Skip to comments.Continuing The Bigotry
Posted on 06/10/2007 7:24:29 PM PDT by Reaganesque
Sally Denton uses today's Los Angeles Times op-ed page as a launching pad for the movie based on her book, "American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857," and as a means to propagate more anti-Mormon bigotry at the expense of Mitt Romney. Denton insists that Romney has to respond about the nature of his faith if he expects to win the nomination for the Presidency -- and uses a lot of 19th-century examples to "prove" her case:
MITT ROMNEY'S Mormonism threatens his presidential candidacy in the same way that John F. Kennedy's Catholicism did when he ran for president in 1960. Overt and covert references to Romney's religion subtle whispering as well as unabashed inquiries about the controversial sect he belongs to plague his campaign. None of his responses so far have silenced the skeptics.
Recent polls indicate that from 25% to 35% of registered voters have said they would not consider voting for a Mormon for president, and conventional wisdom from the pundits suggests that Romney's biggest hurdle is his faith. Everyone seems eager to make his Mormonism an issue, from blue state secularists to red state evangelicals who view the religion as a non-Christian cult.
All of which raises the question: Are we religious bigots if we refuse to vote for a believing Mormon? Or is it perfectly sensible and responsible to be suspicious of a candidate whose creed seems outside the mainstream or tinged with fanaticism?
Ironically, Romney is the only candidate in the race (from either party) who has expressed discomfort with the idea of religion infecting the national dialogue. While his GOP rivals have been pandering to the evangelical arm of the party, Romney actually committed himself (during the first Republican debate) to the inviolable separation of church and state.
First, Denton is hardly an unbiased pundit in this regard. She's flogging a book and a movie about an atrocity committed by Mormons 150 years ago. For Denton, 1857 is relevant to 2007, but for most Americans. The suggestion that Romney needs to answer for Brigham Young would be as silly as saying that Democrats have to answer for Stephen Douglas or that Lutherans today have to answer for the anti-Semitic rants of Martin Luther.
Denton first off would have people believe that all Mormons are "tinged with fanaticism," but does nothing to advance that case. She discusses the beginnings of their church in great detail, but her history lessons appear to end at 1857. In the only mentions of any connection to the present, she uses the HBO series Big Love and Warren Jeffs, neither of which has any connection to the modern Mormon church or to Romney's faith. Both the fictional account in Big Love and the unfortunately non-fiction and despicable Jeffs involve polygamist cults -- and in the TV series, are showed as in mortal opposition to the Mormons.
Denton includes this helpful instruction at the half-way point:
It's not a church's eccentric past that makes a candidate's religion relevant today, but its contemporary doctrines. (And it's worth noting that polygamy and blood atonement, among other practices, are no longer condoned by the official Mormon church hierarchy.)
So what contemporary doctrines does Romney need to explain? Denton never says. Instead, she spends her time writing about how Joseph Smith once declared his intention to run for President -- in 1844. She discusses how John C. Fremont's candidacy died on the rumor that he was Catholic -- in 1856. She mentions 1960, in which John Kennedy dealt with anti-Catholic bigotry, but only barely notes that he prevailed over it -- and that was almost 50 years ago.
Denton then frames the question that she feels Romney has to answer:
Do you, like the prophet you follow, believe in a theocratic nation state? All the rest is pyrotechnics.
Unfortunately for Denton, Romney has answered this question every time it gets asked. And somewhat incoherently, Denton appears to forget that she herself acknowledges this near the beginning of the column:
While his GOP rivals have been pandering to the evangelical arm of the party, Romney actually committed himself (during the first Republican debate) to the inviolable separation of church and state.
Romney has no need to enter into the field of religious apologetics in his campaign for the presidency, no more than does Harry Reid in order to run the Senate. He certainly has no guilt to expiate on behalf of a massacre committed almost a century before his birth, and for people like Warren Jeffs who do not have any connection to the Mormon church. In other words, Denton has taken up space at the LA Times to exercise her bigotry and to not-so-coincidentally sell a few books and movie tickets. She and the LA Times should be ashamed.
UPDATE: One commenter suggests that people opposed Keith Ellison on the basis of his religion. Er, not quite. We opposed him on the basis of his association with the notoriously anti-Semitic group Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan, and his association with CAIR, which has supported terrorist groups like Hamas. If Romney had spoken at Warren Jeffs' compound for political donations, then the analogy would be apt. Ellison's problem isn't his religion but the company he keeps, politically, a fact that he and his apologists like to wrap in a false cloak of religious antagonism.
