Lawrence O'Donnell was Right About Mormonism

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.)

Comments

[rh654]

So surely you would also agree that many of the same criticisms should be leveled against most Christian religions in the United States.

I think I would be feeling better with the Mormon faults than the Catholic Churches allowing known pedophiles to molest little kids - and then bash the kids when they come forward - you can't get much worse than that.

[OhgReaTone]

Watch out folks. Mormonism is a dangerous movement founded on self serving principles - Joseph Smith had no intention of changing any world other than his own.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2007/10/10/mormons-the-beginning-theology/

[christopherestep]

Sorry, but O'Donnell's attack (yes, it was an attack) was not accurate, even from a critic's point of view it would be considered inaccurate. For starters, he called Smith pro-slavery, but Smith was running for President at his death on an anti-slavery platform. Further, he said Smith was an alcoholic, which after 13 years as a Mormon I've never once heard, and I've pretty much heard it all. These were in just one small paragraph.

The problem though isn't so much what O'Donnell said, but his hypocrisy of whom he said it against.

Where was Lawrence O'Donnell when Mormon Harry Reid became the Majority Leader (previously Minority Leader as well) of the United States Senate? The most powerful Mormon in the world is actually a Democrat!

Where was Lawrence O'Donnell when Senator Reid spoke at Brigham Young University a couple of months ago?

If this were equally applied, it would be consistent, but until O'Donnell goes on a similar tirade on national TV against Reid, he's simply using a religious club to try to defeat Romney. Until Romney ran for president, Reid had a much higher profile and was on the Sunday shows nearly every week. Where was O'Donnell then?

And before anyone says that Romney was the one making faith an issue, I'll again point to Reid's speech at the BYU Devotional a few months ago, long before Romney's "faith" speech.

[rovezaleeker]

I don't know... Willard's probably not a bad guy. I just don't want him to be the next President. I am a non-Mormon. I graduated from a Mormon college. It was a blast! As an ultra left-wing liberal I had a great time with all the ultra-conservative bullshit and attempts to "jerk me to Jesus". Now, I'm not saying that a leopard can't change his spots but it can't. I couldn't. He can't. It's called indoctrination. Willard was raised a conservative Mormon from the time he can remember. I was raised an agnostic Methodist from a pro-labor straight ticket liberal Democratic AFL-CIO look for the union label indoctrinated family. The Mormons couldn't change me any more than I could change them. Didn't wanna. I couldn't change Willard Romney and he definitely isn't going to change me. Isn't America the greatest place? You can have all the wacky screwball beliefs of your fathers and still grow up to be called Mitt.

[usedtowander]

Is Mr. O'Donnell also going to do an analysis of Catholics and Southern Baptists?

Perhap an inquiry into the inquisition and the current Pope's part in it might be relevant to Mr. O'Donnell's personal biases as related to Jews and others?

Perhaps Mr. O'Donnell's view of the oddities of Southern Baptist variants have a bearing on Huckabee's hucksterism?

Or, perhaps, the origins of Episcopal thought? Or James' role in the creation of his version of the "bible?"

What is the sense of this?

[LeoMarvin]

The religious bigotry expressed in this post is a disgrace. It speaks for no part of the liberal community I identify with, so I reject and disavow it. Unless maybe I missed the memo, and now we actually do stand for collective guilt and for condemning people based on attitudes we attribute to them, and which alleged attitudes are thoroughly contradicted by their behavior.

[demockracy]

Worth remembering, for anti-LDS Christians and Jews, so sure your faith wasn't racist in its origins: "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:3).

This is not just genocide, sanctioned and commanded by the Lord, it's "livestock-cide." Yow!

Most religions were not *just* racist in their origins. Strangely enough they reflect the mores of the times in which they originated. Mormonism may actually be quite mild in that respect.

So before we pick the mote out of our Mormon bro's eyes, let's take a look at the beam in our own.

For that matter, the U.S. still has Andrew Jackson, author of the "Trail of Tears" genocidal Indian death march, on the 20-dollar bill. That's roughly like the Germans putting Herman Goering on the mark.

...and we call ourselves the "land of the free" when U.S. incarcerates people more than ten times more often than the rest of the world. We're not the land of the free. We're the land of the imprisoned.

George Santayana says "Americans are a primitive people, disguised by the latest inventions."

Not a bad description...

