Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Lawrence O'Donnell Was Right About Mormonism

Posted by Ryan J. Davis, Huffington Post at 6:50 AM on December 13, 2007.


I totally understand why O'Donnell was so angry on the McLaughlin group, racism makes me angry too.
McLaughlin Group Mormonism Meltdown

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Video in your
mailbox!

 

Watching "The McLaughlin Group" on Sunday, I was impressed by Lawrence O'Donnell's fearless attack on the origins of Mormonism. I was also surprised to read Jason Linkins' piece, on this very blog, criticizing O'Donnell for a "radical assault on Mormonism" and claiming that he "lost his mind." Linkins seems shocked that someone would be so angry, but I totally understand O'Donnell - racism makes me angry too.

What Linkins completely fails to address is that nothing O'Donnell said about the Mormon faith is incorrect. Let's break down his statements:

...this man stood there and said to you "this is the faith of my fathers." And you, and none of these commentators who liked this speech realized that the faith of his fathers is a racist faith. As of 1978 it was an officially racist faith, and for political convenience in 1978 it switched. And it said "OK, black people can be in this church." He believes, if he believes the faith of his fathers, that black people are black because in heaven they turned away from God, in this demented, Scientology-like notion of what was going on in heaven before the creation of the earth.

None of this is inaccurate. It was assumed that "blacks inherited the curse of Ham and the curse of Cain" and it wasn't until a "divine revelation" in 1978 by LDS Church President Spencer Kimball that they were allowed to be full members of the Mormon church. Mitt Romney was thirty-one years old in 1978; he's been a practicing Mormon all his life ("My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs" is what he declared last week), so either he's lying about his commitment to his faith, or he believed this racist nonsense for the first 31 years of his life. What's more, Wikipedia tells us that in the mid-1960s, a full decade before Mormonism's divine racial correction in 1978, "Romney served in France for 30 months as a missionary for LDS Church." As a missionary for the Mormon faith, did Romney fully buy into Mormon doctrine of that time? These are highly pertinent questions for a man who wishes to lead a multiracial United States.

O'Donnell then goes on to claim that Mormonism was founded by a "fraudulent criminal." He's right, of course. Joseph Smith, Jr. was the charlatan who founded Mormonism; he's also a child molester by today's standards (his thirty-plus wives included seven minors: two 14-year-olds, two 16-year-olds and three 17-year-olds). The story of Smith's "revelation" is so bizarre and silly that I won't repeat it; you'd think I was making it up. You can read it all here, as told by Christopher Hitchens, if you have any interest in wading through all the revelations and counter-revelations, angels, gold tablets, and the true origin of Native Americans according to Mormonism (their account of Native American history, incidentally, is yet another horrifying facet of the Mormon doctrine of white supremacy).

Mormons were fairly pro-slavery, with one of their founding members quoted as saying "You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham..." Those were the words of Brigham Young, who incidentally has a college named after him in Utah, which incidentally graduated a certain Mitt Romney in 1971.

I'll resist dredging further into the swampland of Mormon doctrine; I personally think debating religious doctrine is sort of like trying to decide whether Tim Burton's Batman or Chris Nolan's Batman Begins gets closer to the truth of Batman's "actual origins." (The answer is obviously the latter.)

I don't understand Linkins' desire to defend a church with such a sordid history, a history that was at odds with our vision of American justice and equality as recently as 1978. Their beliefs make me as angry as O'Donnell was, and I'm glad he was gutsy enough to say what he said.

Finally, Linkins ludicrously wonders how O'Donnell gets along with the writers of HBO's Big Love, a show on which O'Donnell plays a recurring role. Since the show itself has probably informed O'Donnell's views, I doubt he'll be "giving up his role" on the show because of them. Anyway, I would assume that he gets along with the Big Love folks just as well as people who think the mafia isn't a good thing would get along with the team behind The Sopranos: in other words, just fine.

