I had known about the Mormons (dark :) history for quite some time. Growing up in NY we often found it bizarre that they had the courage to come into the projects proselytizing. When we asked them about their past (many of us in NY were poor but pretty well informed) they would give us a political 'that was then, this is now' answer as though we should jump on the new opportunity since we were finally being let it. Sometimes they were chased out of the community, other times they were just laughed at. Never were they taken seriously because they were sincerely trying to recruit but were naive and misinformed. Unfortunately their history and point of view based on their origin is not isolated or limited to just that one particular branch or interpretation of The Bible. Many others justified their hatred in the same way. Nice Article/Blog.

MD, I have a list of concerns about the Mormon church (although I have had very good friends and even relatives who were members) and their view of life - it strikes me as the world's largest cult, no maybe that's Islam. But anyway, I was not familiar with the issues you discuss here (maybe because I'm white) and they are serious indeed. Thanks and very fine job!

Actually, if Christianity is not the biggest the world's largest cult (and I doubt that it is), it is not far behind.

MD, I have not heard much about this phenomena before today, but this is fascinating and unsurprising information. Thank you for providing it.

Thanks, all.

I am currently mulling over a pickle you guys and gals might be able to help me with if you've read any of my neo-Confederate material. I have been contacted by a leader of a 'lesser' Southern heritage group that is opposed to the extremist behavior of the current SCV, League of the South and Council of Conservative Citizens. He wants me to inform people his group represents 'good' Southern heritage types. I am ambivalent about what I should do. Though the group IS opposed to secession and not explicitly segregationist, it still believes the South's role in the Civil War is something to honor. I've written a piece cutting it some slack, but another scholar of the neo-Confederate movement says I'm being too nice. So. . . . Ideas?

I say trust your conscience.

The LDS church's treatment of minorities has been appalling up until very recently, and even now one wonders. That isn't fair, perhaps, but from prior to day one the leaders of that church have twisted reality to put forward their own strange views of anybody who didn't the "approved" shade of skin color.

This is number one or two on my list of things I wish every LDS member knew. I don't believe in holding every group responsible for every action taken by their adherents or even by their leaders in the past, the very foundation of Mormonism seems to be rotten, in my opinion.

Which is a shame, since so many good people find themselves very comfortable there today.

Oddly enough, the text of this post could be considered hate speech under the Criminal Code in Canada, since you're singling out an identifiable group for hate and discrimination.

Not that I approve of the LDS (I had one for a roomate at college) or any organized religion.

What I find more interesting are the shell banking companies the LDS formed to fund Las Vegas casinos.

I don't think it's so much hate and discriminatin as it is opprobrium and vilification

I'm not saying what they do is right, but how the article speaks.

Not disimilar from propaganda tracts and blood libel pamphlets.

Now all I know about the LDS comes mostly from "Orgazmo". But if I had to target a USAian religious group for vilification, it would be the Co$, not the Mormons (especially given their history of persecution and being lynched).

But then the Co$ are much more litigious (none of this "God'll get ya" stuff, legal tongs and blowtorch for these fellas).

Mac:
As a former resident of the South, it is my experience that "heritage" is just a code word for racism, like "states' rights."
If this group expressly disavows racism to your satisfaction, then maybe they're OK, but wow, it's hard to glorify the history of the US South without implicitly backing racism and racists.

Jim, Canada's criminal codes on hate speech are exactly what I fear down here. Fortunately, we have a Constitution that prevents such bad laws from being enacted, or should anyway.

Note your reasoning, inevitable under those laws: One cannot speak badly about any one group without addressing all groups, possibly so vaguely that people associated with the one group never catch on. And furthermore that listing the negative characteristics of one group is tantamount to suggesting that the group in question is the worst of all groups within the same broad category.

Yes, the article is written in a strident tone, with a one-sided presentation of quotes without much context. In that sense, it might be considered "not dissimilar" from propoganda or blood libel. However, in this case I happen to believe that the information contained therein is accurate. Actually, I can only say that I believe that most of it is accurate, as some bits of it are new to me.