Hey, I am glad you are enjoying the Flying Imam moniker.
(So called because the anti-Mormon brigade, like the Flying Imams, interject religion into a secular environment and are a threat to hijack (threads).
Since this thread is actually about Romney's Mormon religion, I guess it can't be a hijack. That is until you all get deep deep into theology, which I imagine will be soon enough.
Maybe you can answer my question, what is so scary about Sandra Tanner for Hugh Hewitt to bring her up on his show?
True. I asked because this is at least one indicator (the best I could come with) of how a religion views non-members. If the answer is pretty much one of just a prefernce for members over non-members, then no biggie. If however, there is a strict prohibition because non-believers are viewed as unworthy or heathen (or whatever), then it's a different matter, at least for me.
Saundra Tanner? Go to http://utlm.org/
It is the website she and her husband Jerald began (he passed away earlier this year). It contains very factual and embarrassing evidence of the fraudulence of LDS claims.
Just for your reading enjoyment, this day in Mormon history June 10, 2007 (not all of it is ancient history)
June 10, 1835 - Joseph Smith is tried for assault and battery on his brother-in-law, Calvin W. Stoddard. The trouble likely stemmed from Stoddard calling Joseph “a d—d false prophet”. Witnesses testified that Stoddard had been the first aggressor. The court dismissed the case, stating that “there could be no cause for further prosecution; that the assault might perhaps be justified on the principle of self-defense.”
June 10, 1838 - The “Danites” are organized during a clandestine meeting when Jared Carter, George W. Robinson, and Sampson Avard, “under the instruction of the [First] [P]residency, formed a secret military society, called the ‘daughter of Zion.’” Avard instructs the newly inducted members: “As the Lord had raised up a prophet in these last days like unto Moses it shall be the duty of this band to obey him in all things, and whatever he requires you shall perform being ready to give up life and property for the advancement of the cause[.] When any thing is to be performed no member shall have the privilege of judging whether it would be right or wrong but shall engage in its accomplishment and trust God for the result[.]” The next month Joseph Smith’s scribe writes in “The Scriptory Book of Joseph Smith, Jr.”: “[W]e have a company of Danites in these times, to put right physically that which is not right, and to cleanse the Church of verry great evils which hath hitherto existed among us inasmuch as they cannot be put to right by teachings & persuas[ions].”
June 10, 1844 - Joseph and Hyrum Smith (both secretly practicing polygamy) tell Nauvoo City Council that the 1843 revelation pertains to ancient polygamy, not to modern times. Under the authority of Mayor Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo City Council, police, members of the Nauvoo Legion under orders of “Lieutenant-General” Joseph Smith and a “possey consisting of some hundred” destroy the press, office and papers of The NAUVOO EXPOSITOR as “a public nuisance.” Afterward the crowd gathers in front of Joseph Smith’s house where he, “gave them a short address told them they had done right. That they had executed my orders required of me by the city council that I would never submit to have another libellous publication in [print] established in this city.”
June 10, 1859 - Wilford Woodruff writes: “President Young Called at the office to attend our lessons in the Deseret Alphabet.”
June 10, 1875 - First organization for young men is local innovation of Salt Lake 13th Ward. It becomes church-wide organization on December 8, 1876.
June 10, 1885 - Apostle John Henry Smith writes in his journal: “After our Council was over Prest. G[eorge] Q. Cannon said to Bros. F[ranklin] D. Richards, B[righam] Young [Jr.], F[rancis] M. Lyman, H[eber] J. Grant and I that Prest. J[ohn] Taylor desired the Apostles to refrain from telling vulgar stories and all light minded-ness as it grieved the spirit of the Lord.”
June 10, 1891 - Dissolution of church-controlled People’s Party which instructs its members to join one of the two national parties, Democratic or Republican.
June 10, 1920 - U.S. Department of Justice files charges against church president Heber J. Grant and Presiding Bishop Charles W. Nibley for illegal profiteering on behalf of church’s Utah-Idaho Sugar Company. Nibley is already under indictment on related charge of conspiracy in restraint of trade. Federal grand jury excludes Grant but includes Nibley in its indictments on Aug. 21. Grant speaks in Nibley’s defense at general conferences and govenrment eventually drops charges.
