A friend recently sent me a link to a debate between Christopher Hitchens and the Rev. Al Sharpton regarding the existence of God. It is fairly standard stuff. The existence of God cannot be successfully proven or disproven in rational debate (not that one would necessarily suspect Hitchens or Sharpton of producing rational debate). It is tired, increasingly so, to attempt it.
At one point in the discussion, while debating the role that Christianity played in the US civil rights movement in the 60’s, Sharpton quipped, “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.” This was apparently in response to a comment by Hitchens, who believes that Mormonism is a big racket. I assume this exchange was good-natured and jocular.
Let’s set aside the problem of two titans of theology or integrity like Hitchens and Sharpton debating the existence of God and instead focus on why Sharpton gets to glibly dismiss Mormons as people who don’t actually believe in God. This assumption on his part must derive from one of the following presuppositions:
1. There are no Mormons in New York to get offended.
2. There is a sufficient difference between the LDS Christ and the Protestant Christ that Mormons don’t worship anything similar to what he calls God.
3. Mormonism is actually a giant multi-level marketing scheme run out of Utah County.
Obviously, two of these suppositions are facetious. The only argument that Sharpton could make to support his argument is the second. However, the nature of the setting leads me to believe that most likely none of the above was in mind. Mormonism remains the only major American religion that is colliquially subject to widespread ridicule without intense public backlash. Apparently, we can take it.
Perhaps part of the problem is the fluidity of our doctrine. At lds.org, they recently released a statement attempting to explain what LDS doctrine actually is. The short version is “only consider things said by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve and then corraborated by the Standard Works of the Church doctrinally sound, but check with us first, too.” I have argued in the past that the things that one must actually believe to be a member of the church are relatively few. I think that one must believe in Jesus Christ being the Son of God, Joseph Smith having been a prophet, The Book of Mormon and other modern scripture represent the word of God, Gordon B. Hinckley and current authorities being divinely inspired/prophets, and that might be about it. Perhaps we have to believe in the Articles of Faith, too. If we have a creed or a definition of orthodoxy, I don’t know where else to turn.
This gives us tremendous flexibility in how we personally approach God, but it also leaves us open to attacks like Sharpton’s. If no-one can pin down what we believe exactly, if what we believe changes in particulars from person to person, then an outsider can easily decide that we must not believe in anything at all, but are rather a social club, like the Elks or Masons. Of course, this is a ridiculous assumption (no Elk gives 10% of his income to the Elks). But Sharpton is an ignorant buffoon, so the subtleties and the obvious aspects of my heartfelt belief may escape his all-seeing eye.
I do believe, Rev. Sharpton. I believe with all that I am. If you can’t see that, it is because you haven’t looked or don’t care. In either case, I am saddened that someone who has made the discussion of discrimination, real and imagined, the core of his ministry and persona can so blithely dismiss the religious experience of 10 million people. I admit that we haven’t endured the sustained persecution that African Americans have, but this isn’t a competition. We should strive to raise every one up, not look for new scapegoats on whom we can shift the blame. If you learned nothing else from your life’s experiences, you should have learned that.
May 8, 2007 at 5:27 pm
It’s the hair, man. Too much pressure on the skull.
Seriously though, finding scapegoats is Sharpton’s job. He’s a professional victim/messiah.
Perhaps that’s the difference: our Jesus was Jewish.
May 8, 2007 at 5:41 pm
You’re in good company, JDC, just as Sharpton is the latest in a crowd of his kind. In 1870, fighting against a bill in the U.S. House that would have eliminated jury trial for Mormons (and only Mormons), criminalized the celebration of any marriage when performed by a Mormon (and only a Mormon) minister, provided for the seizure of every penny of a Mormon’s (and only a Mormon’s) property to be administered by the government if that man left home (i.e., to serve a mission), and otherwise violated a Mormon’s every civil right, William H. Hooper gave a speech in Congress that was published as “A Plea for Religious Liberty.” He rehearsed the history of Mormonism, and concluded, “Mr. Speaker, is this shining record that of a community of hypocrites? What other Christian denomination of our country can show higher evidences of earnestness, of devoted self-sacrifice for the preservation of their religious faith?”
Like I said, you’re in good company.
May 8, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I guess my last would be more relevant if I pointed out that the legislation was promised on the idea that Mormonism wasn’t really a religion, that it was a criminal enterprise organized for financial gain and the satisfaction of carnal lusts.
May 8, 2007 at 5:48 pm
er, “premised,” not “promised” /beats forehead with palm/
May 8, 2007 at 6:27 pm
…or if you want to hear the audio version of his remark…
May 8, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I was born into a small-town Utah Latter Day Saint family with all ancestors but one (and that was a female line) here by 1858. As a family, however, we were never well-bonded with the Church after WWII, and I have left for a peace church. With this background and knowledge, I usually say when asked, which isn’t often, that a fundamental difference between Latter Day Saints and other Christains is the belief in exaltation–the progress toward godhood of all worthy male members. I understood this as a central doctrine. Was I not listening, or is something else meant by “doctrine”?
PS, I come to this and some other LDS sites from time to time to refresh my belief that civility on the web is possible.
May 8, 2007 at 6:47 pm
I think we’re open game because we are perceived to be old-fashioned racists and sexists on the basis of some prior doctrines and behaviors in addition to being outside the main stream of American Christianity. You can bet that Sharpton and others wouldn’t shed a tear over attacking a racist-sexist (witness the talk show host I had never heard of but who got fired over saying something horrible on record). The Quakers, who have a complex, fascinating history and don’t resemble evangelicalism don’t get the same guff, but if they were perceived as rabid racist-sexists, I suspect people would be remembering how crazy George Fox seems and mocking current Quakers. And the main stream is what keeps certain evangelicals free to engage in behaviors for which we are blamed.
If we want to not get attacked so much, I think we need to be sure our voices are heard in decrying racism and sexism because (hopefully) we won’t be truly joining the main stream.
May 8, 2007 at 6:55 pm
re Jon in #6
These days in the Mormon Church the central focus is on Jesus Christ. People becoming Gods was mentioned by Joseph Smith in a talk he gave at a funeral (in 1844, I believe), and the concept has been mentioned in a famous couplet by another Mormon prophet, John Taylor.
But today the concept is largely avoided; we have not repudiated the concept, we just don’t focus on it.
May 8, 2007 at 7:03 pm
This is one reason I would like Romney to win. It proves our legitimacy as a group to people like Sharpton, and would, I hope, make them think twice before insulting us like this. Not that I care very much about what Sharpton says or thinks.