I'd love to hear the modern-day Mormon perspective on the facts, but I fear that most Mormons might find themselves put off and not expect a welcome.

From me, at least, you are welcome to post without being attacked.

For example, a good portion of the piece seems to me to hinge on the idea that, "The leadership of the Mormon Church is said to be infallible." This appears to be contradicted within the article itself by modern Mormons' dismissal of institutional racism as a thing of the past, as well as officially by the 1978 reversal of policy. In fact, it wasn't until 1890 and Wilford Woodruff that there was any thought of personal infallibility (though I believe that the Book of Mormon itself has always been considered to be error-free). Even then, the actual statement was, "The Lord will never permit me nor any other man who stands as president of this church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." That a president wouldn't lead a person astray is different from saying that they wouldn't make mistakes. The former implies a mistake severe enough to cause one to lose one's faith. Arguably that happened for all dark-skinned people before 1978, so Woodruff (in my opinion) was still wrong, but even then he didn't claim infallibility, and I'm not sure anybody else has before or since. In fact, many Mormons have been very negative on the idea of Papal infallibility as found in the Roman Catholic Church, so it would seem that such an idea would be antithetical to Mormon belief.

Anyway, I don't intend to defend the Mormon church, as I find their past history and current doctrine personally reprehensible in many ways, but treating personal opinions held by many Mormons with official church doctrine might be one reason why you (Jim) find the tone of the piece strident.

Actually the best statement on the LDS (as I said, most of what I know about these magical underwear-wearing folks comes from "Orgazmo") I can make is two words:

Neil LaBute

Great first date movies, I understand.

I'm not going to attempt to make a full rebuttal of what has been written here - but you should go back and check some of your facts and assertions. For instance, the quotes supporting your assertion that Joseph Smith had a racist mind came from Joseph Fielding Smith's writings. Joseph Fielding Smith was the grandson of Joseph Smith's brother, Hyrum. He and Joseph Smith are not the same person.

Needless to say, as a Mormon I saw many other things in the article that simply do not square with my knowledge and experience. I am not unaquainted with the whole issue - I was a missionary in Oakland and worked in the projects. It seems that this article was cobbled together from various websites attacking the church. I have no problem with that. Google can find articles that give another perspective as well. I did a single search and found this one (which coincidentally quotes Joseph Fielding Smith as saying the exact opposite of the quotes above): http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc19.html I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you, but there are others that would be happy to if the issue interests you enough to want to find out.

Regards,

Jason

Thanks Jason, there is always another side and we appreciate your pointing toward it.

I am aware of the provenance of the quotations, Jason. The important thing is they are accurate. My best source was the Mormon historian, Armand Mauss, not people who have washed their hands of the Mormons -- though I respect them for having the backbone to do so, despite the shunning that follows.

The arrogance of your claim that you can convince me -- or anyone -- that the LDS does not have a long history of racism (we won't even discuss sexism, authoritarianism and turning a blind eye to continuing polygamy) undermines anything you have to say. The history of racism in the Mormon Church is documented fact. Only a defender of that history would deny it. Furthermore, if the first 150 years or so of that history were not evidence of bigotry, why would the leaders have needed to have their relatively recent 'revelation'? If there had not been a problem, the status quo should have been fine. People do not fix things that are not broken.

1978! Think about how late that is, people. About the only folks still making the mark of Cain argument the Mormons were relying on that late in history were bonafied hate groups and other extremists. I don't know whether the Afrikaners, who are very religious, too, had a formal relationship with the Mormons, but they were on the same page.

I haven't had time to thoroughly read most of the other comments. However, I believe my answer to Jason applies to some of them. The Mormon historian, Mauss, describes the leaderships' stances in his book, which is summarized in one of the articles I linked to. He says, to paraphase, the elders cannot admit error in previous leaders, so they gloss over it. The word 'infallibility' may not have been used, but that is what the inability to admit error implies.

From what I've gleaned so far, this has largely been an intelligent discussion with people focusing on issues. Excellent!

Luckily, they've officially renounced the policy of blood atonement. Here's some more interesting facts about the the Mormons:

Population Statistics

Demographic Issues

Articles of interest

Not an endorsement or condemnation, just points to ponder.