(Correction: Linkins has pointed out to me in an e-mail that he went "out of [his] way" to point out what O'Donnell said about the Mormon faith was correct. By "I go out of my way" he means a single sentence and a link. Linkins' correction actually makes my case. The infuriating thing about his post was that he acknowledged that what O'Donnell said was correct. He apparently just didn't like O'Donnell's strident tone (pretty odd objection from a fellow political blogger, I must say). Case in point: the title of Linkins' post was "Lawrence O'Donnell Loses His Ever-Loving Mind on McLaughlin". Linkins' correction perfectly demonstrates that his post was an unwarranted, unfair hit piece on a guy who was telling the truth.)

(Thanks to Joe Drymala for contributing to this post.)

Digg!

Tagged as: o'donnell, mlaughlin, mormonism, religion, big love, romney, eletion08

Ryan is a freelance theater and film director in New York City. He's worked in the media departments of Mark Green and Howard Dean.


McCain's Million Dollar Parking Lot
A lot worth $1 million more than the average American home.
Post by Robert Greenwald. August 28, 2008.
Trick or Vote: Dracula Encourages Folks to Participate in Democracy
Programs like Trick or Vote function as a gateway drug to encourage deeper and deeper political action from their members.
Post by Mike Connery. August 28, 2008.
BBC Reveals How McCain's Mansions Gaffe Snowballed
How McCain's elitism came to light.
Post by ZP Heller. August 27, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Mormon doctrine is no worse..........
Posted by: tap17x on Dec 13, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...........than the doctrines of other religions. Consider in detail what scientology teaches, and most important, what standard christianity teaches. They're all irrational ravings of madmen with no coherence or rationality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enough
Posted by: Robba29 on Dec 13, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ya know, I'm not religious, nearly athiest, am not a repug, certainly would never vote for any, but I cannot stand these attacks on Romney for his beliefs. It is as unconcionable as attacks on Obama for having a Muslim father or attacks on JFK for being Catholic. Don't attack the man for his faith (likewise Huckabee or anyone else) but their politics. If their politics follow from some deranged beliefs, then attack that--Huckabee and Bush ACT on their beliefs in the public sphere--I have yet to see Romney do such a thing (though he is talking tough, it is not different from the conservative social policies of any other repug, not unique to being Mormon). Every religion has its dirt--some more than others, but we do not have a religious test for office for a reason. Lets not become like the repugs and apply one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not enough Posted by: 113121
» RE: nough Posted by: luzmejor
» To both above posts Posted by: Robba29
» RE: To both above posts Posted by: xconservative
» RE: To both above posts Posted by: Robba29
» RE: nough Posted by: jonnymil
» RE: nough Posted by: Robba29
» I miss the point? Posted by: Robba29
» Hilarious... Posted by: Robba29
» RE: nough Posted by: theswedes
When 5 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices Are Roman Catholics
Posted by: mrtshw on Dec 13, 2007 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When 5 right wing catholic nut cases dominate
our US Supreme Court, it is probably important in any discussion regarding the idiocy of organized insanity (also known as organized religion) to resurrect Doctor Paul Erlich's divinely inspired research:..........

Biblical Marriage Principles for constitutional amendment!

As certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two
people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a
Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on Biblical
principles. After all, God wouldn't want us to "pick and choose" which
of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to
ignore:

Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage:

* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union
between one man and one or more women. Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)

* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If
the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. Deut 22:13-21)

* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.(Gen
24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14)

* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state
law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)

* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the
widow.If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does
not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise
punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-
10)

* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a
woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him.(Gen 19:31-36)

I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government
righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.

Paul R. Ehrlich
Bing Professor of Population Studies

President, Center for Conservation Biology
Department of Biological Sciences
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020

Ph 650-723-3171

Fx 650-723-5920

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Really--Dr. Ehrlich? Posted by: Robba29
Religion in Politics
Posted by: Astroboy on Dec 13, 2007 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that religion should have absolutely no place in politics, but if the candidate (George W. Bush)makes it a camgaign issue in order to garner votes, then his religion is most definately up for scrutiny.

