More LDS Racism on MAD

[_Mister Scratch]

Everybody's favorite fount of reportage has posted this nugget over on the aptly named MADboard:

Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a blogress who by day teaches politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, defends Barack Obama's "spiritual mentor" with what she must think is a clever analogy:

I never thought I would say this, but I miss Mitt Romney.

After three full days of having to interpret, explain and apologize for Reverend Jeremiah Wright I am feeling a little religiously defensive. So I started fantasizing how different this would be going down if Mitt Romney were still challenging John McCain for the Republican nomination.

Instead of us Obama supporters sweating, Romney and his supporters would be fielding calls all day to explain Mormonism, polygamy and the relationship of Romney's faith to the cult compound in Texas. Does Mr. Romney believe that 14 year-old girls should marry? Does Mr. Romney plan to take additional wives in order to fulfill the moral requirements of his religion? If not why has Mr. Romney stayed affiliated and raised his children in a church with whom he so vehemently disagrees?

Yeah, Yeah, we know he gave some big speech about this issue earlier in the campaign, but how does he respond to what those women with the long skirts and weird hairdos said on the Today Show this morning? . . . Maybe a little black liberation theology would have looked tame next to the FLDS.

Harris-Lacewell claims that her own mother is a lapsed Mormon, which, if true, makes the professor's ignorance rather stunning. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did originally sanction polygamy, but you have to get up pretty early in the Mormon for that. As LDS Church Web site notes, the church banned polygamy in 1890, "and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church."

The FLDS, to which Harris-Lacewell refers, is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a group that split with the Mormons precisely because of the latter's rejection of polygamy. Were Romney the nominee, his foes might well try to suggest that his LDS membership somehow puts him in league with the FLDS. But they would be arguing in bad faith.

Since Harris-Lacewell brought up the comparison of Mormonism to "black liberation theology," it's worth noting that early Mormons suffered persecution at the hands of their neighbors in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois. They ultimately settled in Utah in 1847, and their abandonment of polygamy 43 years later was a price they paid for integration into American society.

It was just about as long ago--44 years this summer--that America took its most definitive step in ensuring equality for blacks, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Progress toward integration has been uneven since then, and the antagonistic attitude toward America of black leaders like Jeremiah Wright is arguably the greatest remaining hindrance.

Aptly put.

-Smac

Hmmm. Very interesting. Smac, apparently, is placing all the blame for "lack of integration" on Black people. I wonder why that is? Certainly, part of it must have to do with sensitivity over Romney's defeat in the election. Check out this posting from "Obiwan"

What's further different is that Romney never sat in a pue with a Bishop for 20 years who spued anti-American and bigoted statements the entire time.

Indeed, the Force is not so strong with him.

Not so fast.

Romney didn't just sit in the pews, Romney spent two years of his life recruiting members into a religion organization with overt racist practices, when he could have been serving his country at a time of war.

Obama denounced Wright's statements. Has Mitt ever denounced any of the racist statements made by men he considers God's prophets, including Brigham Young who said that slavery was a divine institution. Well he did say that polygamy was just awful. But did he denounce Smith for introducing this vile practice to teenage girls.

See, its easy to slam people by association, instead of attacking what they actually say and believe.

D'oh! Later, kawikadave, who has expressed interest in sodomy in the past, pops in with this post:

I heard an interesting comparison last night. The speaker said that "FLDS are to Mormons what Rev. Wright is to black churches", implying that the Trinity Baptist church where Rev. Wright preached was extremely radical, home to "black liberation theology" and not representative of black churches in general - a fringe group with fringe sermons and preaching.

I thought Jaybear's comment was interesting...

"Obama denounced Wright's statements."

Obama said he was offended, but offended by what? Wright was saying the same stuff for 20 years? What did Obama say in his famous speech? "I can no more disown Rev. Wright than I can disown the black community."

Interesting, interesting, interesting...

Gee, what's so "interesting" about that, Dave?

Later, DCP rather stupidly inserts himself into the fray:

It's one thing to ask that Obama distance himself from the political opinions of a radical pastor, but quite another to demand that Romney effectively distance himself from his faith altogether. The prophethood of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith is central to Mitt Romney's religious beliefs in a way that, I presume (or, at least, hope), the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's opinions about 9/11, the Arab/Israeli conflict, the origin and spread of AIDS, and the criminality of the United States government, etc., are not central to the faith of Barack Obama. Moreover, Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's attitudes toward race and, even, in very major ways, toward women, were not nearly so far from the American mainstream of their time as Reverend Wright's political opinions seem to be from mainstream American opinions in the twenty-first century.

