New Defending Mormonism Web Site

[Anakin7]

The following web site is in Defense of the LDS Church/Faith. It gives reference to F.A.I.R. What think/say ye ?.

www.youtube.com/user/DefendingMormonism

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT MASTER

[fatherofone]

The following web site is in Defense of the LDS Church/Faith. It gives reference to F.A.I.R. What think/say ye ?.

www.youtube.com/user/DefendingMormonism

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT MASTER

nice video

[Stargazer]

Agreed, a nice video.

Interesting channel, too.

Edited to add:

I had a look at their actual website, and looking around to find out who was sponsoring it, I found this at the bottom:

This website is not owned or operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes called the "Mormon" or "LDS" Church). The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of the Church. The views expressed by individual users are the responsibility of those users and do not necessarily represent the position of the More Good Foundation. For the official Church websites, please visit Mormon.org and LDS.org.

By this I am presuming that DefendingMormonism is a project of the More Good Foundation.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Stargazer

[frankenstein]

By this I am presuming that DefendingMormonism is a project of the More Good Foundation.

defendingmormonism is registered too More Good Foundation.

[Xander]

The video starts out with misleading information. It opens with the suggestion that because the Church has missions in various countries, that all charges of racism are nonsense. It doesn't even begin to address the reasons why some folks believe the Church's doctrines are racist. It says the Church "temporarily" denied priesthood to black members. While technically true, it would be more accurate to say that it was denied to them for the first century and a half, (roughly speaking), and was only "lifted" when it became clear that the Church couldn't send priesthood members to Brazil to officiate all their meetings and ordinances. The Church was growing in Brazil at the time and most members had at least some negro blood in them. It would have been a nightmare trying to figure out who was and who wasn't genetically eligible for the priesthood. Lifting the ban was the only sensible way to go.

It then goes on to treat Marcus Martins as an authority, when he cites McKay's 1969 comment that we don't know why God enforced the ban, but this ignores the numerous statements from previous leaders who explained that it had to do with their disobedience in the preexistence. So while he can say "we don't know", some of the older Mormons always thought they had a pretty good idea why, based on authoritative statements in the past. Brigham Young felt black skin made them ugly. Only once we the Church began to move towards modern day sentiments shaped by our race-conscious societies, did it begin to shy away from these statements that set the foundation for the ban.

The video throws up a big citation from HotC saying Joseph Smith was for freeing the slaves, but the evidence for this is ambiguous. How else would you read his following remarks made in 1836 : “I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not have slaves, than the South have to say the North shall." Joseph Smith even said that it would be best not to preach to slaves until their masters had been converted.

Another truncated citation from Brigham Young appears, without context. It is an obscure and questionable citation to say the least, but it is presented in a way to suggest that Brigham Young believed that "they" would not only receive the priesthood one day, but that they would receive more "privileges" than whites. I highly doubt this given his other statements before and after this one was made, insisting that the "curse" would remain until every other son of Adam has received the priesthood. Before anyone says this is an anti-Mormon interpretation, John Lund said in 1967 "Brigham Young revealed that the negro will not receive the Priesthood until a great while after the second coming of Jesus Christ, whose coming will usher in a millennium of peace."

And yet, in the next image the video claims the priesthood was lifted "as prophesied by Brigham Young." LOL

In the final analysis: this is an extremely biased piece that isn't designed for critical consumption. This website is designed to attract fellow members who are more interested in not hearing a balanced view of the church's historical positions on the black race. The author was careful to select only those fragments of data that could be used to shape opinions to his/her liking.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Xander

[Balzer]

The video starts out with misleading information. It opens with the suggestion that because the Church has missions in various countries, that all charges of racism are nonsense. It doesn't even begin to address the reasons why some folks believe the Church's doctrines are racist. It says the Church "temporarily" denied priesthood to black members. While technically true, it would be more accurate to say that it was denied to them for the first century and a half, (roughly speaking), and was only "lifted" when it became clear that the Church couldn't send priesthood members to Brazil to officiate all their meetings and ordinances. The Church was growing in Brazil at the time and most members had at least some negro blood in them. It would have been a nightmare trying to figure out who was and who wasn't genetically eligible for the priesthood. Lifting the ban was the only sensible way to go.