The LDS is a very energetic gatherer of data. For that reason, their genealogical archives are considered the best in the country. However, the Mormons' data is not always objective. I usually rely on it only if is confirmed by other sources.

Demographic material that describes the Mormons as healthy, religious and peaceful, in the sense of having low rates of violent crime, is very accurate. The Church requires members engage in life styles that promote all three of those characteristics. But, when it comes to controversial topics that cast the LDS in an embarassing light, the Mormons' data gets slippery, even misleading. For example, Mormon women are more likely to complete college than most, but they are also forbidden all leadership positions in the Church and the community. You may have noticed the absence of data about exit rates in Joe's three citations. Those exit rates would reveal a disproportionate rate of LDS losing many of those same college-educated women, I suspect. Nor is going to college necessarily what one might think to everyone. Like many other women in the past, Mormon 'girls' often go to college to pursue the 'Mrs. degree,' friends who are former Mormons tell me.

The high rates of Mormon membership in some small Third World countries? That is a direct result of missionary efforts. I would expect the retention rate to be higher than in the U.S., because those adherents have nominal contact with white Mormons. The incidents described by black Mormons, such as having one's little boy locked out of a fellow Mormon's house because of his color, don't occur in predominantly minority settings. Last, but not least, conversion of people in the Third World is often superficial. People sometimes still practice their traditional beliefs while describing themselves as Catholics, for example.

Some of the other Mormon accomplishments mentioned in the articles also give less than the full story. The Mormon Olympics were plagued by corruption. Apparently secure in their moral superiority, Mormon businessmen, many of them active in LDS leadership, ripped off millions of dollars.

I haven't said anything about Jason's contribution because there isn't much to say. The URL he cites is an 'Our Negro' response. (See Bell's Rules of Racial Standing Nos. 3 and 4, if you are not familiar with the methodology.) The person making the response is a black Mormon. If anything, he is even more evasive about racism and the LDS than most contemporary white Mormons. We are supposed to take him seriously because he is a black person agreeing with Mormon orthodoxy. We don't. His color can't legitimize the situation. In fact I don't think trotting out an 'Our Negro' ever legitimizes any situation.

In summary, Mormonism may be a dandy relgion if a person is white, male and unquestioning of authority. However, if one isn't all three, and decidedly conservative in one's politics, the LDS will likely leave much to be desired.

Just a minor clarification, the sources I cited are not the LDS Church but rather independent research sites which focus on numerous religions. The Stats and Demographic data comes from a site called adherents.com which actually collects info on most major religions and is a great resource for info about other religions as well. The articles link is from the Institute for Religious Research which examines issues of Christianity across multiple denominations. I'm, personally, not religious but was raised a Roman Catholic and know and am friends with Mormons.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the links weren't meant as either a for or against argument, however, I would point out that the refutation provided is based entirely on supposition and opinions. I'm not saying that they aren't reasonable assumptions but that doesn't necessarily make them facts, either.

Lastly, the Salt Lake City Olympics were not remarkable for abuses. The corruption associated with the International Olympic Committee and US Olympic Committee was found to be widespread and somewhat commonplace.

I have no dog in this hunt, but I was waiting for it to happen after Jason dared disagree with the self appointed Minister of Right Thoughts on Race, and it happened.

(Shakes head)

I'm just wondering why somebody would be so upset about a particular religion?

Religions are stupid clubs for the stupid. So why so pissed that they don't conform to your world-view?

What's next, "men wouldn't let me enter a pissing contest in a snow-bank".

So when do we see an article about the rascist ideology of Nation of Islam?

So, Chris, you agree with Jason that the Mormon Church has not and does not have a problem with race relations? You are convinced he could refute that 'mistaken' history if he just took the time? You believe elephants are pink and have wings?

Religion is a difficult topic on which to remain impersonal. I suggest that anybody who finds themselves making personal attacks might need to take a breather and calm down for a while. Maybe pick something else for a while, and come back when you can avoid attacking people personally.

Just a thought.