Wha? No one, so far as I am aware, has ever suggested that Romney "distance himself from his faith altogether." Rather, the request was made concerning certain now-defunct doctrines, such as the ban on Blacks holding the priesthood, or polygamy.

Anyways, DCP carries on in this (apparent) smear campaign against Obama:

There appears to be nothing in Governor Romney's extensive record in business, the Olympics, and politics, to suggest that he favors either discrimination against blacks or sexual relations with teenage girls, and, consequently, there appear to be no relevant implications of his Mormonism for public policy in these regards. (If you have any evidence indicating that he would favor imposing an American apartheid, or polygynous marriages for early adolescent girls, perhaps you can share it.)

By contrast, Senator Obama's public record is strikingly thin and his oratory, though grand, is decidedly vague (e.g., "Change you can believe in," and "We are the change we've been hoping for"). Consequently, a nation that contemplates elevating him from obscurity to the presidency in one fell swoop has to search for possible clues as to what he believes and what he would likely do. if Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright's views about 9/11, policy toward Israel and Hamas, the criminality of U.S. foreign policy, the racism of the "US of KKK A," the deliberate and official American invention of the HIV virus "as a means of genocide against people of color," and etc., those views will have definite implications for his policy decisions. And if he doesn't share them, it's legitimate to wonder why he continued to sit in the pews listening to Reverend Wright express them for twenty years.

Again: Why is it that Romney should be given a free pass, while Obama's feet ought to be held to the fire?

It would have been an easy thing for Senator Obama to quietly move from the Trinity United Church of Christ (sometimes described as the most radical major black church in America) to some other church. He would not have been obliged to surrender his Christianity or his Protestantism to have done so. For Mitt Romney to have surrendered his Mormonism, however, would have been a much more fundamental shift.

Wow! Just change his entire religion? And that's supposed to be "no big deal"? The hypocrisy here is staggering. Later, DCP begins to spiral completely out of control:

In suggesting that Mitt Romney was both a racist and a coward, you are tarring tens of thousands of roughly contemporary Mormon missionaries with the same brush, including me. I'm somewhat younger than Governor Romney, but not sufficiently so to escape your proposed slander. I flatly deny it. You are also suggesting that millions of contemporary Mormons were racists. In that, you include most of my family, my friends, and the families of my friends. There is, however, no evidence that the Mormons of that period were more racist than contemporary non-Mormons of comparable socio-economic status, educational level, and region. In fact, as Armand Mauss has demonstrated, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

Here's a question: Has Obama ever advised any young people to avoid interracial marriage, as DCP and countless other TBMs have done?

Later, the critic called Bach shows up to offer this trenchant observation:

It's one thing to ask that Obama distance himself from the political opinions of a radical pastor, but quite another to demand that Romney effectively distance himself from his faith altogether. The prophethood of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith is central to Mitt Romney's religious beliefs in a way that, I presume (or, at least, hope), the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's opinions about 9/11, the Arab/Israeli conflict, the origin and spread of AIDS, and the criminality of the United States government, etc., are not central to the faith of Barack Obama.

I agree, but I see different implications for this than you. I think it's more troubling, that it reflects more poorly on Romney's inner psychology, that the worrisome aspects of his church are fundamental to his faith, and not merely happenstantially related, as is the case with Obama.

(For the record, Obama has been pretty clear about his (centrist) views on 9/11, Hamas, and the history of race relations in America, so there's no apparent need to deduce it from his personal associations.)

In other words: DCP, smac, kawikadave and others on the thread are quite guilty of engaging in smear tactics. They are all so hypersensitive to the connections which are endlessly drawn between polygamy and the LDS Church (among other things), that they cannot help but tar others when the opportunity arises. Indeed, the wounds inflicted on them in the wake of Romney's defeat are still raw.

In any case, it is perhaps best to reflect upon these questions, offered up by former scoutmaster kawikadave:

Thinking people, like yourself, should ask themselves questions like these:

- Would I willingly attend a church where statements like these are EVER preached from the pulpit?

- Would I ask a man who believes and preaches these things to officiate at my wedding and baptize my children?

- Would I consider the man who believes and preaches these things to be my spiritual mentor?

Those seem like reasonable questions.

I wonder: Has good ol' Dave asked himself these questions?

[_GoodK]

Here's a question: Has Obama ever advised any young people to avoid interracial marriage, as DCP and countless other TBMs have done?

Scratch, if you can, please send me some links for the above. They would come in handy for something I am working on. And well done, as usual.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here's a question: Has Obama ever advised any young people to avoid interracial marriage, as DCP and countless other TBMs have done?

