jump to content

MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | EARTHPORN-WRITINGPROMPTS-ASKSCIENCE-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-ART-NOTTHE
ONION-PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-TELEVISION-ASKREDDIT-IAMA-GAMING-WORLD
NEWS-UPLIFTINGNEWS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MILDLYINTERESTING-FOOD-PICS-FUNNY-VIDEOSDOCUMENTARIES-AWW-SPORTS-TODAYILEARNED-HISTORY-SPACE-JOKES-CREEPY-MUSIC-DIY-DATA
ISBEAUTIFUL-GETMOTIVATED-NOSLEEP-MOVIES-BOOKS-TWOXCHROMOSOMES-TIFU-OLDSCHOOLCOOL
-LISTENTOTHIS-PERSONALFINANCE-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-GIFS-PHILOSOPHY-LIFEPROTIPS-NEWS
-GADGETS-SCIENCE
MORE
exmormon exmormoncommentsrelated
want to join? login or register in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2014
18 points (87% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
Submit a new link
Submit a new text post
exmormon
subscribe17,269
209 users here now
A forum for ex-mormons and others who have been affected by mormonism to share n
ews, commentary, and comedy about the Mormon church.
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS
More Subreddit Policies
Mormons are welcome to participate here, but if you'd like to visit a reddit wit
h a more positive view of mormonism consider the following subreddits:
/r/mormon
/r/latterdaysaints
/r/CommunityOfChrist
Read our Exit Stories from Mormonism
Read our FAQs
Official /r/exmormon Chat
Life After Mormonism Chat
Resource Pages:
How to formally resign from the LDS church, or otherwise limit ongoing contact b
y ward members
List of common Abbreviations
List of recent apologetic essays from LDS.org
List of resources available to missionaries wanting to leave their mission.
List of common sources and book recommendations
More links to other resources at the wiki
Recovery reddits:
ExSistersInZion
MormonDoubtingTeen
Ex-Catholic
Ex-Jehovah's Witness
Ex-Adventist
Ex-Church of Christ
Ex-Christian
Ex-Muslim
Ex-Baha'i
Moonies
Scientology
Exittors
Other Related Reddits:
/r/bestof_exmormon
/r/kolob
/r/MormonLibre
/r/Exmormonen
/r/exmo4exmo
/r/exmolife

/r/byu
/r/SaltLakeCity
more related links and policy info
It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose
delusion and error. Thomas Paine
created by Measure76a community for 5 years
message the moderators
MODERATORS
IncognitoOnethe One True Mod
canadianjohnsonEliakim the Scribe
4blockhead
EmmaHSPatron Saint of Danite Mercenaries
TOUGH_ OVE_GA Heavenly Mother-In- aw
curious_mormonTruth never lost ground by enquiry.
AnotherClosetAtheist
General in the War in Heaven
fa1thlessFaith means not wanting to know what is true.
about moderation team
18
I Wrote This Essay To My Father ( ong) (self.exmormon)
submitted 3 months ago * by goingsick
I am a recent Ex-Mormon. There are 7 children in my family, and all of us left t
he church this year (including my 16yo brother who still lives at home). My pare
nts are taking is very hard, obviously. In an effort to rationally explain to my
father some of the discrepancies I have with the church (he will not read the C
ES letter, and he sees everything that FairMormon produces as completely realist
ic and logical) I have started writing a series of essays. Each essay addresses
only one topic, so as not to stray, and to focus my effort on leaving no stone u
nturned within each topic. In the MS Word format, there is some bolding of certa
in phrases and some italics, both of which is put in to emphasize importance or
outrage. I hope that without those you guys will still be able to understand the
tone of this essay. I have not send this to him...yet. The first topic I chose
was Racism and the Church, Blacks and the Priesthood.
Dad,
I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of anothe
r race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himse
lf to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ Gordon B. Hi
nckley (General Conference, April 2005) You see some classes of the human family
that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, and low in their habits, wild,
and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is g
enerally bestowed upon mankind Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses Vol. 7, P. 290
) One of the recent, big sticking points for me and the church is blacks and the
priesthood, and moreover, the church and its blatant racism. However, the churc
h denies racism has ever been a factor, despite the orgies of information regard
ing where the church and its leaders have stood over the years with regard to th
e origin of dark skin, racism, equality, and the ordaining of black men to the p
riesthood, and the preexistence. Up to this point I only knew what I have read r
ecently, mostly from critics of the church, but I wanted to get FairMormons side
of it. Heres what Im getting: FairMormon begins, Racism has become one of the most
strident and damaging accusations that can be leveled in our society, and as suc
h has become a useful weapon for those who wish to harm an organization or indiv
idual The page writes a brief defense of Joseph Fielding Smiths comments made in an
interview with OOK magazine, in which he referred to blacks as darkies (but the
church isnt racist. These are the words of the prophet, and therefore, the words
of God, right?) The article resumes as they go on to defend the historical stanc
e of the church relating to blacks by comparing the Mormons to other churches, [C
ritics] are obviously hoping their target audience will not notice that atter-d
ay Saints have always had integrated churches while other Protestant churches st
ruggle with the residual division brought about by their own prolonged discrimin
ation or outright expulsion of black members. Sure, but Protestants arent inspired
by God through a living prophet, so we dont compare ourselves to them, and we do