So Mac Diva believes "The Church of Latter Day Saints has a peculiar history that explains why African-Americans and women are considered second-class citizens in the religion." -- and moreover, he's disappointed that an insufficient number of the rest of us agree with his personal bias. As a member of the Church--and by the way properly called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"--I find his charge of institutional racism offensive since I know first-hand how sensitive church leaders are to this issue and how members bend over backwards to welcome minorities into the church. If anything, typical Mormon families try too hard to reach out to African-American families, as Mac himself notes near his conclusion. Is that racist? Does that make them second-class citizens?

That the Church has struggled to integrate African-American families has less to do with racism and more to do with America's poisonous racial-identity movements which put enormous pressure on individuals to identify and behave as a member of their race above all else. Since any organization or society not historically associated with a given race is immediately seen as suspect, minorities who choose to join any such organization may find themselves ostracized by their own community. The church is by no means unique in this respect. As an American, I find it frustrating that some of the loudest voices of racial accusation now come from those who routinely determine their course of action solely on the basis of race.

And for us to apply 21st century speech codes to the opinions of 19th century Americans who have led the church in the past is a bit unfair. While church members hold that revelation received by Prophets and Apostles of the church is infallible, none of these quotes rises to this level and would be considered a reflection of their personal opinion. That those opinions sometimes reflected the racial attitudes of that era should not be shocking. Even the most progressive Americans of that era spoke about race in a manner that we find paternalistic and offensive in our own time.

Were Mac an honest broker, he would allow the reader to judge for themselves from the official declaration of the church, (which can be found at: http://scriptures.lds.org/od/2 along with the rest of church scripture). Of all the original documents that talk to the issue of racism in the church, this is without question the most germane document and one that is accepted as revelation by all church members. Instead, Mac chooses to link exclusively to openly anti-Mormon sites.

As a Mormon, I have no problems discussing the challenges we face in bringing more minorities into the church. But that wasn't the point of Mac's post, was it? For Mac and other religious bigots it isn't about eliminating racism so much as discrediting a church that offends them for other reasons.

And while I could use this as an excuse to villify blogging and the inaccuracies and excesses it promotes, I'm not going to do that. Frankly, Mormons have themselves been villified in the press for most of our existence and it's refreshing to be able to respond to drivel like this in the blogosphere, even if it does mean feeding a few trolls now and then.

Scratching head. (Wondering how a well-documented entry about the history of the Mormon Church can be misconstrued as a 'personal attack.') Seems to me that 'personal attack' has become a rote phrase for people who can't rebut what is being said, or, don't like discussion of substantive issues at all. It is supposed to prevent discussion of such topics. That raises the question of why we should have blogs at all. If intelligent discussion of issues is something bloggers are to run screaming and covering their eyes from, shouting "personal attack!" blogs are a waste of space.

I believe Andy's complete denial of reality is useful because it confirms what the numerous sources cited and linked to say about the Mormons' continuing inability to confront the facts about their history of racism. Notice he believes any racial problem the LDS' might have (he is not admitting it has any) is, to paraphrase 'the blacks fault.'

That the Church has struggled to integrate African-American families has less to do with racism and more to do with America's poisonous racial-identity movements which put enormous pressure on individuals to identify and behave as a member of their race above all else. Since any organization or society not historically associated with a given race is immediately seen as suspect, minorities who choose to join any such organization may find themselves ostracized by their own community. The church is by no means unique in this respect. As an American, I find it frustrating that some of the loudest voices of racial accusation now come from those who routinely determine their course of action solely on the basis of race.

That goes right back to the mark of Cain response of blaming of the victims. The glossing over of 150 years of LDS doctrine to blame African-Americans is perversely amusing. Why, pray tell, is the LDS an "organization or society not historically associated with a given race"?

Furthermore, note the refusal to question anything handed down by the elders. That goes right back to what the sources say about the LDS' authoritarianism being so strong that one generally must talk to people no longer active members to reach truth tellers. One of Andy's prevarications is that the cited quoted material is so old it is not relevant to modern times. Not so. The earliest come as late in history as the 1950s and 1960s. (No, not just an oversight. The dates are listed in the entry and links.)