[Blessingstoyou]

Romney said ¦

"My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs"

He also said:

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

What he has stated above totally contradicts the covenants he agreed to in a LDS Temple, as he took out his "Endowments" before leaving on his LDS mission to France.

In part, and MOST IMPORTANTLY he vowed to the LDS church the following:

******

THE LAW OF CONSECRATION.

"¦ All arise. Each of you bring your right arm to the square."

"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTERY-DAY SAINTS, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion. "

"Each of you bow your head and say "yes ¦"

*****

For Romney, which is it? The LDS Church or the American people? Romney cannot serve two masters.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has very deep pockets and great political influence. Do your research. We already have one President telling us he talks to God. Look where our country is now.

I do not want Romney / the LDS Church [one in the same] as my President. Religion doesn"t belong in politics!

But of course that is just my opinion,
Blessingstoyou

P.S. Sending a hello to Tracy Hall Jr. How"s life?

[Blessingstoyou]

I would at least respect Romney if he told the truth about the religion he embraces.
He said during his speech ¦
"My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs"
He also stated:
"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
This totally contradicts the covenants he took in a LDS Temple during his "Endowment" ceremony. In part he vowed in an LDS Temple the following:
******
THE LAW OF CONSECRATION.
"¦ All arise. Each of you bring your right arm to the square."
"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion. "
"Each of you bow your head and say "yes ¦"
*****
Romney, being a faithful Mormon, cannot truthfully say his Church will not have any influence on him in the most important political office in our country. It will. All TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS!
One cannot serve two masters, the LDS Church AND the American People!
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has very deep pockets and heavy influence. Do your research.
We already have one President telling us he talks to God and look where that has put us as a nation! I do not want Romney / the LDS Church [one in the same] as my President.
Religion doesn"t belong in politics!
But of course that is just my opinion,
Blessingstoyou

[makealistfirst]

I totally agree with Ryan. Batman Begins was far more accurate when it came to documenting Bruce Wayne's journey from Gotham and back as well as showing his psychological transformation into the Batman persona.

I was surprised none of that even made it into the Burton film. Seriously, it was just a bunch of shots of old microfiche. That's ALL we got of his origin. Where did Michael Keaton learn all that kung-fu? On the set of Beetlejuice?

http://letsmakealistfirst.blogspot.com

[jwod]

I'm nether a Mormon nor an evangelical - just a fallen away Catholic and a Democrat. That said, I can't but muse over when a religion is allowed to escape from its less-than- illustrious past. Christians largely did so after the Middle Ages, except for the anti-semitism manifest in Europe into the 20th century, and several embarassments in the latter half of the millenium, and the beginning of this century. Some of Islam seems to be still in the process of creating something about which their future adherents
will be embarassed. Judaism's ultra-orthodox and Israel's orthodox settlers seem to want to tarnish the religion's reputation for liberality and intellectualism. The LDS, at least formally, renounced their stupid or offensive beliefs. But it's hard to take seriously someone who once adhered to them or to someone who doesn't believe in evolution, or can't get his mind around the fact that the Bible, at best, is divinely inspired poetry. Beliefs are personal but they do reflect the nature of the believer's reality - a fact we need to use in assessing a candidate for elective office.

[ChrisO]

I think the whole debate about the beginnings of Mormonism, or the believability of its tenets, completely misses the point regarding Romney. The public's attitudes change over time. A lot of America was more openly racist in the 1940s than it is today, so I tend to cut people some slack if they were less enlightened than would be acceptable today. But 1978? Why should Romney be exempt from questions about the ideas he was actively promoting in his 30s, just because they were part of his religion? He should have to answer direct questions about what he believed and espoused (remember, he was a missionary and a young leader in the church, not a passive participant) just as Huckabee is being held acountable for his comments on AIDS.

I'm less interested in what Romney's parents and grandparents did or believed. Lord knows I wouldn't want to have to be accountable for all of my family's actions. But we're talking about the time of the Carter presidency. for Christ's sake. A lot of our current members of Congress were already in office. It's not like it's ancient history.

[old73]

They can 'believe'...have 'faith' in whatever foolishness they chose to have, make up voices and serpents in magical 'eden', rape and beat and stone their wives and daughters and brothers and sons, seeds implanted by spirits, that any sex is 'un-natural' (ha!)unless birth results, and any other dangerous crap including slavery that they want to believe.

Just don't shove it down rational peoples' throats or up their other ends.

I have faith (hope-wish) in Nessy and UFOs, but only try to convert non-believers of peace and justice and universal equality that we CAN have a better world.