May 8, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I served my mission in France and Mormons there are perceived pretty much the way Scientologists are perceived here. So yes, if Romney can pull off a victory in the race for the White House is would be the ultimate Public Relations event for the Church. It would really change the way Mormons are perceived in France.
May 8, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Who cares about Sharpton or Hitchens?
NOBODY!
Sharpton has always been a wannabe (and he wants to be Jesse Jackson no less). After all, does he think that the other GOP candidates are real Christians? I cannot imagine that he really gave much thought to the above comment anyways. Much like the way Mormons talk about other Churches and beliefs without having the slightest clue about what they speak of.
Hitchens wants to confuse us into thinking that an English accent makes one brilliant (I oft fall for this idea, then I read something by Hitchens). I say this as one who wishes that he was English. This is the guy who abandoned the Left because he thought that the Iraq War was a good idea. And he thinks that Mormons are crazy and stupid.
The Washington Post has a blog-like symposium on whether the Mormons are part of the Christian Mainstream. WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE CARE? Let us stop caring about what others think. Are we like other Christians? NO! Why would we want to be?
HP: This may not be directly relevant to your post, I apologize. However, I now feel better.
May 8, 2007 at 7:47 pm
“I believe with all that I am.”
Do you mean with every fiber of your being?
May 8, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Jon Williams (#8),
People becoming Gods is in the Doctrine and Convenants 132. It is one of my favorite doctrines. It get me through the right-wing insanity that has come to dominate our faith and culture.
Sam MB (#7),
AMEN!!
May 8, 2007 at 7:53 pm
One of the reasons mormons are fair game is we don’t have media whores like Jesse or Al to represent us. I nominate John Heder.
And on the subject of sexism – Al has no room to talk – http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0449,barrett,59023,5.html
May 8, 2007 at 7:59 pm
re Chris H #13
When was the last time it was mentioned in General Conference, though? I’m not saying we don’t believe it, I’m saying we don’t focus on it in 2007. That’s totally cool if you dig it.
I think we are under attack because we used to be polygamists and we wear garments, and these facts are viewed as bizarre by outsiders (understandibly so).
May 8, 2007 at 8:02 pm
“Media whores” might be a bit rude. Sharpton does not claim to be perfect.
We are fair game because in a free society people are allowed to have different ideas.
Not like we do not give people reason to target us. Blacks and the priesthood, the ERA, and gay marriage have all made us legitimate political targets.
May 8, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Jon Williams,
Your are right about conference. It is one of those things we do not talk about because we want everyone else (read: other Christians) to love us. We might do this for missionary, and not just p.r., purposes. However it sure makes conference boring for the most part.
May 8, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I don’t know about Hitchens, but the answer to “who cares about Sharpton” is: “All the major Democratic Presidential Candidates”.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/18/democrats_court_black_voters/
Democratic presidential contenders are scrambling for support in what’s being dubbed the Al Sharpton primary. The civil rights leader livened up the 2004 Democratic primary with his pompadour hairdo and sharp, witty oratory. This election, the high-profile Sharpton, fresh from the fight over Don Imus’ derogatory remarks, is attracting all the party’s major candidates this week for his annual National Action Network convention.
The solid attendance — starting with John Edwards on Wednesday and continuing with Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama later this week — reflects Sharpton’s prominence in the party, concern that he might run again and the Democrats’ effort to appeal to the base, particularly black voters.
May 8, 2007 at 8:17 pm
And besides, she really shouldn’t have worn that skirt in that neighborhood right?
May 8, 2007 at 8:19 pm
That is because they care about black voters (as they darn well should) not because the care about Al Sharpton (which they do not). However, when they meet with Sharpton the New York-centric media notices and it sends a message. I do not blame them.
I only believe what the Boston Globe has to say about Mitt Romney.
May 8, 2007 at 8:22 pm
“And besides, she really shouldn’t have worn that skirt in that neighborhood right?”
You lost me.
May 8, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Don’t worry about it, I’m sure we can both agree that, due to it’s status as a conservative christian religion, Mormonism deserves any abuse that others wish to unleash on it.
May 8, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Al Sharpton is Exhibit A of why a friend continually says (paraphrased) that given the state of “Christianity” today, Mormonism benefits immensely from not being considered Christianity.
May 8, 2007 at 8:38 pm
[...] Fresh off his high moral crusade to make the world safe from the likes of Don Imus, it appears Mr. Sharpton’s halo has fallen just a bit.  Hugh Hewitt has two good posts, I recommend here and here. J. Daniel Crawford also has an excellent post on Sharpton over here at BCC. [...]
May 8, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Aluwid,
Of course, I do not agree with that. I think that we should ignore it. Do we deserve to be abused? No! However being insulted be these guys is not abuse because they are irrelevant. That was my original point. Plus we are not just any conservative christian religion, which is something that we such be proud of. We are the only conservative christian church that I like because we are the only true one.
May 8, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Sharpton’s explanation seems to make sense. He was referring to Hitchens when he was talking about those who do not believe in god. See:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/08/politics/p180838D38.DTL&type=politics
May 8, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I’m not sure, Chris. The fact that the word “really” is in there complicates the issue. It only makes sense to compare believers and non-believers. It is not equivalent to compare true-believers and non-believers. The fact that the modifier “true” is used implies the existence of another stripe of believer: ostensibly “false” or (more charitably) “mistaken” believers.
Of course, I don’t suppose the dear Reverend could be counted on to have read Strunk and White, but I still don’t buy his explanation.
May 8, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Sorry, not the modifier “true” but “really.” I think the basic point remains the same, though. (Of course, to make sense now “false” = “falsely” and “mistaken” = “mistakenly.”)
May 8, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Given that it was a debate format, I am not sure if we can be that picky. Plus, Hitchens had been challenging whether Martin Luther King “really” believed in God. That is likely what he had in mind. To be honest, he probably could care less about Mormons.
May 8, 2007 at 9:30 pm
re #6,8,13,15
I’m a nonmember with a few of questions that I am sincerely curious about.
1. Is the King Follet Discourse the first mention ever of the eternal progression doctrine?
2. Does “eternal progression” NECESSARILY mean that men will become literal gods?
3. If not, does “eternal progression” have to include the idea that God was once a man?
4. Is the belief that God was once a man essential to being a proper Mormon? (I use the word “proper” for lack of a better one at the moment).