On the bright side, Andy did not quite get around to blaming the LDS' errors (I think religious people call them sins) against millions of people over what will likely be two centuries, on Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But, give him a little more space and I suspect he will.

The Critical Legal Studies movement's critiques of discriminatory behavior, as explained by Derrick Bell, among others, focus on the predictability of certain responses as white people fight against giving up racism. The persons who are most in denial about Mormons' historical and continuing race problem fit those predictions to a T. However, I believe them to be extremists. If most people, of whatever color, were to read a synopsis of the topic, like the one here, I don't believe they would deny the reality of the Mormons' history of bigotry.

Given Mac Diva's confused pschoanalysis based on my response, perhaps I ought to clarify my comments. First, I want to thank Mac for his blog since I enjoyed many of his recent entries and did not feel personally attacked by his comments in the least. In this case, I did find his premise offensive because it implied that present-day members accept and support racism in the church. That a few members choose to hold outmoded racial beliefs--privately in most cases since overt descrimination or expression of racism is not tolerated by church leaders--is saddening but nevertheless not representative of the church as a whole. As for "denial of reality" I am content to let readers decide this for themselves.

To suggest I am "blaming the victim" is to misunderstand my argument. I do not assert that external factors such as racial-identity politics absolve church leaders and members from making every effort to reach out to minorities. Nor do I suggest that African-Americans or any other race have brought this on themselves, although past church leaders have speculated on similar points based on their own interpretation of certain scriptures. Such speculation has never been taught as doctrine in the church and I don't use their speculation to inform my actions in the least.

Although church members do believe that our individual conduct prior to this life partially determines what advantages we are born into, this does not imply or in any way justify racism although it may increase racial awareness somewhat. Mormons are very concerned with lineage and ancestry--but not for reasons of racism. Rather, church members believe it is essential to preserve and sustain all family bonds in this life and beyond.

My observation--and it is nothing more than an observation--is that minorities from communities with strong racial-identity movements face substantially more external pressures to exit the church than do others without such cultures. In fact, outside America this is less a problem for the church; there are many examples of thriving congregations with many members of African descent. Similar pressures within the Arab community present an equivalent challenge.

Do I believe racial-identity movements are wrong? Actually, no. But just as one might argue that the KKK is a poisionous racial-identity movement, there are some minority movements today that are hostile to the ideals of racial integration. Just as it would be folly to judge whites on the basis of white supremacists, I make no judgement of any race based on the existance of any racial-identity movement.

Yet for all this I am labled a racist by Mac, who assures readers that I am "in denial" when I have said nothing to gloss over past racism in the church. Moreover, Mac asserts that I refuse to question the judgement of church leaders. Far from it; not only does the church encourage each member to decide such things for themselves, but I must admit that I cannot completly understand the mind of many past church leaders when viewed from my generation's perspective--or even that of the 1960s. Much the same way that I could not fathom the comments that came from Trent Lott, I'm left to believe that these men were a product of their era and their sensitivities were tuned elsewhere. One cannot expect that eveything said or done by church leaders is perfect, just that they are doing their best to conform to the knowledge and understanding they posess. I do not confuse honest intentions with infallibilty, yet having worked with extraordinary leaders in the past I hold them in great respect.

All this boils down to a simple assertion Mac Diva made regarding institutional racism now and in the past within the church. Since the last vestiges of instututional racism within the church were torn down in 1978, it is hard to make the case that presnt-day incidents are caused by anything more than a few racist individuals who would find their behaviour unwelcome were it seen by others in the church. For that reason I take issue with Mac's premise.

Beyond that, I encourage others to find out for themselves. Self-appointed dealers of truth are rarely open to self-criticism so I do not expect Mac to change his opinion. But I would like to present an insider's perspective from one who has often struggled with the gap between the doctrines and teachings of the church and my own ability as a member to live up to its committments. It is no difficulty to find fault, particulary with the imperfections of members of a church with such audatious claims to truth and leadership under Christ. But if those claims are indeed true, only a fool would fail to test them simply because some of its members have fallen short if its ideals. Ought Americans reject the democratic system because of the occasional demagogue?