It then goes on to treat Marcus Martins as an authority, when he cites McKay's 1969 comment that we don't know why God enforced the ban, but this ignores the numerous statements from previous leaders who explained that it had to do with their disobedience in the preexistence. So while he can say "we don't know", some of the older Mormons always thought they had a pretty good idea why, based on authoritative statements in the past. Brigham Young felt black skin made them ugly. Only once we the Church began to move towards modern day sentiments shaped by our race-conscious societies, did it begin to shy away from these statements that set the foundation for the ban.

The video throws up a big citation from HotC saying Joseph Smith was for freeing the slaves, but the evidence for this is ambiguous. How else would you read his following remarks made in 1836 : “I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not have slaves, than the South have to say the North shall." Joseph Smith even said that it would be best not to preach to slaves until their masters had been converted.

Another truncated citation from Brigham Young appears, without context. It is an obscure and questionable citation to say the least, but it is presented in a way to suggest that Brigham Young believed that "they" would not only receive the priesthood one day, but that they would receive more "privileges" than whites. I highly doubt this given his other statements before and after this one was made, insisting that the "curse" would remain until every other son of Adam has received the priesthood. Before anyone says this is an anti-Mormon interpretation, John Lund said in 1967 "Brigham Young revealed that the negro will not receive the Priesthood until a great while after the second coming of Jesus Christ, whose coming will usher in a millennium of peace."

And yet, in the next image the video claims the priesthood was lifted "as prophesied by Brigham Young." LOL

In the final analysis: this is an extremely biased piece that isn't designed for critical consumption. This website is designed to attract fellow members who are more interested in not hearing a balanced view of the church's historical positions on the black race. The author was careful to select only those fragments of data that could be used to shape opinions to his/her liking.

Thanks for coming on out and stating the obvious. I would add that the video also fails to quote Brigham's (and others')use of the word "darkie" in reference to blacks.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Storm Rider]

Thanks for coming on out and stating the obvious. I would add that the video also fails to quote Brigham's (and others')use of the word "darkie" in reference to blacks.

Respectfully,

Balzer

Surely you jest?!? Darkie, you mean the southern term that was used prevelently? I can't believe it. That does it for me; the Church surely cannot be true. Thank you for shining the light. Used the term "darkie"; I don't know if I can show my face in public!

You really must understand how rediculous such a statement sounds??? It is embarassing to hear this type of comment used when trying to be critical.

You forget that Christians and Jews follow a religion where prophets commanded bears to eat children, slaughtered men and boys after circumcizing them and promising to keep them safe, apostles that denied that Jesus was the Christ, a God that destroyed almost every living creature by water, a God that demanded blood sacrifice, shall I go on? And the best you can come up with is some people used the term "darkie"? God help us if this is the best that critics have stooped to today.

[TNBu]

Surely you jest?!? Darkie, you mean the southern term that was used prevelently? I can't believe it. That does it for me; the Church surely cannot be true. Thank you for shining the light. Used the term "darkie"; I don't know if I can show my face in public!

You really must understand how rediculous such a statement sounds??? It is embarassing to hear this type of comment used when trying to be critical.

You forget that Christians and Jews follow a religion where prophets commanded bears to eat children, slaughtered men and boys after circumcizing them and promising to keep them safe, apostles that denied that Jesus was the Christ, a God that destroyed almost every living creature by water, a God that demanded blood sacrifice, shall I go on? And the best you can come up with is some people used the term "darkie"? God help us if this is the best that critics have stooped to today.

Pointing out more egregious offenses, or claiming "but everyone did it back then" hardly justifies expressions of racism.

[rpn]

I believe JS's statement about southerns and slaves had to do with agency and/or property rights, not slavery. His presidential plan was to buy slaves from their owners and send them back to africa, if I recall correctly.

[LeSellers]

I believe JS's statement about southerns and slaves had to do with agency and/or property rights, not slavery. His presidential plan was to buy slaves from their owners and send them back to africa, if I recall correctly.

That was an option under his proposal, but the main plan was to establish an "American Liberia" (not[/b[ his words) in Texas.

Lehi

[Balzer]

And the best you can come up with is some people used the term "darkie"? God help us if this is the best that critics have stooped to today.

No, others have done a much better job than I ever will.