Please don’t think I’m baiting anyone. I’ve just never really been clear on that, despite my study of the Church. Thanks.
May 8, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I’m with the who cares crowd. Or, want to be.
And am with the we definitely teach that we can become gods. I taught it right out of the Gospel Principles manual not one month ago. We focus on Christ because he is the one and only source of salvation available to us. And if we are to become Gods, or anything else worth a spit, it will be because of Him.
I actually find myself in sympathy with Hitchens from time to time. He has unfortunately gone from having a typical philosophe aversion to God to attacking any religious sentiment, however inocuous or even benevolent, because he sees the seed of tyranny in belief in God. (When his friend Salman Rushdie looked at the world and said, roughly, ‘the name of the problem is God’, Hitch got goosebumps.) Never mind that the better part of the last century’s tyrants, a number of whom he is now or in the past has been deeply in sympathy with, were even more determinedly atheistic (or anti-theistic, as he prefers it) than he is. They actually went out of their way to kill religious people whereas Hitchens only bemoans that religion is ‘probably not eradicable.’ His opinions on any religion are as nuanced as running your car into a cement wall. When it comes to Mormonism, he has – and anyone paying attention saw this coming – an idiot of the first order.
~
May 8, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I don’t know, that seems like a substantive list of things to believe. I don’t see our list of things to believe being so significantly different from other Christian denominations that someone could claim we don’t believe in God, but I know there are still many people out there who’d disagree. Too bad Sharpton’s one of them–he’s an entertaining political commentator, if a crackpot. I don’t think you can really read his statement any other way than questioning Romney’s faith, either–his later explanation just doesn’t fit what he said.
May 8, 2007 at 10:45 pm
C.M.,
That is a complicated subject. You might want to start with Psalm 82:6, which Jesus himself quotes in John 10:34.
There is some support is the expanded LDS canon for the same doctrine which Romans 8:16-17 proclaims, namely that we are children of God with the potential to be joint heirs of Jesus Christ, sharing in the same blessings and obligations. See D&C 84:83-38. The most literal example is D&C 132:19-20, which notably refers to married couples.
As to your last three questions, there has been a reasonable diversity of views. Roughly, (2) not necessarily – depending on what you mean by “literal”, (3) Hard to say – Joseph Smith thought so (4) No.
May 8, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Sharpton was never one for rhetorical precision. I’m sure he meant “those who believe in the real God will defeat him anyway.” That would square with the typical Evangelical view of the LDS. They don’t claim Mormons are atheists; it’s an assertion of heresy.
re: 23 That is so true. Of course, it would be even better if the American LDS weren’t so overwhelmingly identified with the Republican party. One doubts that helps the global missionary effort…..
May 8, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I, for one, really, really hope that Mormons don’t start to whine and accuse people of bigotry at every public insult thrown our way. We do not need a belligerent anti-defamation group. Nor should we try to force respect for us on people.
As for politics, Romney’s camp should have let Sharpton’s remark pass, or be discussed by others. Their quick reaction smells of politics, not faith.
May 8, 2007 at 11:28 pm
C.M.,
Personally, I think that the concept of eternal progression toward godhood (becoming like God) is one of the most fundamental doctrines of the Old Testament – echoed throughout the New Testament as the key of the “Good News” of the Gospel that Jesus restored to an apostate Jewish nation. I once wrote a mid-length paper for a Divinity School seminar on that subject and the physical nature of the resurrection that only quoted passages from the Bible. (literally dozens of them) The graduate student who led the smaller seminar discussions (studying to become a Protestant minister) wrote that I was 100% incorrect – but gave me an A on the paper because he couldn’t refute the passages I quoted and the conclusions I drew from them. It was a fascinating experience.
As to questions #2-4, I agree with Mark D.
May 9, 2007 at 12:11 am
I think that it is obvious that the Reverend Sharpton was suggesting that anyone who believed in a God who held the same racial prejudices that racists historically used to justify slavery and discrimination cannot be said to be a believer in any real form of divinity.
It is easy to dismiss Sharpton for other reasons, but the sentiment is reasonable. Consider this statement that explicitly makes the point that those who invoked Hamitic hypotheses were engaging in blaspemy:
It was argued that the Negro was inferior by nature because of Noah’s curse upon the children of Ham…. The greatest blasphemy of the whole ugly process was that the white man ended up making God his partner in the exploitation of the Negro.
The statement was made by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Junior, in 1967. Given that Mitt Romney during this period chose to embrace and espouse these types of beliefs, which were reaffirmed in an official statement of the First Presidency of the LDS church in 1969, and has never repudiated them or his actions, it is quite reasonable that his conduct is offensive to many believers in a just deity.
Were the directors of this blog to possess a modicum of ethical or intellectual integrity, they would offer a formal public apology for allowing this poster and many of these commenters to offer their unsophisticated, if not bigoted, views. It is such a shame that in 2007 that there are still those who condone the support of racism.
May 9, 2007 at 12:27 am
if Romney can pull off a victory in the race for the White House… It would really change the way Mormons are perceived in France.
Oh, yes, especially with some of his recent denigrating comments about France, where he worked in the mission field. Maintenant, c’est un pont bien brulé.
May 9, 2007 at 1:56 am
WBF:
Well if so, it’s the most esoteric obviousness I’ve ever heard of. If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he say so? He has now explained his comments and this idea is found nowhere in his explanation. Hmmm…Could it be you are putting words in his mouth for your own purposes?
It is easy to dismiss Sharpton for other reasons, but the sentiment is reasonable. Consider this statement that explicitly makes the point that those who invoked Hamitic hypotheses were engaging in blaspemy:
It was argued that the Negro was inferior by nature because of Noah’s curse upon the children of Ham…. The greatest blasphemy of the whole ugly process was that the white man ended up making God his partner in the exploitation of the Negro.
Fine, but if so, you better get out your big tar brush, because every Christian religion out there, with very few exceptions, made those same statements, or worse, back in the day. It wasn’t the Mormons MLK was referring to when he said that after all.
You are waaaay out of line here WBF. I do not condone racism, nor has this thread been in any way about racism until now. You are the one who is engaging in unsophisticated and bigoted views by suggesting that no one can criticize a black leader without engaging in racism. That is demagoguery of the worst kind and you, my friend, should apologize, promptly.
May 9, 2007 at 4:59 am
1. There are no Mormons in New York to get offended.
2. There is a sufficient difference between the LDS Christ and the Protestant Christ that Mormons don’t worship anything similar to what he calls God.