At the end of the day, it is simply a church and if it is based on truth it will prosper and grow and improve the lives of its members. And if not, it will not progress. Let men and women decide for themselves if there is a benefit to joining the church. Let them decide for themselves if it is based on truth or error. As for me, I have lived both inside and at times outside of the church and continue to find great value in that membership. I still hope to see more minorities in the church where I live--in spite of the discouraging suburban demographics. In the mean time, I have many minoritiy brothers and sisters in the church who I consider my friends. One of them had the priviledge of being the first to receive the priesthood following the 1978 announcement and is now a leader in several church organizations.

Like all religion, Mormonism either strikes one as received wisdom or appears cultish and loopy from the outside. Surely the church's past is checkered and its central tenets seem odd to mainstream Christians. If the church has atoned for its racist past, that is a good thing, but it doesn't mean that past didn't happen.

Why single out Mormons or LDS leadership as it relates to racial beliefs. I am free to believe whatever I want, and the first ammendment (here in the US) recognizes that right (as of this writing). Look at what your paragon of racial equality Abraham Lincoln had to say about the Negroid race living among Whites.

To even reference qoutations from the General Authorities is to give tacit credence to the entire golden plates and visitation by the Godhead story by Joe Smith while a youngster in upstate New York.

Ala Carte pick and choose references is an intellectually dishonest tactic, but nothing I wouldn't expect from the apologists for chronic underacheivers.

Throughout ALL churches and religions we see much persicution on religion, race, and sex. This is expeacially so in the early stages of that religion. After all, no Cathlic would denounce his faith because of the Crusades, where at the same time, no Cathlic would agree with it. Just as we put that example in perspective, we need to do so now. During early mormon culture, it was the general attitude of THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES that blacks were inferior. Thus church leaders had no qualms about being so frank. If you truely understood the morman religion, you would find that, A. "White and Delightsome" does not mean of fair skin; and
B. How one acted in the pre-exsitence does not effect how individuals should treat them in this untainted life. All men are born equal, however, some laws are placed in the foundation of the universe that cannot be removed included in these are the curses on which god places certian people of the world under, hence, for some time, the blacks were not albe to hold the preistood to fufill that curse,
C. From time to time, god places curses on the earth, and on certian individuals OR EVEN RACES. This is not a personal attack on the person itself. It is something that must be done to fulfill an enternal law. This is no excuse, however, for the maltreatment of any races, it is, though, an explination.

I am also deeply disturbed by these remarks, but I will take them with faith in my loving god.

So much for some Mormons not believing people of African descent are cursed by God.

You still haven't corrected the obvious
errors in your article, especially
the one about the "founder Joseph Smith"
being racist.

Joseph Smith was, if anything, far less
racist than almost anyone else in his day. He probably didn't have much contact with black people in his childhood, but later he even inducted at least a couple into the Mormon lay priesthood.

Brigham Young was indeed racist, even by the standards of his own day, and his half-century of autocratic rule of Utah and the Church led to much of the institutional racism that persisted into the 1980's.

I grew up a mormon in Mississippi and Alabama. I saw and heard some racism at church, although far less than in society at large. Most of the racism I saw at church was a paternalistic type, and most of the white people in my congregations frequently expressed fervent hope that the "priesthood ban" enacted by Young would soon be lifted, as it was in 1978.

I never saw any active, and especially no violent racism as a member of several LDS congregations in the South. I vaguely remember in the 1970's hearing that interracial marriage was considered bad, but "only for the sake of the children," which was an accurate if itself racist sentiment at the time. I don't remember ever hearing anything like that as I myself approached dating age in the 1980's, even when at my public high school there was a scandal of an interracial couple.

I certainly won't defend any mistreatment Nichelle Nichols received in SLC, however, it would help if you gave some context for your claims. Especially a date, as I have a feeling it occurred during a time period when that sort of incident was common in the US. Even in the late 1960's, Ms Nichols felt she was mistreated in Hollywood, which is certainly not a Mormon town.