Scratch, if you can, please send me some links for the above. They would come in handy for something I am working on. And well done, as usual.

Here you go:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... =0&start=0

[_GoodK]

Here's a question: Has Obama ever advised any young people to avoid interracial marriage, as DCP and countless other TBMs have done?

Scratch, if you can, please send me some links for the above. They would come in handy for something I am working on. And well done, as usual.

Here you go:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... =0&start=0

Thank you. I'll have to go to the library to click the link... shhhhh....

[Physics Guy]

Prof. P.:

Yup.

My Malevolent Stalker remains true to form: "More LDS Racism on MAD," he announces.

It seems that I've now launched a "smear campaign" against Barack Obama.

It'll be nice to be in the Near East again next week.

Hey, you asked, and I answered. I do aim to please, after all. Your comments concerning Sen. Obama struck me as being highly speculative, disrespectful, and tinged with racism. The remarks, coupled with your statement that you consistently advise young people against interracial marriage, and your statement that "Jews have few friends in the world," don't exactly paint you in the best possible light. Feel free to drop by once you stop quaking with fear. MAD really is a crummy place to hide. It makes you look like a coward. (An accusation which, incidentally, you were crying about in that very same thread!)

[_beastie]

The prophethood of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith is central to Mitt Romney's religious beliefs in a way that, I presume (or, at least, hope), the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's opinions about 9/11, the Arab/Israeli conflict, the origin and spread of AIDS, and the criminality of the United States government, etc., are not central to the faith of Barack Obama.

Well, then, Mitt (and other LDS) shouldn't mind defending the various "interesting" statements of BY or Joseph Smith, should he?

[_Trevor]

From what I can see here, Mormons would rather denigrate Obama than remain angry at the person who tanked their crappy candidate: John McCain. Since they want to be on the McCain love bus, despite the fact that McCain is a total sellout who played dirty to knock out Romney, it is time to return to the traditional punching bag of the angry white man--the "uppity" black man.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Okay, you malignant obsessive. I'm here. I leave shortly for the Near East. I'm going to respond to your single post, above -- which could, I suppose, be considered something of an homage, on your part, to some of your Greatest Hits -- and that's it. I will not be dragged into an interminable and completely useless conversation with you that would only serve to feed your bizarre fixation on me. I do, however, want to clarify some matters for others here, who, subjected to the steady drip, drip, drip of your hatred and (I'll happily admit) your cunning, might sometimes come to think that what you say contains at least a kernel of damning truth.

"Your comments concerning Sen. Obama struck me as being highly speculative, disrespectful, and tinged with racism."

Of course they would. You are what you are. According to you, I've scarcely ever done an honorable or decent or honest thing in my life. Anybody here, though, can read my comments for himself or herself; I suspect that reactions will vary pretty much along political lines. However, I'm not a racist. That is not an open question, and people who haven't even met me are scarcely in a very good position to judge me on that score. But enough said. What conceivable point would there be in arguing with you about whether I'm a racist or not?

"The remarks, coupled with our statement that you consistently advise young people against interracial marriage,"

I've never advised a young couple against interracial marriage. Ever.. (Coincidentally, an interracial couple will be married in the temple on Saturday, using recommends that I issued to them a few days ago. He was my elders quorum president; she held a leading position in the Relief Society. Another such couple -- two of the leaders in my ward, of whom I'm very fond -- will probably be engaged sometime this summer. I will happily bless their union, if it comes to that, and send them to the temple. These are not the first.)

You misrepresent my position and you malign me, as you customarily do.

"and your statement that 'Jews have few friends in the world,' don't exactly paint you in the best possible light."

As that light is filtered through your darkened and malevolent lens.

The fact is that anti-Semitism (defined specifically as anti-Judaism) is on the rise throughout Europe and the Middle East, and, within certain communities (at least), in North America. Israel is beleaguered in the United Nations and elsewhere in international assemblies. Israeli scholars are barred from certain schools, Israeli athletes are banned from certain competitions, and etc. I lament this. I am anything but an anti-Semite. (I'll be in Israel for most of the next two weeks, for what it's worth. This is a return for me. I've lived there on two previous occasions. I've participated in Jewish-Christian and even Jewish-Mormon dialogues on four continents.)