3. Mormonism is actually a giant multi-level marketing scheme run out of Utah County.
4. There are no NYers, Mormon or not, who take The Reverend Al seriously. For NYers, he spent all his capital over Tawana Brawley and will never recoup owing to his shenanigans.
WBF:I think that it is obvious that the Reverend Sharpton was suggesting that anyone who believed in a God who held the same racial prejudices that racists historically used to justify slavery and discrimination cannot be said to be a believer in any real form of divinity.
MCQ:Well if so, it’s the most esoteric obviousness I’ve ever heard of. If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he say so? He has now explained his comments and this idea is found nowhere in his explanation. Hmmm…Could it be you are putting words in his mouth for your own purposes?
While WBF’s motives are certainly dubious, as a brief perusal of his blog would indicate, the argument be presents is the same one I deduced as being the source of Sharpton’s criticism upon reading the article in question. The Blacks & Priesthood issue is well-known outside the Church and I would be very surprised if Sharpton wasnt aware of it and it wasnt the source of his antipathy for Mormonism. There is nothing esoteric about it. For Sharpton, race is everything all the time, that is his bailiwick.
May 9, 2007 at 5:37 am
ED,
For using “bailiwick” at BCC, you are my hero.
May 9, 2007 at 5:53 am
I’m probably totally off the mark here but for me the claims that we “don’t believe in God” or we “don’t believe in the same God or the same Jesus” as the Evangelicals has always been about money. Isn’t it true that the persecutions of the past have often, if not always, been led by the local clergy. Even today in my suburban Washington DC community there is a local evangelical church where the pastor takes time, EACH WEEK, to say something negative about the Mormons (I know this because my son’s former girlfriend used to attend there.) It seems it’s all about taking potential paying customers from their flock. Doctrinal differences have become part of the justification for this practice but aren’t there doctrinal differences, admittedly less distinct ones, between all Christian denominations? It seems clear that its all about the money. So what’s new?
May 9, 2007 at 6:41 am
I have not read all of the comments, but I feel one actually has to believe less to be some flavor of protestant.
May 9, 2007 at 6:58 am
Starting at the top:
#3 – Ardis
It’s always good to know that historical precedent in on one’s side.
#6 – Jon
I agree that that is a important element of our belief. It just isn’t something that comes up in the temple recommend interviews or the Articles of Faith and, therefore, I don’t know if we have to believe it. For that matter, it is something that can be approached in several different ways, so I am uncertain that we even have a very good idea of what we mean when we say this.
#7 – Sam
To be entirely honest, I hoped Al Sharpton got the Dem nomination in 2004, just because he was funnier than all the other candidates combined. He knows what is funny, so he knows that attacking Mormon’s is allowable. I think that saying it is because we are perceived to have outdated racial and social views, while perhaps to some degree true, is a form of blaming the victim. It also helps that we are perceived as only living in Utah. The “Mormons can’t be offended because of what they can’t here” factor is huge. I also believe that our reputation (earned or unearned) as a nice people means that it is assumed that we can take a joke. Not that I think Sharpton was joking in this instance…
#8 – John Williams,
You are thinking of Lorenzo Snow there. Also, we’ve never stopped talking about it. It remains important.
#11 – Chris
Rant On, Brother. Next time, USE MORE CAPITALS!!!!
#12 – amri
Actually, a couple of my fibers are unitarian (but don’t tell anyone)
#18 – Aluwid
Yes, the moral superiority of the Republican candidates is clearly evident, as they only kowtow to white Christian Conservatives like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
#35 – Clair
Well heavens, I would hate to be accused of whining. Actually, I don’t mind Mormon jokes; I mind the mindset that allows Sharpton, of all people, to accuse me of not believing in God and then expect to get away with it. You can joke about the number of wives I have, but please don’t joke about whether or not my belief is real. That is so uncool.
#37 – WestBerkeleyFlats
Actually, I think Sharpton just made a flippant comment. I don’t think an awful lot of thought went into it. I believe that other people have pointed out the flaws in your argument, but I am curious as to where you find the racism in my post. I know that I am a little bit racist (I think every American is), but I don’t know how this post demonstrates it.
#40 – Extreme Dorito
I agree that Tawana Brawley is a reason why no-one takes Sharpton seriously (even outside NY). While I also understand the justification being used there, it shows laziness in both thought and research.
#42 – lamonte
I don’t think it is helpful to reduce all this to a discussion of money. There are many believing Protestants and Catholics out there who have real concerns about our doctrine and its results. Do I think this justifies all the cult literature? No. But the concern often comes from a desire to bring others to Christ. Really.
May 9, 2007 at 7:17 am
HP/JDC – I agree there are many Catholics and Protestants who have concerns, or just disagree, with our doctrines, just as we disagree with theirs. Probably the best “Christian” I know is a Catholic father whose wife and (4) children are members of my ward. The father fully supports his family’s church activities while, at the same time, spending of all of his free time (he is now retired) giving Christian service at homeless shelters, orphanages and elsewhere. I have had brief discussions with him about the doctrine that he rejects but he also loves the “community” of our ward and he is an integral part of it.
I’m certain there will always be differences among the various denominations but I feel that the ones leading the hyperbolic charge against our church are the ones who seem to have the most to lose.
May 9, 2007 at 7:29 am
HP/JDC – I didn’t read any whining into your post, but I heard some coming from the Romney camp. I hope it is the last time.
May 9, 2007 at 7:43 am
Lamonte and HP/JDC both have valid points, but I would combine the two and phrase it a little differently. Perhaps most of the vocal opposition to Mormonism is produced by those who feel like we are stealing something. From this perspective, we steal members (and their attendant money) away from ministers and congregations, but we also steal souls away from Christ or tradition or family.
I interviewed many years ago for a position of teacher at a Quaker school. The principle told me directly that he would have to defend my hiring to one board member who had “lost a daughter to the Mormons.” Money had nothing to do with that father’s emotion; he truly felt his daughter’s spiritual life was in danger.
Likewise, one of my missionary companions was a native Japanese elder. He was the oldest son of the oldest son of the town’s Buddhist priest – going back about 16 generations. When he joined the Church, his father performed a death ceremony for him – in Christian terms, letting go of a damned soul.
Finally, early converts didn’t join and stay in their home towns with their families. They joined and moved thousands of miles away to live among the saints. They said, in essence, “I would rather be with Joseph Smith and the Mormons than with you, my family.” I know that is consistent with statements in the New Testament, but it still is a brutal message to hear as a parent or sibling.