June 10, 1965 - The First Presidency writes “To PRESIDENTS of TEMPLES” that “approval has been granted for limited modification in the design of the garment used in the temple to allow for better fit and greater wearing comfort. The approved modified design for women has a button front rather than string ties, a brassiere top patterned after the brassiere top of garments used for day-time wear, a . . . All other features of the garment, including the collar, long legs, and long sleeves, remain the same as heretofore. The approved modified design of the garment for men has a button front, closed crotch, . . . All other features of the men’s garment also, including the collar, long legs and long sleeves, remain the same as heretofore.”
June 10, 1988 - High school honor student, Eagle Scout, and returned missionary Arthur Gary Bishop is executed at Utah State Penitentiary for the kidnapping and murder of five young boys, ages four to thirteen, over a five-year period in the Salt Lake County area.
June 10, 1993 - BYU officials terminate five junior professors, including Cecelia K. Farr (pro-choice feminist) and anthropologist David Knowlton who has published studies of Latin American terrorism against LDS buildings and missionaries. In immediate response more than 100 students rally to protest lack of academic freedom at BYU, first such student demonstration at BYU since 1911. Subsequent rallies include holders of prestigious “Benson Scholarship,” and Third World students who compare BYU’s current situation with repressive regimes these students have fled. This is reported at length in CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, thus worsening BYU’s reputation for academic freedom among administrators of nation’s universities and grant-giving foundations.
Doubt if it will be necessary.
Sandra Tanner is not any more scarier than Nancey Pelosi or Harry Reid or Ted Kennedy?
An in depth historian I see....
Hmmmm...just for the sake of argument, let's change that around:
Are we religious bigots if we refuse to vote for a believing Wahabbist Muslim?
A person's religious beliefs, especially if they are strongly held, are the foundation for their interaction with the world. Why then should we completely ignore the religious affiliation of a candidate when considering whether or not to vote for him/her?
Does this make us bigots? I suppose in some situations it can become bigotry. But for most Americans it is just one of many shrewd and thoughtful ways to judge between candidates.
I have way before you showed up here on FR, all the lies and distortion the Tanners have make a living off of for years!
It pushes buttons of peoples emotions until these thing are shown not to be accurate and misleading just like the left.
But if the truth is not in one they could not discern that!
Having Sandra Tanner as a consultant on a movie about Mormons would be like having David Duke as a consultant on a movie about Martin Luther King, Jr.
Name one of those “lies” the Tanner’s are making a living from. Just one. Any one will do.
BTW, anyone can go to the Tanner’s home and bookstore. They are very modest people with a very modest income that they work very hard at making (they are hard working, honest people). Tanner’s morality would match up to yours or Mitt Romney’s any day. AND they are Christian.
Good people like this should not have to be slimed by the likes of those who will do and say anything in order to get flipping Mitt nominated. It is very disturbing.
There should be consultants from BOTH sides offering historical facts. This movie is not another exercise in Mormon propaganda, now is it. Are you upset that the movie producers didn’t hire Bonneville Communications and their tradmarked “Heartfelt” approach to truth dissemination?
I think Reaganesque sum Tanners very well!
Having Sandra Tanner as a consultant on a movie about Mormons would be like having David Duke as a consultant on a movie about Martin Luther King, Jr.
I’ve asked you to list one lie. Can you do it?
Yes they do, but then serious Catholics, Evangelicals and Jews all have similar attitudes, and not without good reason. When raising a family, similarity of convictions is quite helpful.
Keep up the good work, cc. You’re doing a great job for your side.
Not every non mormon sings their praises like you or Ed Decker.
Lawrence Foster, an associate professor of American history at Georgia Institute of Technology, a scholar who is non-Mormon and who has spent a decade in intensive work on Mormonsim, has said of the Tanners:
“Until they are prepared to abide by accepted standards of scholarly behavior and common courtesy, they can expect little sympathy from serious historians,” and “the Tanners’ own work falls short of history.” Foster also stated, “The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writings, and beliefs.” Foster gives the Tanners credit for publishing old LDS documents, “but criticizes them for using unauthorized materials which have been acquired leaving much to be desired, ethically speaking.” The Tanners often publish “scholarly works of living individuals without their permission, because the end (destroying Mormonism) justifies the means.” Foster continues, “The Tanners seem to be playing a skillful shell game in which the premises for judgement are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same—negative.”