The Church's biggest crime was trying to continue and rationalize Brigham Young's racism for nearly a century after his death. As a church, it has still only tacitly acknowledged the depths of its errors and crimes in this area. And, since it claims divine revelation, it is not unreasonable to expect its policies and actions to be BETTER than society at large, which in the main they were not. But to claim that they were WORSE than society at large, and to buttress this argument with huge factual errors, does not do you credit.

No, Richard. An accurate account of the history of the Mormons and minorities, particularly blacks, is a useful resource. I have no intention of removing it from the site. If the LDS was given to telling the truth about its problem, then outsiders would not need to publish correctives. You might want to give some thought to that.

The most recent material I've read on the topic says that the Mormons continue to recruit, but then lose, American minorities. So, it seems that the people of color who try to attach themselves to the LDS still encounter much discrimination. Those willing to tolerate it stay around. Those who aren't, the larger number, leave.

As for Ms. Nichol's life story, I recommend you read her autobiography if it interests you. I don't find it at all hard to believe she encountered bigotry in Hollywood in the 1960s. The historical record supports that. Gene Roddenberry, Ms. Nichol's lover incidentally, was pressured to take her off the show. Southern television stations were saying they would not carry Star Trek otherwise. The suits insisted her contract be temporary, while white actors had normal contracts. Not surprising to anyone familiar with race relations in America.

That was a very dishonest response. I didn't ask you to remove it, I suggested you correct the obvious errors in it. Indeed, an ACCURATE account would be valuable, so you should probably make yours accurate.

To repeat, you are attributing the words of a man (Joseph Fielding Smith) who led the LDS church for two years in the 1970's to the man (Joseph Smith) who founded the LDS church in the 1830's. If you care about accuracy, you will either correct the attribution, or you will find some quotes from the person you claim to be quoting. After all, he was a white male in the early 19th century, how hard could it be to find SOMETHING racist he said or wrote?

Then again, if you actually cared about accuracy, you would give the quotes in the context of the times, and balance it against the good things he did for race relations. There is a good bit of that for Joseph Smith, whereas Brigham Young was nearly an unmitigated racist.

But your original article, as it stands, is completely wrong in its attribution of those quotes, and also fairly poor in context in other ways.

I agree there were two Joseph Smiths, though neither of them departed from racist Mormon doctrine. Indeed, if the first Joseph Smith had not encouraged or acquiesced, the subsequent history of the church would not be what it is. If there had been a Mormon leader who made a heroic stance against racism, sexism or homophobia in the LDS, I would be happy to write about that person. But, no such person has ever existed. The most prominent Mormon in America today, Orson Scot Card, subscribes to Mormon doctrine and has written pretty extensively against civil rights for homosexuals. The problem is not with outsiders saying Mormons are retrograde in regard to human rights. The problem is that Mormons are retrograde in regard to human rights.

I, for one, would consider the frontrunner for the Senate Minority Leadership to be more prominent than Orson Scott Card.

Well, you could do a man on the street test. Card would win. I am not saying a writer of pulp sci-fi should have the highest name recognition, but I suspect he does.

I think it would be a draw, they're both relatively obscure. Now, Orrin Hatch and Mitt Romney on the other hand...

Some commentators are saying that people who spend a lot of time online, including bloggers, overestimate the importance of electoral politics to most people. I think they may be right. That's why Card would be more recognizable than Reid.

Try it. I suspect a lot of folks will think you are referring to Harry Potter.

The same could be said of sci-fi afficionados, I still say Card would be still be far behind Steve Young, Danny Ainge, Merlin Olsen, Sean Salisbury, and Superfly Snuka as far as name recognition.

Slavery had nothing to do with the civil war. The South wanted strong States rights and the North wanted strong Federal rights.

The more intelligent mechanical cotton picker replaced the negro.

On December 09, 2004 a morman told me that mormans were the onlygroup going to heaven.

Mormons have a very liberal view of heaven, based on Jesus' conversation with the thief hanging on the cross next to him...."My father has many mansions, and I go there to prepare one for you", and from the writings of Paul (I think) where he talks of the glory of the sun, the moon and stars as the different degrees of heaven.