My comment, which you have distorted and abused and tortured as part of your weird campaign to blacken my reputation, was a friendly if somewhat grim reminder to the Jewish audience to which it was principally addressed. Here was the thinking behind it: Some (by no means all) of the Jewish responses to the controversy surrounding Mormon proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims have occasionally taken a stridently anti-Mormon tone. I worry that some Mormons might begin to respond in kind. I think this would be deeply unfortunate, and I pointed out that Latter-day Saints have a long tradition of philo-Semitism. In fact, the LDS canon (specifically 2 Nephi 29:3-6) is the only scriptural text of which I'm aware that explicitly condemns anti-Semitism -- quite unlike, say, the Qur’an and the Gospel of John. I believe that it would be very sad if extremists on the Jewish side came to dominate the conversation between Mormons and Jews on the potentially explosive question of proxy baptisms in such a way as to alienate a community of people, the Latter-day Saints, who are among the most enthusiastic non-Jewish supporters of Israel in the world.

My point is precisely the same as that made by the Jewish commentator Dennis Prager (whom I helped to host here at BYU some years ago), when he exhorts his fellow Jews not to be frightened of or hostile to the rise of evangelicalism in the United States because evangelicals are, on the whole, lovers and supporters of Israel. He worries that occasionally extreme Jewish hostility to evangelicals risks dampening the ardor that evangelicals feel for Israel and the sympathy that they tend to feel for Jews.

"Feel free to drop by once you stop quaking with fear. MAD really is a crummy place to hide. It makes you look like a coward. (An accusation which, incidentally, you were crying about in that very same thread!)"

I'm not afraid of you. I simply think that going back and forth with you forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever would be a massive waste of time that would accomplish absolutely nothing.

I'm done. This was almost certainly a mistake. It will probably energize you for several hours, if not for several days. You'll be in bliss, slandering and maligning and distorting and misrepresenting. Doing what you love to do. But I've said my say, and I trust that some here, at least, will be fair-minded enough to see my point. (I know for a fact that some here have taken your measure; they've written to me privately and told me so. One or two will probably write to me again, now, to tell me that I was wrong to give you any attention. I can't really say they're wrong. But enough is enough, every once in a while.)

I will not respond to anything else you post on this thread.

[_Mister Scratch]

Okay, you malignant obsessive. I'm here.

Well, welcome back! You've been missed.

I leave shortly for the Near East. I'm going to respond to your single post, above -- which could, I suppose, be considered something of an homage, on your part, to some of your Greatest Hits -- and that's it. I will not be dragged into an interminable and completely useless conversation with you that would only serve to feed your bizarre fixation on me. I do, however, want to clarify some matters for others here, who, subjected to the steady drip, drip, drip of your hatred and (I'll happily admit) your cunning, might sometimes come to think that what you say contains at least a kernel of damning truth.

"Your comments concerning Sen. Obama struck me as being highly speculative, disrespectful, and tinged with racism."

Of course they would. You are what you are. According to you, I've scarcely ever done an honorable or decent or honest thing in my life.

That just isn't true, Prof. P. And you know it. I've stated before that I admire your writing style a great deal. And moreoever, I cannot but feel at least some form of respect for the person who holds the spot of Mopologist Number Uno. It is actually *you* who regards *me* with contempt. And you always have. The closest you have ever come to any form of decency is your above "cunning" 'compliment.'

Anybody here, though, can read my comments for himself or herself; I suspect that reactions will vary pretty much along political lines. However, I'm not a racist.

Feel free to ask your non-white friends how often they encounter whites who vehemently exclaim "I'm not a racist!", usually after they slip up and say something that is, in fact, racist, or which can easily be construed that way.

That is not an open question, and people who haven't even met me are scarcely in a very good position to judge me on that score. But enough said. What conceivable point would there be in arguing with you about whether I'm a racist or not?

You know what? Fair enough. Perhaps we haven't "met." I will leave you to continue to speculate on that count. Perhaps you aren't "racist." But, that said, I see nothing wrong with examining your posts (including your odd apologetics on behalf of 'genocide') and offering up criticism.

"The remarks, coupled with our statement that you consistently advise young people against interracial marriage,"

I've never advised a young couple against interracial marriage. Ever.. (Coincidentally, an interracial couple will be married in the temple on Saturday, using recommends that I issued to them a few days ago. He was my elders quorum president; she held a leading position in the Relief Society. Another such couple -- two of the leaders in my ward, of whom I'm very fond -- will probably be engaged sometime this summer. I will happily bless their union, if it comes to that, and send them to the temple. These are not the first.)

But you said that you tell interracial couples to "think long and hard" about all the "cultural difficulties and differences" they'll encounter. How is that not "advising against", even if in a subtle way (particularly within an LDS context)?

You misrepresent my position and you malign me, as you customarily do.

I could easily say the same thing about you. Or about the FARMS Review.

"and your statement that 'Jews have few friends in the world,' don't exactly paint you in the best possible light."

As that light is filtered through your darkened and malevolent lens.