In each of these cases, these people believed deeply that joining the Mormon Church was tantamount to abandoning family and friends and jumping into the flames of Hell. They felt that the Mormon Church stole their children’s eternal salvation/soul/destiny. That underlying feeling of being robbed in one way or another can’t be ignored – and for those of us who are parents, it should be understood better.
May 9, 2007 at 7:45 am
I have a question about race. Recently there have been several comments regarding race and the priesthood ban. I can understand that the priesthood ban is offensive, as a religious matter, to many both in and outside the Church, but I do not understand what appears to be an accepted connection to other civil rights. Especially the argument, advanced by WBF, that the priesthood ban supports slavery. I realize that similar justifications were used to justify both the ban and priesthood, but I am unaware of examples where LDS church leaders used the priesthood ban to argue either for slavery or against civil rights. In fact, my understanding is that they explicitly endorsed equal rights for the races in all circumstances, barring those that would have impinged on the ban (including, of course, Temple marriage) itself.
In short, my understanding is that the Church, believing that the priesthood ban was approved by God, refused to remove it until God directed that it be removed, but did not use the ban institutionally to justify other prejudice or to color arguments in favor of slavery or denial of other civil, as opposed to ecclesiastical, rights. My question is, am I wrong? Was the Church actively racist in all aspects, actively opposed to civil rights for all, and resolved to keep ‘darkies’ in their place, or was it generally supportive of civil rights, but determined to withhold priesthood authority from blacks until directed otherwise by Him whose Priesthood the Church proclaims?
May 9, 2007 at 7:46 am
I should have said “I realize similar justifications were used to justify both the ban and slavery, but …”
May 9, 2007 at 7:52 am
Ray,
Beautifully stated.
May 9, 2007 at 8:06 am
Mark D. and Ray — Thank you for your responses. They were helpful.
May 9, 2007 at 8:09 am
I seem to recall some of the tension between the Saints in MO and the locals being over slavery, since Mormons were abolitionists. Am I misremembering?
May 9, 2007 at 8:30 am
Did the Rev Al back off his statements a bit now?
I am no Rev Al supporter but he clarified pretty well per this article.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070509/D8P0I52O0.html
Considering that I heard a group of evangelicals condemn Catholics to hell on Monday for believing that the sacraments of the church are required for salvation in bible study at first I was inclined to believe that Al was serious about his Mormon remarks. Al is after all an Evangelical/Pentecostal Christian theology wise not that different from his political enemies on the right.
After he clarified I think it was more a slip of the tongue.
May 9, 2007 at 8:46 am
Here’s a rough transcription of Hitchens’ comment:
“The only thing that has always been consistently justified by the churches was, initially, slavery–the right to hold someone as a slave, biblically warranted–and the right to keep the races separate, which is endorsed by a church that, just to give a contemporary example, one of the current candidates for the Republican nomination is a member of a church–the so-called Mormon Church of Latter-day Saints–that until 1965 had it as an article of faith that the Bible separates the sons of Ham and makes them lesser. Well, I don’t have to dispute[?] a text like that because I don’t think it has any authority.”
May 9, 2007 at 8:46 am
52.kristine.
As a whole, early Mormons were not abolitionists. Abolitionists were considered a radical, disruptive group. Brigham Young had harsh words for them. It was enough for the Missourians that Mormons were not slave-holders.
May 9, 2007 at 9:06 am
I would feel a lot better if the Rev had just called Mitt a nappy-headed Mo’.
May 9, 2007 at 9:06 am
John #8:
Yeah, I guess that little, unimportant issue really is being de-emphasized, since you think John Taylor wrote that “couplet.” Try Lorenzo Snow.
Don’t feel too bad though. Most other things Joseph Smith taught are being jettisoned, too.
May 9, 2007 at 9:09 am
Thank you for providing Hitchens comments, Justin. It gives Sharpton’s comments a necessary context (although one that wasn’t far distant from what I speculated). Be that as it may, it was still a remarkably ignorant for the reverand to say.
May 9, 2007 at 9:11 am
To quote the AP story: “In a tape of the debate, Sharpton can be heard defending the role of religion in the civil rights movement and shunning any suggestion that there wasn’t a religious underpinning to the efforts of its leader, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Then Sharpton spoke of Romney, although a tape reviewed by The Associated Press does not reveal why.”
Sharpton spoke of Romney in response to Hitchens’ comment, which I quoted in #54.
May 9, 2007 at 9:12 am
Al Sharpton better watch his P&Q’s. New York isn’t the best place to be a vocal anti-mormon.
Don’t forget that Meir Kahane was assassinated in the MARRIOTT hotel not longer after leading a set of protests against the BYU Jerusalem center in front of what was then the New York, New York Stake Center (now the Manhattan temple).
May 9, 2007 at 9:15 am
BTW, the debate can be heard here.
May 9, 2007 at 9:22 am
Sorry, MAC, you lost me on that one. I hope it was tongue-in-cheek. If so, OK. If not, ?
May 9, 2007 at 9:32 am
Yes, tongue-in-cheek. But still true.
May 9, 2007 at 10:33 am
#48. The church largely wasn’t a pro slavery entity. But you can’t really claim it was abolotionist either. As someone else already brought up Brigham Young didn’t care for aboltionists.
As for the church being afraid of “Darkies”. Well, I believe that has a lot to do with it. With Brigham Young’s Cain’s descendants comments, people’s interpretations of the whole “curse of dark skin” comments (as a latino I still get plenty of this) and David O’McKay’s comments about the “Negroids”. It’s obvious that the church didn’t exactly view people of color as equals from time to time (even though Joseph Smith did ordain a few black preists).
Or it just could have been that Utah was rather sheltered racially until recently. I grew up in Utah county in the eighties and as a latino I’ll tell you I felt like a raisin in a mayonaisse jar at times.
May 9, 2007 at 11:17 am
Thank you Kristine, Clair, and ronito. I gather from your comments that the institutional church could not have been appropriately characterized as abolitionist during the 1800s, and that individual members (including some leaders) could be appropriately described as prejudiced during the 20th century. This is a beginning of an answer to my question, but not quite complete. What I would like to know is if the Church, as an institution, took a position opposed to civil rights based on the justification of the priesthood ban, or did the Church maintain that the ban was an ecclesiastical matter apart from political equality.
May 9, 2007 at 11:17 am
To describe the Church’s position on slavery, as pro or anti is overly simplistic.