nt hold them to a standard of divine inspiration beyond being faithful Christians

, who may do good, charitable, Christ-like things. It continues, The critics
bar
rage of the most negative and obscure data they can muster against the DS might
lead one to conclude that all other Christian churches were fully integrated wi
th all races participating in leadership positions in 1963, or even in 1978 when
blacks were given the priesthood by the DS Church. Again with the comparing of
itself to other churches as if to say, See! All churches were having racial diffi
culties. But none of that counts because the church sets themselves apart from ot
her churches by having a modern prophet who receives direction from God himself.
The very pride of the DS church is that they are unlike all other churches unle
ss it behooves them to draw such comparisons in times of massive criticism. Fair
Mormon concludes its defense of the churchs racism with, the reader is left to dec
ide whether critics are completely ignorant of the history of race theory, anthr
opology, and the centuries-old Christian use of the Bible to justify slavery or
if they are simply race-baiting. One is truly forced to ponder this as they sele
ctively use quotes and remove portions that may reflect positively on Mormons. T
hey turn to such sources as little-known "Mormon writers" instead of using autho
ritative sources that the DS recognize as accurately representing their beliefs.
(http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood
/Double_standard) So now I present to you Mormon writers who are definitely not l
ittle-known, and we can have an accurate look at things that accurately represent
their beliefs. This barrage certainly contains some of the most negative; however
definitely not obscure data that I can muster. Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, fo
r example, wrote in 1907 that the belief was quite general among Mormons that the N
egro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest. Ye
t this belief, he admitted, is not the official position of the Church, [and is]
merely the opinion of men. (https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lan
g=eng) But many years later: David O. McKay said, The seeming discrimination by t
he Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes
back into the beginning with God Revelation assures us that this plan antedates m
ans mortal existence, extending back to mans pre-existent state. (http://en.fairmor
mon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements) So whi
ch is it? Revelation? Or Mans opinion? And if David O. McKay was the prophet long
after Joseph Fielding Smith, I ask: does revelation move backward? To clarify:
does the ord reveal to his living Prophets things that flat out contradict the
revelation given to past prophets? It is one thing to reveal a new doctrine whic
h shines light on something that was only previously speculation, but it is enti
rely different when a living prophet says he received a new revelation that is t
he complete opposite of what an earlier prophet says he received as revelation.
Does God change his mind? If what we are led to believe is a perfect plan, and a
perfect gospel with imperfect members as the DS church loves to say, why would G
od change his mind between prophets? In 1969 the First Presidency issued a state
ment concerning the Churchs official stance on this topic altogether: Until God re
veals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound
by that same will. (http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_
and_the_priesthood/Statements) The same statement goes on to quote McKay again: S
ometime in Gods eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the pries
thood. (http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_pries
thood/Statements) The First Pres. Statement + the David O. McKay statement = sel
f-fulfilling prophecy. It is peculiar that FairMormons chronology of possible rac
ial statements made by the DS church begins in 1949, because as far back as Jos
eph Smith, prophets of the church were saying appalling things about race and th
e priesthood, and though some of the quotes can be found on FairMormon, they are
never directly referenced, and only quoted within other quotes from later proph
ets. Even the within the boundaries of the chronology itself there is a lot miss
ing. They excluded major racist comments from Bruce R. McConkie and Harold B. e
e. I have a difficult time trying to figure out when a prophet is speaking as a
prophet or as a man. Most of the time it seems like it is whichever the DS chur
ch and FairMormon need it to be. And any time prophecy or doctrine defames the c
hurch, it wasnt prophecy, He was speaking as a man. Now, race isnt the only thing th