All these Ass-clowns running on their religious beliefs, signaling that they will make political and legislative decisions based on their stated religious beliefs must be questioned and scrutinized.

Even though it's a goddamned LIE, Bush said he was inspired by God to invade Iraq!

When stating that he believes "every word" in the bible, Hucksterbee signals to the Fundies that he's one of their own.

Romney tries to attract the KKKhristian Conservatives with his "religion speech" by assuring them he believes in Jesus H. Christ, but never addresses his Mormonism.

THEY are the one's bringing religion into the debate, not the media, and not the voters.

And it's up to us whether or not we want to maintain a secular government or allow for religiosity to pollute and bastardize it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Have a De Facto Religious Test
Posted by: JackieGiles on Dec 13, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans have allowed and encouraged the intrusion of religion into political campaigns by tolerating and promoting the notion that only believers can serve as President of the United States. What they are saying echoes Mitt Romney's statement in his recent speech that religion can't exist without freedom and freedom can't exist without religion. That argues that agnostics and atheists are opposed to freedom and incapable of governing morally. It also implies that religion is an indispensable ingredient to any government that aims to promote freedom. Conventional "wisdom" says it would be futile for any non-believer to seek the presidency. That is a De Facto Relgious Test.

The candidates who use their religion and the prejudice toward believers to further their campaigns are begging to have their beliefs examined and criticized. Lawrence O'Donnell said nothing that is not documented as correct.

We need to observe absolute separation of Church (Religion) and State. No public funds should go to any religious organization for any purpose because those public funds free up the group's other funds for promoting their brand of religion.

In 2004, the desperation of the "Anybody But Dean" DLC Dems used the De Facto Test to harrass Howard Dean for not talking about his faith. The corporate media repeated their carping until he said what church he attended, etc. That did not stop the ABDs--who then questioned his sincerity because he was pressured into talking about what he and many Americans consider to be the most private of matters. They believed their attacks would resonate in Iowa, and they did.

In recent years, the Christian right has made no secret of their agenda to elect their "own" to office. Why? To influence the laws that bind all Americans so that their version of the Christian "Word" will become the Law of the Land. They can't do that and expect us not to wonder how their faith would bear on what they'd do as elected officials--and to ask our questions aloud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks Posted by: oregoncharles
Mormonism...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Dec 13, 2007 11:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
began in the U. S. in 1830; a time of chattel slavery - especially in the southern states. It is not as if African Americans were welcome in white establishments anywhere at that time. Other religious folks were using other biblical arguments to justify slavery...just because the Mormons had a unique story for their justification of excluding black folks doesn't mean they weren't operating inside the prejudices of the dominant culture. Let's not forget that it took until the mid 1960s for blatant Jim Crow laws to be addressed...only to be replaced with covert laws that look race neutral on the surface, but not in practice...so lay off this church for excluding blacks until the 1970s, this is merely a reflection of the culture in which it grew up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mormonism... Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: Mormonism... Posted by: theswedes
politicals of faith
Posted by: MisterWu on Dec 13, 2007 6:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And Abraham, the founder of all three western religons would have ritually murder his own son due to the voices in his head. What do we do with people like that today?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Elect them president? Posted by: johngary66
Are you freaking kidding me???
Posted by: theswedes on Dec 19, 2007 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe all of the bullshit I am reading on this blog.

SCARY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY #26:
Huckabee and Guiliani have nothing for the economy compared with Romney's business and economic acumen. Will you still be complaining about Romney's faith when they lay you off and foreclose your home? Get real, and don't get me started about Huckabee as a foreign policy disaster. Huckabee and Ahmadinejad sitting across at a table???? That's classic, what a nightmare.

Take all of the t-shirts mocking Bush you see at the mall and insert Huckabee's face. That's what college kids may be wearing until 2012. Bush haters are going to LOVE Huckabee, what a goober...there's a good image for the Republican stigma. Are you kidding me??

Why don't we all vote for an inferior candidate merely because he's not LDS. Evangelicals are going to ruin this nation...Piss off!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]