When you consider where the Church was geographically (think John Brown), and the conditions it was operating under, its primary interest was not injecting itself into the slavery debate.
May 9, 2007 at 11:31 am
Looking back at the original post, regarding the fluidity of our doctrine, apart from Polygamy and the Priesthood ban, most people don’t know much about what we believe. We fall victim to the Karl Rove school of defining your enemies before they can define themselves. As a result, once we remind folks that we don’t practice polygamy and allow all races access to priesthood ordination, the next question is “Are you really Christian?”
They all know we are nice, but that about covers it. The church seems to be primarily interested in presenting our “normal, mainstream, nice neighbor” face via the media, and teach the doctrine via the missionary effort, one on one (or two on one).
We also tend to be socially less involved with our non-member neighbors, which doesn’t help. And I think all of those folks are afraid of us sending the missionaries after them. We have great neighbors across the street from us that we do very well with, but the wife has a brother who joined the church, and they consider him lost and a little loony.
Perhaps we need to get out more.
May 9, 2007 at 11:32 am
UM,
Some members of the Quorum of the Twelve (notably Ezra Taft Benson) believed that the civil rights movement was associated with communism and therefore opposed it on that basis. Others supported the civil rights movement (notably Hugh B. Brown). David O McKay didn’t personally care much for Black people, but we spent years praying to have the ban removed. It is complicated, but I believe that you are correct is guessing that the ban never led the church as an institution to oppose civil rights.
May 9, 2007 at 11:39 am
Ugly Mahana – #48:
The 2005 David O. McKay biography by Gregory Prince has some good insight to your questions. So does the Spring 1973 Dialogue article by Lester Bush (Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine). Here are my recollections:
Early- and mid-20th century church leaders apparently have a varied record on civil rights issues. Overall, they were probably no more racist than the average white citizen of the time.
There were church leaders who seemed suspicious of the civil rights movement. Elder Benson seemed to think that it had ties to communism, and President McKay seemed swayed by that thinking to some extent.
Later statements by the First Presidency clarified that it is wrong to deny civil rights to any person, regardless of the Church’s priesthood policy.
May 9, 2007 at 11:40 am
I’m learning. I will keep this short and succinct.
#64 – Do you believe there will be slavery during the millennium?
#36 – Ray, is this paper open for peer review? I give you the invitation to post your paper anytime on HI4LDS.
#33 – Are the elohim still servants, still accountable, still under the sovereignty of Yahweh? To be like Christ, will that eliminate the fact that I no longer need to be the Lord’s bond-servant in the age forward?
Is it something less to be an eternal servant (if you prefer the synonym – god – little g), doing the will of the Lord Jesus Christ (God – big g)?
May 9, 2007 at 11:46 am
No I don’t believe that slavery will exist in the millenium. Not that it’s a subject I’ve looked at much.
May 9, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Al Sharpton has tried to clarify his statement. See here:
http://www.foxnews.com/stor/0,2933,27085,00.html
May 9, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Oops!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270853,00.html
May 9, 2007 at 12:15 pm
[...] has a post on Al Sharpton’s jab at Mormonism. The situation is mainly interesting because Sharpton was [...]
May 9, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Todd,
I saw you ask similar questions on your own blog, and was rather disappointed. Your post seems like something quite close to an ambush to me. I think that ronito (#71) provides the best answer you could get. For all that we do know, we don’t know a whole lot about the millenium. Do you?
Also, I am loathe to state categorically what will and will not be during the millenium. I believe that Christ will reign upon the earth, and direct the government thereof. I trust that He will be just and merciful in His administration. How do you think Christ will rule?
Finally, as to eternal progression, I believe that the righteous, i.e. those that have washed their robes in Christ’s blood, will sit down with him in His throne just as he is sat down in the throne of His Father. I believe that Christ, in both his antemortal and mortal state, was God in every sense of the word. Yet, during His mortal ministry He was ever quick to acknowledge that He only did what His Father directed. Any LDS commentary on exaltation must be understood in light of the example of Christ. We are not, and none of us claim to be, greater than Him. Any insinuation that we are or do is a gross misinterpretation of our doctrine, bordering on disingenousness of the highest order. Even Latter-day Saints who have spoken of (potentially) being independent clarify that they do not expect to reach that state until God places them in their sphere- and then their independence will still be limited by the bounds placed upon it by God. Much as we are free to act here below, but are yet limited by God’s decrees.
In conclusion, LDS statements on exaltation should not be understood as implying that we will displace God, or even become gods to ourselves. Rather, we mean that we believe Christ when he said “What manner of men ought ye to be, behold even as I am.”
May 9, 2007 at 12:40 pm
#75 – No, I am not trying to ambush you. In fact, right now I am in a library room studying Isaiah 14 (Interesting – the NIV has a footnote connecting to Psalm 82). There have been 20 LDS elders and sisters in here as well, checking email, smiling, joking, and having a good time. These sincere, believing young people are from all over the world.
To the question. I think there will be slavery in the millennium. A slavery that even the great social reformer, William Wilberforce, could accept.
Here is the paradox. When I am the best servant, I am the most happy.
We have Wednesday night inductive studies in Isaiah. Tonight it is Isaiah 16. It might take us a another year to get from this point to the end. But wow. Time spent in this book is worth it.
I wish Al Sharpton would study Isaiah more.
May 9, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Todd,
I think you’ve answered your own question. If I was overly defensive, I apologize.
When I said I was disappointed, I meant it. In some of your other comments here and on T&S I have been impressed that you truly wish to open a dialogue. Yet, at the same time, you seem to make assumptions about LDS belief, and then demand that we defend positions that may not be our own. I do not believe that you do this purposefullly, however. Just an observation.
May 9, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Todd, I think Ugly Mahana is unfortunately correct about you — more and more, your comments (like you #70) are sermons and plays on words that have little to do with the post at hand and more to drive readers to your own site and to address our “heart issues.” I can respect your evangelical spirit but you need to respect our forum.
May 9, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I will work on that. How about something like this?
“From what I have gathered, this seems to be the position of this LDS professor or this LDS apostle, what are your thoughts on millennial slavery?”
Would that remove some of the disappointment?
But I need to ask questions (lots of them) because I don’t want to broadbrush. I wish I could ask Mitt Romney this particular question.
May 9, 2007 at 1:03 pm
What is interesting is that the Romans accused early Christians of Atheism. Don’t know how this relates completely, but an interesting fact.
May 9, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Steve, which would be better for BCC?