Foster also quoted another Tanner critic who said:
“Jerald and Sandra Tanner have read widely enough in the sources of LDS history to provide that [larger] perspective, but they do not. Although the most conscientious and honest researcher can overlook pertinent sources of information, the repeated omissions of evidence by the Tanners suggest an intentional avoidance of sources that modify or refute their caustic interpretation of Mormon history.” (”Career Apostates,”dialogue,summer 1984,pp.35-60)
you say some of the kookiest things CC each Church is entitled on how they understand the Word of God!
At least I don’t lie.
Jon Voight said he had no idea who that was.
Just to be clear, she was not involved.
But the Tanners do!
Any idea who that "other" critic was?
This is typical LDS tactic. Can't discuss the issues of a movie about MMM, so they first accuse producers of getting infromation from Saundra Tanner (not verified whatsoever), and then continue an assualt on the integrity of the Tanners. For just once can you guys actually support your positions without attacking the credibility of someone else or calling someone a bigot?
Really, I'm starting to wonder.
Jerald Tanner died last year.
Still waiting resty....
It’s very easy to call names, but it is more difficult to prove it. You up to the task?
LOL! Cha Ching! That had to hurt.
I know but the creeps spirit lives on!:)
Nope, there is plenty more though. I know they are your heros for starting lighthouse ministries, but you really should research their history as much as you do your former Church’s history.
Is this an example of the “truth” we will find on LDS.org?
Do you care to discuss it? Do you even recognize the lie that is told here about Zina Diantha Huntington Young?
Nice change of subject. NOT
Should we let the inmates run the jail? Should we let Mormons be the only ones to disseminate information about their own history?
Is this what is to be expected?
Really, I'm starting to wonder.
What are we suppose to do ignore the source CC, how crediblile they are etc? I never heard of such sillines not to check it out as though that is a bad thing!
It’s perfectly fine and dandy to slander the LDS all you and the tanners want, but when the tables are turned and you hear negative things about those who you hold dear and precious, it’s a new ballgame.
These anti LDS threads are so one sided, because we sut don’t do what you do all the time. You are free to live your religion and worship Christ, and I am free to do the same. Why make it your life mission to tear down other people?
What the Tanners fail to mention here is that the city charter of Nauvoo gave the Nauvoo City Council the legal right to shut down the Expositor for "creating a public nuisance." What the Tanners also do not mention is that the Expositor was set up for the express purpose of provoking such a response from the City Council. This provocation would then give them the excuse to arrest Joseph Smith and later to destroy Nauvoo and drive it's inhabitants out.
When they arrested Smith, however, they did not charge him with destroying the press, knowing full well Nauvoo had the legal right to do so. They charged him with "treason against the state." Previously, they had arrested Smith on other false charges, with the intent to have him extradited back to Missouri where Gov. Bogg's extermination order would have meant certain death for him, only to have Smith's lawyers get him released on a writ of habeas corpus.
The "treason" charge, entirely bogus given that you can't commit treason against a state, was the only thing they could arrest Smith under where habeas corpus didn't apply. This gave them time to hold him and eventually murder him.
So, for "in-depth" historians, the Tanners tend to leave out a lot of stuff. While what they talk about is, for the most part, truthful, omitting relevant facts is every bit as dishonest as an outright falsification.
There are plenty of respected non LDS Scholars out their and critic that hold a high standard.
Clue me in.
What is the lie?
” I never heard of such sillines not to check it out as though that is a bad thing!”
I agree. Do we trust the DNC to tell us all the “pertinant facts” in regards to their history or the history of their candidate?
Would we allow them to call us bigots for not supporting their own rendition of truth?
Better to get facts from all sides don’t you think? The Tanners do not stand alone in the field of Christian apologetics. Fine, you don’t like the Tanners? Try reading this site. http://www.mrm.org/
Or this one: http://www.irr.org/
Or this one: http://www.carm.org/
Let me guess....they all lie???
I know zactly what you mean.
Notice the chronology offered by the text: windowed by her first husband and then later marriage to Brigham Young. In fact her first husband died 9 years after Brigham.