at the church ends to flip flop on, but it certainly is one of the easiest to po
int out. Bruce R. McConkie wrote in 1958 that Those who were less valiant in preexistence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them d
uring mortality are known to us as the Negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth t
hrough the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God
and his murder of Abel being a black skin [Ironically, McConkie was son-in-law to
Joseph Fielding Smith, who said this wasnt doctrine, but opinionway back in 1907]
Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they
hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salv
ation is not carried affirmatively to them . . . Negroes are not equal with othe
r races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned . . . (Mor
mon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, Bookcraft, 1958 edition, p. 477; changed in lat
er editions). His book was titled Mormon Doctrine. So is it doctrine not to pros
elytize blacks, and that blacks are cursed for being unfaithful in the preexiste
nce? Or is he speaking as a man in his book titled Mormon Doctrine? Between McCo
nkie and Fielding Smith, all kinds of doctrinal flip-flopping were going on. The
first presidency wrote again that In revelations received by the first prophet o
f the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith, the ord made it clear that it
is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. These words were sp
oken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Ch
urchs deep and historic concern with mans free agency and our commitment to the sa
cred principles of the Constitution. (https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-pri
esthood?lang=eng)
And yet, what did Brigham Young have to say on the matter when interviewed by Ho
race Greeley? H.G. What is the position of your Church with respect to Slavery?
B.Y. We consider it of Divine institution, and not to be abolished until the cur
se pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants. H.G. Are ther
e any slaves now held in this Territory? B.Y. There are. H.G. Do your Territoria
l laws uphold Slavery? B.Y. Those laws are printed you can read them for yoursel
f. If slaves are brought here by those who owned them in the States, we do not f
avor their escape from the service of those owners. H.G. Am I to infer that Utah
, if admitted as a member of the Federal Union, will be a Slave State? B.Y. No;
she will be a Free State. Slavery here would prove useless and unprofitable. I r
egard it generally as a curse to the masters. I myself hire many laborers and pa
y them fair wages; I could not afford to own them. I can do better than subject
myself to an obligation to feed and clothe their families, to provide and care f
or them, in sickness and health. Utah is not adapted to Slave abor. What?! Firs
t, another flip flop with regard to what the church believes about bondage, but se
cond, I must assert that Brigham Young was speaking as a prophet here, because h
e kept saying , We believe, and We consider. We, as in: Us. Thirdly, Utah would be a
ree state only because in that location slavery would be unprofitable. My though
ts on the blatancy of this mindset are confounded. I cannot find the words enoug
h to express my disappointment, knowing what black people endured in the world d
uring slavery. Knowing what we know about the torture, rape, and murder of innoc
ent men, women, and children during those couple hundred years, how can any livi
ng prophet say that the ord abided such crime? And yet Young considered slavery
a curse to the masters! [Slavery] is of Divine institution, not to be abolished un
til all the blacks turn white or until God tells the prophet that the Canaanites
are no longer subject to Ham. That is the simple essence of his message. This l
eads yet again to another flip-flop between Youngs statements regarding the offic
ial stance of the church on slavery and the 1969 statement from the First Pres.:
It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other race
s, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we
hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to se
e that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportuniti
es and protection under the law with reference to civil rights. A tangent: Replac
e some key words from that quote with other key words: It follows, therefore, th
at we believe the [Homosexual], as well as those of other [sexual orientations],
should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we h
ope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see