The "prevalent" use of the term "darkie" by white people in reference to blacks was racist to the core. Brigham's use of the term wholly demonstrated that he too was a racist. Most everyone was back then. What's embarrassing is any attempt by you, and others, to deny this fact by arguing "they weren't racists because everyone called them darkies back then!" That one's almost as silly as "We really don't know why blacks were banned from the priesthood."

Btw, please turn on your spell-check will ya? Now that's embarrassing!

Respectfully,

Balzer

[cinepro]

The following web site is in Defense of the LDS Church/Faith. It gives reference to F.A.I.R. What think/say ye ?.

www.youtube.com/user/DefendingMormonism

I rate the video itself (production quality) as poor. Seven minutes of text set to music is hardly an effective way to communicate ideas. At the very least, it should be a narrated video. Also, some of the quotes are too long (taking several pages of text), and their applicability to the subject at hand isn't always clear. For example, the video jumps back and forth between LDS policies and attitudes towards black Africans and policies and attitudes towards Lamanites, when those are two very different issues.

As far as the "apologetics" go, I would rate it "fair". The most important statement goes by quickly at the 6:45 mark:

"Finally, Priesthood restrictions are not unprecedented, but there is no evidence that the modern occurrence which ended by divine revelation in 1978 was actually instituted by God."

That is a very important point but it is almost presented as an aside.

But I would have to judge any apologetic argument by one question: how will that argument stand up should the questioner continue to research the topic?

In this case, I suspect that someone who continues to read up on the racial policies and teachings of past LDS leaders will find their appreciation of the video to diminish.

[Xander]

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without 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 termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be and the Lord put a mark on him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then other curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they would 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." - Brigham Young

[Jeff K.]

The cultural context of the times were indeed shocking. Poor historians, people with an axe to grind, those with an agenda other than the understanding of truth will take the context from those times and place them within the modern time frame of which we speak now. It is of course intellectually dishonest to do so. But when one is reduced to little more than petty bickerings (because overall history and even doctrine go against their opinions), we see more an indication they are left with the last arrows to fire, and their ammunition is pretty much spent.

On the issue of historical quotes and context: One can be chagrined at the thoughts and feelings towards African Americans held by those very same people who paradoxically sought to free them, Abraham Lincoln for instance. He said some things that today would be considered cruel and racist (see the Lincoln Douglas Debates). We cannot separate ourselves entirely from the times in which we are born, and the ideas upon which we are trained from our infancy.

What I find interesting is how Brigham Young helped redirect or amend the Deseret Constitution that allows voting rights for all regardless of race. Instead of the nominal "free white men", it was changed to all men thus enfranchising the entire male population regardless of race. This was done in 1867 well before the 14th Amendment was passed in the US Constitution. Given Young's power in the state, one wonders how those with an axe to grind, reconcile the Brigham Young they try very hard to paint or make out to be a southern racist, with the Brigham Young that stood at the forefront of rights moving faster than Radical Republicans themselves did when they controlled both houses.

There are many such contra examples in place regarding Brigham Young and other historical figures of the time. A true look at history would be one in which we review carefully the environments in which the historical figures lived to understand the context of what they said and why they might have said what they did. A bad historian, or a dishonest one, will focus on one or two quotes and attempt (with futility) to keep the argument based on a quote, as if it were a shining beacon of truth, when in fact, it is little more than one quote out of many that do little explain the man. I personally am amazed when people like Abraham Lincoln, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others, are able to move beyond the contraints of their environments and societies and have actions (more than quotes or words), that more closely showed their intents.

I believe the rather poor historians with their little axes, have little grist for their arguments since they dare not venture outside of their limited confines in order to truly understand history.

[Balzer]

The cultural context of the times were indeed shocking. Poor historians, people with an axe to grind, those with an agenda other than the understanding of truth will take the context from those times and place them within the modern time frame of which we speak now. It is of course intellectually dishonest to do so. But when one is reduced to little more than petty bickerings (because overall history and even doctrine go against their opinions), we see more an indication they are left with the last arrows to fire, and their ammunition is pretty much spent.

On the issue of historical quotes and context: One can be chagrined at the thoughts and feelings towards African Americans held by those very same people who paradoxically sought to free them, Abraham Lincoln for instance. He said some things that today would be considered cruel and racist (see the Lincoln Douglas Debates). We cannot separate ourselves entirely from the times in which we are born, and the ideas upon which we are trained from our infancy.