THAT'S MY atheist 'Religion'. That's MY missionary work.
~John L.

[Merlin7]

So how is Mormonism different from any other religion? All are nonsensical. Yet billions of people believe this nonsense. It's truly frightening: Obviously humankind still has a long way to go to become a rational species.

Religion clearly is a vestige of primitive tribalism. It's membership in the group that's important, not what the group believes. Again, any claptrap will do; if you can dress it up with burning bushes, stone tablets, golden chariots, etc., so much the better.

[darker]

Some religions SHOULD BE ATTACKED for what they have and still are promoting as "faith". Ultimately, any opportunist can make up a buncha bunk to pawn as "faith". And fools will "believe".

[mattycb]

Even if one could overlook the ethical deficiencies in the history of Mormonism, how does one get past Romney"s utter disdain for non-believers? "We are a nation under God", he declared. Sorry, Mitt, not everyone believes that! "Liberty is a gift of God", he says. Again, sorry Mitt but one can very clearly believe in liberty and at the same time believe that God is a fairy tale. "We welcome our nation"s symphony of faith", says Romney thinking that he is being inclusive. Are all the agnostics and atheists" "instruments" being muted in that symphony? Where exactly do they fit in?

In John Kennedy"s shorter and much more effective speech of 1960, he made only one "defense" of Catholicism when he said, "But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith"nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election." This wisely, was his only bow to those who felt he might be selling out on his fellow Catholics. The rest of his speech emphasized the importance of the separation of church and state. In stark contrast, Romney warned of the "religion of secularism" and seemed oblivious to the constitutional prohibition against the government promoting one set of beliefs over another. Kennedy said, "Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end"where all men and all churches are treated as equal"where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice". For Romney, those who choose not to attend are ripe for condemnation. To hear Romney"s view of our nation, agnostics and atheists are unamerican.

So, three cheers for Lawrence O"Donnell! Could his comments be construed as a rant? Probably. Did he lack a bit of decorum? I suppose so. But with our country on the verge of becoming a christian theocracy, some ranting might be just what we need right now.

[JamesJohnson]

Yeah, let's break down his statements:

1. "As of 1978, it was an officially racist faith. And for political convenience, in 1978 it switched and it said, "Okay, black people can be in this church.""

Maybe O"Donnell is thinking 1968. I wonder if the change in policy had something to do with church growth in places like West Africa and Brazil.
Blacks were always in the church. Perhaps the Roman Catholic O"Donnell is confused with Jesus refusing to preach the gospel to Gentiles. (Later on, Peter receives a revelation that changes this exclusionary policy).

2. "He believes -- if he believes the faith of his fathers that black people are black because in heaven they turned away from God.¦"

In Mormon theology, the spirits who turned away from God were cast out of heaven along with Lucifer and were never born.

3. "And his religion is based on the work of a lying, fraudulent criminal named Joseph Smith. Look, Romney comes from a religion founded by a criminal¦"

Joseph Smith was arrested 38 times. 37 times he was acquitted or let free by sympathizers. The 38th time he was murdered by a mob.

4. "Joseph Smith was a slavery champion. His religion was completely pro-slavery. "

When Joseph Smith ran for president his platform included a plan to free blacks from slavery.

5. "Joseph Smith is the inventor of this ridiculous religion."

I suppose it"s all relative. I wonder if anyone out there thinks Lawrence"s religion is full of crazy beliefs. Transubstantiation, anyone?
The percentage of Mormons who have completed post-secondary education is significantly higher than it is for the U.S. population in general. There is an inverse relationship between education level and religious devotion among Protestants and Catholics. In contrast, the more education a Mormon achieves, the more likely it is for that Mormon be an active member. I wonder why these educated people believe in such a ridiculous religion.

That makes him 0-5. Thanks for playing.

[vbond]

On the topic of Romney's Mormonism, could we all just remember - or realize - that the separation of church and state in the U.S. has to do with the absence of an official religious test for the holding of office, among a very few other things.

So, there is no law which forbids Mormons, for instance, from becoming President.

However, if his own comments are a guide, Mr. Romney would be perfectly happy if there was one forbidding, say, Muslims or atheists from becoming Cabinet Secretaries (and, presumably, also President).

How did we ever come to confuse the separation of church and state with the separation of intelligence and common sense?