"Worthy" Mormons go to the highest heaven. The rest of us go to middle class heaven, where we will be very happy with our non-Mormon friends and family. Hell is only reserved for the truly wicked (like Hitler) and Mormons that turn their back on the gospel.

Having been raised LDS I have to say that it's a very misunderstood religion. Many beliefs and practices have been misinterpreted and twisted so that people are very critical regarding those issues. The truth of the matter is every religion on this earth has beliefs/practices that 'outsiders' find a bit nutty. I am religious but I follow no religion. I believe we all came from the same place and we'll all return there when our time is done on earth. All each of us can do is make the most of our lives, try to be happy and not worry about who believes what. If we make it our life's mission to discredit the beliefs of someone else - what does it do for you? Nothing. We are all human, prone to make mistakes. No religion makes one perfect. When a person joins a religious group or faith it is usually because they are in search of some kind of justification or fulfillment. If it's what they need to feel content in their existence then respect them for that atleast. Most religions have scandals tied to their history. Past mistakes are just that - in the past. Sometimes it's best to leave issues there.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (ie- LDS, Mormon). I have very close friends of many diverse background, race etc that belong to the church and many, many who do not. I'd like to extend a very sincere invitation to everyone on here. Instead of reading what people say about our religion... go to the source of what we believe. Read the Book or Mormon for yourself, along with the Bible. You will see that we truly believe that the invitation to COME UNTO CHRIST is given to everyone. No one is denied this invitation. It is given to those who are black and white, bond and free, male and female. All are alike unto God. We are all His children. And remember that anything which invites men to do good is of God. Anything which invites men to do evil is of the devil. There are no gray areas when it comes to living the gospel and following Christ. I ask that you read from the Book of Mormon and find out for yourself if it invites you to do good.

I respect people of all different religions and find it interesting how there are some people of different denominations who will spend many hours in sunday school, or on these websites, trying to "prove" that the Mormon church is false, racists, etc... the list goes on. It seems that more time is taken to "bash" our religion than is spent studying your own. I find that interesting. At any rate, I offer this challenge, invitation. I hope we can try to find the good in people rather than the bad. I know we are happier when we do so. :)

Your article is totally ignorant----Your assertions are as twisted as any I have read---Hopefully God will forgive you for your stupidity---You claim your research is accurately noted and I am telling you that if you knew the extent of your errors --You would apologize from natural embarassment---just two ie's-of error-12 YO boys do not become Preists--and babies are not baptised--The more aggregious errors are too many to comment on---You should be ashamed of yourself and rightly owe an apologize for your ignorance about Latter Day Saints ! Dallas

all latter day saints are homosexuals

Mac Diva, still getting a response.

Good job on this piece, MacDiva, wherever you may be today. It was interesting and well-written.

I don't think any self-respecting brotha (no matter how Urkel-ish) would put on magic underwear, but I know for sure no sista's putting that booty in any magic drawers.

That is all.

Corrected Comment--Your article is totally ignorant---Your assertions are as twisted as any I have read--Hopefully God will forgive you for your stupidity about his doctrine---You claim that your research is accurately noted- Well I am telling you that if you knew the extent of your vast errors--you would apologize from natural embarrassment---ie-from the age of 12--"every male member is considered a Priest"--women and blacks are not considered or treated as second class members---Was God a racist ? We are all his children---Why did he create some of us differently--You are spewing racist remarks that are totally not church doctrine --Your numerous un-educated statements require an apology to those that you wrongfully offended---When you decide to write about Mormon Doctrine remember the statement--"It's better to remain silent and to be thought as being stupid than to speak and remove all doubt---Dallas

I believe the 1978 'revelation' came conveniently after a law suit was filed against BYU by a man of color who was recruited for their football team. Seems he did not wish to attend a church where he was not equal - imagine that!

Being a former mormon, I also recall the racist teachings. Discrimination against any group of people for whatever reason is wrong. Needless to say, my children (who are part African-American) were not subjected to the teachings of the mormon 'church'. Just my small contribution to stop the insanity of Josephs' cult.