What I find interesting is how Brigham Young helped redirect or amend the Deseret Constitution that allows voting rights for all regardless of race. Instead of the nominal "free white men", it was changed to all men thus enfranchising the entire male population regardless of race. This was done in 1867 well before the 14th Amendment was passed in the US Constitution. Given Young's power in the state, one wonders how those with an axe to grind, reconcile the Brigham Young they try very hard to paint or make out to be a southern racist, with the Brigham Young that stood at the forefront of rights moving faster than Radical Republicans themselves did when they controlled both houses.

There are many such contra examples in place regarding Brigham Young and other historical figures of the time. A true look at history would be one in which we review carefully the environments in which the historical figures lived to understand the context of what they said and why they might have said what they did. A bad historian, or a dishonest one, will focus on one or two quotes and attempt (with futility) to keep the argument based on a quote, as if it were a shining beacon of truth, when in fact, it is little more than one quote out of many that do little explain the man. I personally am amazed when people like Abraham Lincoln, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others, are able to move beyond the contraints of their environments and societies and have actions (more than quotes or words), that more closely showed their intents.

I believe the rather poor historians with their little axes, have little grist for their arguments since they dare not venture outside of their limited confines in order to truly understand history.

Wouldn't it be fair to conclude that Brigham, Joseph, and even Abraham Lincoln remained, on their best days, strict segregationists? Btw, whatever happened to the belief that blacks would be white people's servants in heaven? Is that still believed?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Jeff K.]

Define a strict segregationist.

And ask yourself this.... if African Americans were enfranchised and theat enfranchisement were protected (which wasn't the case at the end of reconstruction), then what part of the segregation system would survive?

Btw, whatever happened to the belief that blacks would be white people's servants in heaven? Is that still believed?

See my post above. It was never doctrine, so a single quote does not make it a "belief" rather you bring out a historically questionable "opinion" or groups of opinions the equivalent of which are "Where is Kolob", and "We will never reach the moon".

D&C 101:79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

"While he was acting as mayor of the city, a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleased that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the liberty of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. He had been able to purchase the liberty of himself and his wife and now wished to bring his little child to their new home. Joseph said, ‘I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed and we will have to impose a fine.’ The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child." (Young Woman’s Journal, p.538)

The horse was Joseph’s prized white stallion, and was worth about $500; a huge sum at the time. With the money from the sale, Anthony was able to purchase his child out of slavery.

Does this make Joseph Smith a strict segregationist?

Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world

Bruce R. McConkie 1978

[Xander]

Jeff, you're not going to be able to excuse Brigham Young's remarks by blaming "poor historians" (have any names?) for pointing out what he said. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about doing so. That is what historians do. No one is "applying them to modern times." That's a ridiculous straw man. LDS leaders have traditionally taught that the black race is black because it is cursed because their Father, Cain, was cursed. They weren't born into this out of bad luck, it is because these individuals were rebellious in the preexistence. So they earned their plight. Brigham Young ridiculed the physique of the negro, and the Church has taught that we should all become white and delightsome. Spencer Kimball taught that Native Americans who were associating with the Church saw their skin tone change multiple shades. Yes, this is a uniquely LDS doctrine and by all accounts, it is racist, Stop blaming "poor historians" for pointing out what you never got out of sacrament meetings.

[frankenstein]

As for the defendingmormonism website and its owner More Good Foundation, I am always leary of LDS lay members who create a business specifically targeted at LDS.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff, you're not going to be able to excuse Brigham Young's remarks by blaming "poor historians" (have any names?) for pointing out what he said. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about doing so. That is what historians do. No one is "applying them to modern times." That's a ridiculous straw man. LDS leaders have traditionally taught that the black race is black because it is cursed because their Father, Cain, was cursed. They weren't born into this out of bad luck, it is because these individuals were rebellious in the preexistence. So they earned their plight. Brigham Young ridiculed the physique of the negro, and the Church has taught that we should all become white and delightsome. Spencer Kimball taught that Native Americans who were associating with the Church saw their skin tone change multiple shades. Yes, this is a uniquely LDS doctrine and by all accounts, it is racist, Stop blaming "poor historians" for pointing out what you never got out of sacrament meetings.