Here is the actual timeline of events:
7 Mar 1841 Marriage to Henry Jacobs
27 Oct 1841 Marriage to Joseph Smith
2 Jan 1842 Birth of Zebulon Jacobs, fathered by Henry Jacobs
27 Jun 1844 Death of Joseph Smith
2 Feb 1846 Marriage to Brigham Young (Zina was 8 months pregnant)
22 Mar 1846 Birth of Henry C. Jacobs, fathered by Henry Jacobs
3 Apr 1850 Birth of Zina Young, fathered by Brigham Young
29 Aug 1877 Death of Brigham Young
1 Aug 1886 Death of Henry Jacobs
Some key elements bear review:
* Zina was married to Jacob in Nauvoo by Mormon clergy. It was a legal and lawful marriage by both US law and Mormon law.
* Both Zina and Henry were active believing members before their marriage.
* Joseph Smith took Zina in a celestial marriage a mere 7 months after she was married to Jacob.
* The marriage to Jacob was obviously still recognized by Zina and Henry since she bore 2 children with Henry after the marriage.
* Brigham Young and Heber Kimball married all of the Joseph Smith widows following his death regardless of their relationship to their first husbands.
* Zina did not need to be taken care of; she had a husband who was active in the church.
* Henry never left the Church, he died in Salt Lake City.
* Henry and Zina were never divorced.
* Brigham Youngs relationship with Zina went beyond taking care of a widow since she was no window and he sired a daughter with her.
Given the above information, the Churchs official biography can only be seen as a lie. This information is well known inside and outside of the Church.
These dates can be verified at http://www.familysearch.org/:
Henry Bailey JACOBS (AFN: 1ZH6-9X)
Zina Diantha HUNTINGTON (AFN: 8R65-S9)
Brigham YOUNG (AFN: 3ZD8-KC)
Zebulon William JACOBS (AFN:234B-S6)
Henry Chariton JACOBS (AFN:1875-4N)
Zina Presendia YOUNG (AFN:1CK9-M2)
You can also read FAIRs bizarre response to this at:
It reminds us when our soldier in Iraq shut down and destoryed the press in Sadr city was it where the terrorist burn 4 of our soldiers?
Lying is stupid.
With the internet, most lies can be brought out into the open.
They need to correct that.
How do you like this smear job on Sandra Tanner and the smearing of the dead husband?
Thank you for the official LDS rendition of history. I think the readers can form their own opinion given both sides of the story.
Now I must ask the reader. Do you trust Mormonism to tell you the truth in these regards to historical fact? Do you trust them to tell you the truth about Romney.
Ask yourself that one question. Then ask yourselves, do you like being called a "bigot" by these people who believe only propaganda should be "allowed."
These are very real and very serious questions. What other State will you see Romney carry by 80% in a straw poll. Did the Catholics support Kennedy in this fashion. Why are the Mormons supporting Romney in such high numbers when he obviously is not a right-wing conservative. Yet we are told constantly on this site that Utah is THE MOST conservative of all States.
Do you trust what is going on? If you do, then fine, it is your own decision. If not, you'd better be prepared to fight against this type of name-calling, nonsense. It will split our party, and when the general election time comes it will all be fodder for the Dems.
Glad to see that attempt at civility is going well for you.
I have said nothing uncivil. Telling the truth is not uncivil and I have yet to name-call. Never, not once, have I called someone a hater, a bigot, a bitter old hag, Imam, unAmerican or furryball.
I have however been called all of these things. Some of them by you.
I am responding to a challenge, I have been called a bigot on FreeRepublic and so has any other Republican who dare to withold a vote for Romney because of his beliefs in a specious faith. Am I allowed to respond to that challenge? I certainly hope so.
But thanks R-esque, for posting a thread calling me a bigot and then accusing me of incivility for responding. Perhaps if you quit posting such inflamatory articles you would not get that response. ..Or are you looking for it?
I never called you a furryball CC and that is one of endearent names.
Hands off my furryball sister!:)
Much of the anit-mormon world has Ed Decker and the Tanners to thank for the cheap ammunition that is shot our way. For people to expose The Changing World of Mormonism without a fair examination of the facts is just begging for them to be exposed for their tactics.
I give you The Changing World of Tannerism
I’m sorry, you are right, you called Fast Coyote a furryball. (I added that one because it was so hillarious it stuck in my mind)
Call me to repentance, but personally, I’m getting pretty tired of wading through all the garbage you through out.
And so, before I say something I will regret, have a good night all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.