Only writing on HI4LDS with links on my blog to things which I question or differ with on BCC . . .
Or occasional popping in for direct conversation . . . (Steve, I know it can get messy.)
Concerning the latter, I can bow out permanently if you prefer.
May 9, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Todd, if you’re talking about a Pauline type of being slaves to Christ, etc., then yes, the devout are currently and will always be in that type of relationship with Christ and with God the Father. But your question seems coy and has little to do with the topic of the post.
May 9, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Steve,
My next comment will be a rather lengthy response to TW on why his question is disappointing. If you would like to end the threadjack, go ahead and delete it.
May 9, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Todd,
That would help a little bit. The problem is, though, is that you’ve picked up on a bit of trivia, and seem to want to make a mountain of it. I had never thought of millenial slavery at all, until you brought it up. Even in the revised question, you are impugning that I, as a mormon, must have thought about it simply because another (published) mormon wrote about it. Frankly, I think your analysis (to paraphrase: There will be millenial “slavery”, because we will all be happiest as servants of Christ) is right on. I doubt that the authors you reference on your blog -without giving citation – would disagree with such analysis, either.
Why is it important to you to know Mitt Romney’s position on the matter? As I said, it is an obscure point with an innocent, even uplifting, explanation, which you were able to supply on your own. Asking the question, even as revised, suggests that you think that mormons believe in some sort of millenial slavery that involves subjugation of those who do not believe as we do. Such an accusation is an affront to us because of the clearly stated position in our eleventh article of faith.
In short, the way you phrased the question, even as revised, seems to suggest that Mormons have a doctrine that we will dominate unrighteously over those who do not believe as we do. This is manifestly untrue. You may say that you did not intend to insinuate this, but slavery is a loaded word, and you did not clarify. And, I suspect, you knew before you posted that millenial slavery gets about as much play in LDS sunday school as it does in that of any other church.
If you wanted to avoid the ‘ambush’ sense, you could have clarified by including your own (rather enlightening) perspective on the Isaiah passage in question, or, at least, recognized that any sense of unrighteous dominion would be untenable in light of A of F 11 and the LDS belief that Christ, not LDS Church qua Church, will be in charge during the millenium.
May 9, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Mahana you ugly.
May 9, 2007 at 2:02 pm
The initial post . . . no.
But when I start reading all the comments in the thread . . . I simply start thinking about a lot of things. Politics, future kingdom, servanthood (both through my spirit and my outward actions; it is difficult to separate the spiritual from the physical in this). Most of all God. Hence #70. On a lower plane, when Al Sharpton says things, he ought to be questioned, put in the spotlight. I commend BCC for that.
Believe me, in some of my comments, I am neither trying to be coy or cute. Or at least that is not my intention. But as a sinner, I know I often royally foul up, Steve, in my communication. Just ask my wife.
But I also know that whenever I comment, I stick out like a gangly, sore thumb.
May 9, 2007 at 2:04 pm
#84 – this helps. Thanks.
May 9, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I won’t jump into the middle of this thread, but I don’t have a copy of the paper I wrote, Todd. It was almost 15 years ago, and, to me at the time, it was just a college paper. (To clarify, I was an undergraduate who was granted permission to cross-register in graduate-level classes and seminars at the Divinity School. They were my favorite classes, but I didn’t attach any importance to what I wrote, since I wasn’t a “saver” at the time – and it had nothing to do with my career plans.) Frankly, I wasn’t into preserving my writings at that point in my life – having a new baby and working full-time while attending a highly competitive college full-time. (My schedule back then would kill me now.)
It was produced on an Apple 2E – saved on a hard drive that died its normal death and a disk that I filed somewhere.
May 9, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Get me outta this tree!
May 9, 2007 at 2:46 pm
hee!
May 9, 2007 at 3:36 pm
#89 is one of the funniest short comments I have read in any forum in my life! You rock!
May 9, 2007 at 4:01 pm
How wonderful that I didn’t discover this conversation until just now, because I would’ve had a hard time resisting.
Here are the words of Ted Whiters, one of the men African American Mormons we interviewed for _Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons_:
“Somebody talked about the ban…but I had seen too much good stuff in the Church. My mind began to evaluate what was going on in the rest of society at the time of the priesthood ban, and the rest of society was racist. I was born in rural Mississippi, a little town called Yazoo City, and racism was understood…The gospel of Jesus Christ is true inspite of. When I began to search my Bible, I found the race issue as early as Exodus [sic] when Moses married a Cushite woman, and his sister Miriam became so incensed that God commanded him to put Miriam out of the camp for seven days until she repented. Racism is not new. Obviously it existed in the church, but it existed in all of the other churches I knew of. The AME Church was born out of the fact that Blacks went to the altar and they were literally dragged on their knees from that altar and told ‘You need to wait until the white people pray until you can pray’–and out of that came the AME church. Obviously, it would be good if the Church could do something in a repentance sense to say, yes the issue did exist; I’m sure the Brethren have it in their minds that they will do something at the appropriate time….to move us forward–not just to move, but to propel us forward, toward being the kind of church our Savior would be pleased with.”
May 9, 2007 at 8:04 pm
After watching a lot of news coverage of this topic on t.v., I think that yes the comments of Al Sharpton may have been taken out of context. However he still said what he said. Myself being a member of the church my whole life, I do take offense personally to the comment. However I am also a forgiving person. So I hope that the Rev apologizes, misunderstanding or not. I would accept it, the prophet would, and so would Mitt Romney. And that’s that.
May 9, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Mitt Romney needs to milk it for all the press coverage he can get.
May 9, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Of what is Al Sharpton a “reverend?” I’ve searched the web and can’t find that he was actually ordained ever by anybody? Is he self-ordained or what?
May 9, 2007 at 11:09 pm
See here for Bro. Al’s illustrious background–as it were.
May 10, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Some clarifying words from Al Sharpton, sounds like his earlier comment was indeed a shot at Mormons despite his later denials (or he is just trying to dig a deeper hole for himself):
“I intend to engage on this. He’ll find out rabbit hunting ain’t fun when the rabbit’s got the gun,” Sharpton said.
“Fine, you take your shot at Sharpton, but now you got to answer the question. If you have a church built on racial discrimination, then I do not believe you are a true believer in God.”
http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=337738
May 11, 2007 at 8:20 am
Mr. Sharpton,
I think we have had enough rhetoric from both you and Jesse Jackson. Actions speak louder than words and your actions are almost non-existent. I see a lot of showboating but nothing of substance ever seems to come out of it except more words that come down to nothing more than ‘You owe me”. Well the world does not owe you or “your people” anything. Get over it and move forward. Slavery was a very bad thing but that was over a century ago and that represents so many, many generations of the past.