I pointed out the flaws in the practice of using quotes without understanding context. I think I was quite clear how that is a method that reflects a rather paltry understanding of history or the discipline of study required for history. Those who carry out such a flawed practice are either unfamiliar with the study of history (they tend to cut and paste their way towards a predrawn conclusion) or they know better but choose to do it anyway (which makes them disengenuous or dishonest in their approach). So far you haven't negated what I have said, so I assume that you must agree that such practices should be stopped.

So far, you seem to be attempting to create doctrine where none exists. I suggest that your use of peoples opinions and your proclamation that somehow an opinion held by people makes it doctrine, reflects a certain lack of structural integrity in studying the history of the church. You may need to go back to square one and try again, perhaps by understanding the context and content, as well as what doctrine really is, and more to the point, show something a bit more thoughtful and three dimensional, your could create a solid base reflecting a better understanding of history? When you do that, you should have the ability to create a very good dialogue on the subject. So far it just appears that your information is somewhat limited in both scope and understanding.

Good luck on your endeavors when you speak with a historian on the issue.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Jeff K.

[KevinG]

Xander, Balozar and others...

I am a personal friend and old classmate of Professor Martins and have had many discussions with him about race and the Church (that being a big issue for me prior to baptism). I will not presume to speak for him but you should know that he was prepared to move past the issue of race after his first few papers on the subject but there has been such an interest in it that he has been asked to teach on it repeatedly. He is authoratative from a scholarly perspective, experience perspective and from the standpoint of being an expert the brethren call upon to teach about this issue.

Trying to say Professor Martin's statements are less authoratative than Brigham Young's non-cannonical utterances is patently false. He has a better handle on the history, doctrine and experience of race in the Church than most living souls. Certainly he's more of an expert than any part time internet church critic.

The idea that the confusion that mixed race peoples of Brazil caused the brethren to reconsider their position is correct. Combined with requests from the Saints in West Africa for the brethren to pray about lthe priestood restrictions were factors in the Prophets, Seers and Revelators taking up the issue in earnest. Of course this is acknowledged and reported by the Apostles involved in the 1978 revelation. Revelation and growth do no operate in a vacuum.

When discussing the LDS belief about anything it is wise to stick to what we practice and preach today. Otherwise you would be wrong. One of the beautiful things about the LDS belief system is that we acknowledge we are not perfect and that we learn over time. Critics who place more weight on the non-cannonized words of dead Prophets than current church practices and beliefs are poor historians guilty of presentism and poor students of religion with a failing grasp upon LDS beliefs.

[K-2]

Thanks for coming on out and stating the obvious. I would add that the video also fails to quote Brigham's (and others')use of the word "darkie" in reference to blacks.

Respectfully,

Balzer

Brigham Young never used the particular word "darkie." Just in case you are aware of some source that I am not though, feel free to provide a reference to support your statement.

[Balzer]

Brigham Young never used the particular word "darkie." Just in case you are aware of some source that I am not though, feel free to provide a reference to support your statement.

Actually, you're right. It was Joseph F. Smith. (Look magazine, October 22, 1963, page 79) My bad.

Yet, although perhaps never quoted calling black people "darkies," Brigham was quoted referring to them as uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable,low in their habits, wild, deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind, (i.e., stupid), bearing the mark of the flat nose and black skin, servant of servants, cursed, seed of Cain, (Journal of Discourses 7:290-291, October 9, 1859), the aborigines of this country, dark, loathsome, ignorant, sunken into the depths of degradation, and law and covenant breakers, (Journal of Discourses 4:39-40 (Aug 31, 1856)

Kind of makes calling blacks "darkies" not so bad I guess.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[cinepro]

It's also a little disingenuous for the video to not mention the Book of Abraham, chapter 1:

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

[Loran Blood]

Wouldn't it be fair to conclude that Brigham, Joseph, and even Abraham Lincoln remained, on their best days, strict segregationists?

And, in all likelihood, so would you, and "Xander."

Had you been born and raised in a Samurai family in Feudal Japan, I wonder if you would have treated commoners and peasants the way Japanese Samurai were taught, conditioned, and enculturated to treat them, or with modern liberal (in the traditional sense) conceptions of equal rights under the law and racial colorblindness (an almost dead ideal among most of our cultural elites, but the driving force behind the original civil rights movement)?

Edited July 17, 2011 by Loran Blood