (?) in a previous comment "Im not even sure the restored gospel is under attack"  

Well . . I was quite horrified when I read the comments section on a recent CNN article about the new Temple In Kansas. I had never before seen anything quite like it. There were over 3000 comments (50 pages) , and these consisted almost entirely of an unmitigated flood or tirade of pure abuse and hatred against the church and the teachings of the restored gospel.