The two of you were so quick to go after a fellow talk show host when he made an outlandish statement and now you are sitting in the same place but for some reason you are not doing anything about it. It is time for you to do something that sets a positive example for ‘Your people” as well as the rest of the world; suspend yourself from the public including your talk show.
When Imus came to your studios, I noticed from the pictures and videos that he was surrounded by mostly black men. How many non black people do you have working at the station? What is the ratio? It appears that you are quick to say how everyone else is a bigot or is anti black, but what would happen if a major communications company had a “White America Web.com”?
I believe that many outside your small community are tired of hearing the double talk, tired seeing the double standards and are tired of seeing your and Jesse exploit every negative situation with a wall of inflammatory words.
The both of you need to clean up your own shop. Take positive steps to set yourselves as examples of how to be a successful black person in today’s world. Stop the whining, stop the blaming, stop the double standard, stop living in the past and move to the future. You get jobs by hard work, through a good education, by earning respect through doing. You get respect through actions, by making your neighborhoods safer for everyone. Why is it that China Town, Korea Town, Little Italy, Greek Town and so many other ethnic areas within our communities attract people of all races; but the black ghetto’s are still so dangerous?
Why is it you and Jesse set the example of attack and not compromise or compassion. Where is your project to make a Black Town a place where people can come to celebrate your race? What would they celebrate: Illegal drugs? Brutality? Hip Hop that exploits women? Unprotected sex that delivers unbelievable rates of single parents?
I grew up in the Philadelphia area in a very poor neighborhood that boarded a black ghetto. My friends were beaten by black gangs. They purchased drugs on black controlled corners. I installed phones in black homes. I supervised installers for the telephone company in a black neighborhood. I have been there.
On the other side I have many people of color who have been and continue to be good friends. I really do not notice their color, they are just people. There are black people I respect for what they a have accomplished and what they must have endured to over come the issues you so quickly point out: I enjoyed working for Bruce Gordon when he was President at Bell Atlantic (Verizon), I would follow Colin Powell into battle, I think that Condi Rice has a chance at being one of our future Presidents and I would vote for her.
When I see you and your community celebrate these people and set them up as examples and role models, and see ‘your people ‘ use them instead of the sports escapees or the quick dollar drug dealers and the anti social Hip Hop stars, then you will see a change. When I see you and Jesse police these poor examples and showcase the good examples, then you will see change. When Jesse does not add to the already too large fatherless population, you will see change. When Jesse does not extort money from major companies, then you will see change. When you and Jesse no longer jump at every opportunity to show off the negative side of progress, then you will see change. When you and Jesse work to show positive things and set a positive example, then you will see change.
This now means that it is now your turn to lead; set a good example, stop the rhetoric. Apologize profoundly, take the punishment. Or will this be yet another example of the double standards, of the poor me, of how you are held back. . . This is your choice. This is your chance. Make it a good one.
As with so many things only the bad usually gets noticed. I know that there is a struggle within in your community. I know that there are so many more positive examples of success but it seams that only the negative is being exploited by you. You need to change.
May 11, 2007 at 10:32 am
White Rabbit,
You try so hard to qualify yourself as a valid spokesperson, but I wonder if your use of the phrase “your people”, or saying that “slavery was a very bad thing but that was over a century ago” and to “get over it” represent the kinds of things that I believe show how far we still have to go overcome the lingering traces of latent racism in this country.
I always thought that I was raised in a pretty tolerant home by parents who represented all that I thought was good in my life. My father even was recognized once for helping a group of African American civilian workers for the Air Force, but I now find that racist attitudes that I didn’t even recognize at the time still haunt me, and were taught to me by these goodly parents.
Let’s not get too caught up in this. I think it will play itself out on its own.
May 11, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I have seen a number of interviews with Sharpton over the past few days, as well as quite a few comments regarding what he said. (I was flipping channels and saw Marie Osmond on Larry King Live. I rarely watch that fossil, but I loved Marie’s responses to everything he asked – including the issue of Sharpton.) Ironically, his statement might be the best thing that possibly could have happened to Romney – since it gave the Right (and especially the Religious Right) a target to replace Romney. I have been amazed at how many people who have never supported Romney in the past are defending him now. It’s like “The Big, Bad Boogie Man” attacked them – and that’s true IF you define Romney as a conservative. It’s like Sharpton’s statement made Romney “one of ours”.
When Sharpton said “those of who REALLY believe in God”, he grouped himself with the religious right – and they blew a gasket at being grouped with him. I don’t think it will get Romney elected, but it suddenly and directly made him no longer the prime enemy. That alone is interesting.
May 11, 2007 at 1:07 pm
To add directly to Kevin’s point:
I was raised in lily white Utah County. I was educated at a very diverse college. I taught school in the Deep South. My wife and I helped raise a young black man who had been raised in the inner-city with all kinds of stereotypical ghetto ideas and issues. A black family (friends of our black son) came for a weekend while they found an apartment – and ended up living in our basement for four months. I have fought racially-motivated discrimination in our school district since I became aware of it as a result of our son’s issues.
My oldest son is in college now, and as part of an English project he used a song to describe one of his central beliefs entitled “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist”. His point was that even he, while loving his brother like a biological brother, fights to deal with their racially-driven differences. He struggles with exactly what he should accept and what he should condemn and what he simply should tolerate.
Pots and kettles and glass houses and motes and beams …
May 17, 2007 at 10:52 am
I have got to say that it boils down to the level of one’s own faith. If Mr.Sharpton strongly has a faith, and through it’s teachings,allows for criticism of other’s and their beliefs, publicly. Then, that is his own business and all it wouldn’t take much to realize the productivity his comments have on others whom he is targeting.. Common sense approach and not the Jr high mentality is to respect others and their beliefs and focus on what works for you, (with an open mind).. Brenall/////
May 21, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Latterday Saints are commanded to forgive by the Savior. I forgive Al Sharpton and hope more blacks will give the truth and church a fair audience.
We are also commanded to not be offended with another’s words.
We are commanded to not persecute the afflicted.
We are commanded to not treat others as though we are better than they are.
We are commanded to uphold and obey the US Constitution. ie Free Expression.
This comment board is just another mormon we are better than you club.