I mean, many otherwise intelligent people have the truly bizarre idea that the separation of church and state prohibits us from deciding that we do not want to be governed by a complete loon who believes God knows what (exactly) about evolution, underwear, or the fitness of blacks to be complete loons as well.

[And, yes, Chris Matthews... I love you, but I am talking to you, my friend.]

How did this happen?

And how can otherwise intelligent people believe that thoughtful consideration of a candidate's religious beliefs is "off bounds" as a basis for support for or opposition to that candidate.

Unless, of course, the candidate is a Muslim.

Because, after all, what are we?

Crazy?

I mean, with this kind of thinking, we should conceivably allow someone to become President who believes that - in order for Christ their Saviour to return to earth, the world must experience Armageddon, which requires - essentially - a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East.

Ummmmmmmmmm...

Crazy.

[Scipio]

Now, I think *you're* missing the point. You can't defend Romney OR Huckabee: both men are Dangerous Lunatics. Both believe that our species is only 6,000 years old, that the universe was created in six days, and that man walked with dinosaurs. This is insanity. A vote for either Romney *or* Huckster, I mean Huckabee, is a vote for further blurring of the line between church and state. The current purple better one did enough damage; let's not put another fundamentalist evangelical of any stripe in the White House. In their adherence to the dogma of their respective faiths, both Romney and Huckabee are little different from the Taliban.

[Bongborg]

I think originally a lot of the Mormon apologists who are currently spewing here must have just been conservatives here to have a good time at the expense of what they saw as a Liberal forum, out of being generally mean, spiteful sumbitches who think they are superior to everyone else. Now Mitt has begun his run for the Presidency, and they find themselves (because they are getting mad) trying to explain what they generally refuse to talk about to people until they have been converted and baptised into the church... namely, what a freaking COMIC BOOK Trekkie religion they have. It's hilarious. When all this is over, people are gonna know a lot more about Mormons than they used to, and a lot more people are gonna be laughing. ;)

[STEWPOTS]

This is so fun. Reading these posts, some truth, mostly false stories regarding the Mormon religion. Having been a former member of the faith, I can tell you that most of the things you read on these boards about Mormons aren't true. Having spent over 40 years studying the faith as both a member and non-member, I would know. I was kicked out of the church for various reasons but have no ill will towards the faith. All in all, they are a people of kindness and virtue. I have no qualms with a Mormon POTUS. Romney in particular? Undecided on any candidate at this point. By the way, the funniest part was O'Donnells insistance of racism in the church, which is actually far from the truth all the way back to Joseph Smith. Just shows that people will say anything even when they know nothing.

[uglicoyote]

Mormondude is playing fast and loose. His statement that he can back up his "facts " with statements about what happened from leaders of the church is about the same as GWB saying that Iran is building a "nucular" weapon because Dick Cheney says it is so. The leaders of the Mormon Church who perpetrated the "prophecy of convenience" back in '78 aren't really unbiased and reliable sources are they. I remember that when this revelation occurred some of the schools in the WAC conference were discussing the possibility of refusing to play BYU teams. Of course that is historically not the first time that the Mormons have changed their beliefs based on so-called revelations from above.

[Riverwolf]

What a minute--if we're going to judge religions, then let's not forget the Southern Baptists (I used to be one). They were formed because of a split within Baptist circles over slavery, and today Southern Baptists are still predominantly white while American Baptists churches are predominantly African American.

And you think Mormonism has silly origins with gold tablets and the like? Oh, ok a virgin birth is so much more logical. Turning water into wine, rising from the dead, also logical. Something about a snake making some lady eat and apple and that caused all sorts of bad things to come into the world--violence, lust, telemarketing.

http://idiosyntocracy.blogspot.com/

[Garvagh]

The disaster in Iraq directly resulted from having a president lacking any understanding of the Middle East, and confident in his gut that he was the bringer of the Lord's Will to the forlorn people of Iraq and elswhere. Mitt Romney seems to suffer from the same delusions, and there seems no doubt that a naive religious faith underlies the inability of Bush and Romney to compehend the history and cultures of the Middle East. This in turn threatens world peace.

[sunshineejc]

There are much more serious things wrong with Mormonism Doctrine:

1. They do not believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ

2. Like Church of Scientology they believe one day their believers will populate the planets. They get this from ancient Gnosticism.

3. There idea of extrabiblical revelation in Smith is the same problem the Koran has with Mohamad taking the word of god in an unintended false direction. Prophecy ends with the last book in the bibe The Revelation of Jesus Christ. If You add to it You water it done.