The fact is that anti-Semitism (defined specifically as anti-Judaism) is on the rise throughout Europe and the Middle East, and, within certain communities (at least), in North America. Israel is beleaguered in the United Nations and elsewhere in international assemblies. Israeli scholars are barred from certain schools, Israeli athletes are banned from certain competitions, and etc. I lament this. I am anything but an anti-Semite. (I'll be in Israel for most of the next two weeks, for what it's worth. This is a return for me. I've lived there on two previous occasions. I've participated in Jewish-Christian and even Jewish-Mormon dialogues on four continents.)

My comment, which you have distorted and abused and tortured as part of your weird campaign to blacken my reputation, was a friendly if somewhat grim reminder to the Jewish audience to which it was principally addressed.

Wow, what a "friendly" reminder. If only more of us had such friends!

Here was the thinking behind it: Some (by no means all) of the Jewish responses to the controversy surrounding Mormon proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims have occasionally taken a stridently anti-Mormon tone. I worry that some Mormons might begin to respond in kind. I think this would be deeply unfortunate, and I pointed out that Latter-day Saints have a long tradition of philo-Semitism. In fact, the LDS canon (specifically 2 Nephi 29:3-6) is the only scriptural text of which I'm aware that explicitly condemns anti-Semitism -- quite unlike, say, the Qur’an and the Gospel of John. I believe that it would be very sad if extremists on the Jewish side came to dominate the conversation between Mormons and Jews on the potentially explosive question of proxy baptisms in such a way as to alienate a community of people, the Latter-day Saints, who are among the most enthusiastic non-Jewish supporters of Israel in the world.

My point is precisely the same as that made by the Jewish commentator Dennis Prager (whom I helped to host here at BYU some years ago), when he exhorts his fellow Jews not to be frightened of or hostile to the rise of evangelicalism in the United States because evangelicals are, on the whole, lovers and supporters of Israel. He worries that occasionally extreme Jewish hostility to evangelicals risks dampening the ardor that evangelicals feel for Israel and the sympathy that they tend to feel for Jews.

"Feel free to drop by once you stop quaking with fear. MAD really is a crummy place to hide. It makes you look like a coward. (An accusation which, incidentally, you were crying about in that very same thread!)"

I'm not afraid of you. I simply think that going back and forth with you forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever would be a massive waste of time that would accomplish absolutely nothing.

I'm done. This was almost certainly a mistake. It will probably energize you for several hours, if not for several days. You'll be in bliss, slandering and maligning and distorting and misrepresenting. Doing what you love to do. But I've said my say, and I trust that some here, at least, will be fair-minded enough to see my point. (I know for a fact that some here have taken your measure; they've written to me privately and told me so. One or two will probably write to me again, now, to tell me that I was wrong to give you any attention. I can't really say they're wrong. But enough is enough, every once in a while.)

I will not respond to anything else you post on this thread.

Sure, okay. I trust that one day you'll realize that the "slandering and maligning and distorting and misrepresenting" occurring biannually in the pages of FARMS Review has been a great mistake. Further, it seems kind of odd for you to make mention of "attention" when every other one of your posts on MAD contains mention of your "Malevolent Stalker (TM)". If you can't take criticism, Prof. P., then why not hang up the hat? Go back to you chosen profession: Professor of Middle Eastern Studies. Apologetics is just a hobby for you, right? So, if the criticism you wind up getting over your apologetics is too much for you, then why not throw in the towel? I mean, just look at your above post, so riddled with malice and personal insults. How often do you see me throwing out such barbs as "malignant obsessive"? (And this coming from someone who visits six boards per day, and who maintains an RfM archive!)

In any case, off you go. I wish you a splendid trip in the Near East.

Warm wishes as always,
Mr. Phineas Scratch

[_RockHeaded]

I honestly do not see anything racist in what you've posted from the MAD board? Maybe I missed it. What I read was dialogue that included the differences between the two beliefs. Why one (in their minds) is better than the other. And the ties each candidate has with his church. I do agree that there are some pretty serious things we need to consider when thinking about Obama being president. A person can't just go to a church for 20 years and not believe in what the pastor is saying, can he? I agree, Obama could have found another Christian church to attend that didn't preach hate. There are a lot of them.

But maybe I see this differently because I like Dr. Peterson. I like Smac as well. I can disagree with them and not take our disagreements personal. They are passionate about their beliefs. They also happen to belong to a church that does do a lot of good things for the needy (and if you want to throw the race card in there, they don't discriminate they help all comers). I'm sure someone else knows more about this than I do. This is what I see from the outside looking in.

RockHeaded