that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities
and protection under the law with reference to civil rights. It is only a matte
r of time until the church is happily sealing homosexual couples under new revela
tion. Remember, homosexuals can already hold and use the priesthood, Members of th
e Church who have same-sex attractions, but dont act on them, can continue to enj
oy full fellowship in the church, which includes holding the priesthood, carryin
g out callings, and attending the temple. (mormonsandgays.org) A bit off topic on
the gay thing there, but the point was made.
(Continued...)
22 commentsshare
all 22 comments
sorted by: best
[]JeffreyArrrHollandhttp://i.imgur.com/edKPlSO.jpg 4 points 3 months ago
"orgies of information"
good one.
permalink
[]goingsick[S] 6 points 3 months ago*
(...part 2)
Despite what Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Smith, or any others in th
e past have said concerning blacks and the priesthood, or concerning matters of
race and equality, we are commanded to forget those things, and only heed, and o
nly adhere to the current revelations, according to 1978 Bruce R. McConkie: There
are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interprete
d to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have
said the same things All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving peopl
e repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget ever
ything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q.
Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revel
ation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge
that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line
and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and
light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the v
iews and all the thoughts of the past. They don
t matter anymore. It doesn
t mak
e a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before
the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement
, and the ord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world
on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the
past, we forget about them. F IP.
F OP. I presume that because previous prophets werent accurately revealing stuff
is why McConkie said its time to get in line and believe in a living, modern proph
et. I understand that revelation may be updated or further revealed, but can it ret
roactively be reversed? I suppose that means that because Thomas S. Monson hasnt
written about tattoos and piercings, that we can throw all of Gordon B. Hinckleys
remarks on those topics out. Its all about the focus of the current modern prophet
. What does FairMormon say about McConkies statements? That it answers each and ev
ery objectionable statement or action that the authors can dredge up from bygone
eras. No. It doesnt. Actually, this quote from McConkie can be laid like a blanke
t over almost anything the church has ever said or done that is contrary to what
it is currently doing. How can anyone be a critic of anything the DS church do
es, when Bruce R. McConkie said forget all of that? Harold B. ee, who died not fi
ve years before the blacks were granted the priesthood, and was the last prophet
of the church before Spencer W. Kimball, who was prophet in 1978 at the time th
e blacks were allowed it, wrote that The privilege of obtaining a mortal body on
this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though
unfaithful or not valiant, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies alt
hough under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations. (Decision
s for Successful iving pp 164-65) So, you know Even though Joseph Fielding Smith
said in 1907 that this wasnt doctrine, but opinion, 68 years later another modern
prophet states this again and as doctrine. Whats more, he even calls out non-Amer
icans and mentally handicapped people as being penalized for being unfaithful, a

nd not-valiant. It certainly gives credit to revelations about the Promised and

and the Garden of Eden existing in the U.S. though. And because the church has
never had an issue giving whites of other nationalities the priesthood, and beca
use it freely gives people with Down Syndrome the priesthood, it certainly gives
credit to the revelation of numerous prophets that the reason blacks dont get th
e priesthood is strictly because they are cursed as Cain was. But wait. Is it th
e curse of Cain? Or is it one of several penalties for being indifferent during
the war in heaven? I cannot keep up with the contradictions of the prophets, one
to another. Why is there so much confusion, and doubt, and wishy-washy-ness wit
hin Gods true church? Why is there so much incongruence between prophesies from o
ld to new and back again? It seems that if a church had a prophet that could spe
ak to God, and spoke on his behalf, that even though a revelation could be updat
ed, they could also be consistent (e.g. the blacks are cursed for being cowards
in the preexistence. No they arent. Okay they are. Maybe. It hasnt been revealed.
Forget everything we have ever said about it until now.). FairMormon does the ch
urch no favors. FairMormon creates subterfuge and confusion even more, as siftin
g through many articles yields many, many contradictions. Some articles contradi
ct themselves within the same article. It doesnt strike me as odd that the church
itself doesnt claim FairMormon, its biggest online defender, as doctrinal, and r
efers to it as unofficial. They can take what makes sense, and draw reference to i
t, but deny where it may stray. I believe that the church is not currently racis
t, because as old men die, so do their outdated beliefs. I think that the church
operates, and has always operated on belief, but not on prophecy. Belief explai
ns why each prophet taught conflicting doctrines. It also explains how the churc
h can so easily adapt (especially under pressure to do so) to modern times. Was
it new revelation, or was it convenient timing that the church presented the key
s of the priesthood to the blacks only at the peak of the Civil Rights Movement
in the United States, where the church is headquartered?
permalink
[]lemmingkiller 2 points 3 months ago
I have read this again. What are you expecting in terms of how your dad will rea
ct? Do you think he
ll take any of your points in?
permalinkparent
[]goingsick[S] 2 points 3 months ago
My expectations are low. This alone will not convince him that the church is a s
cam. But I hope he realizes the point of this is that prophets aren
t prophets.
I hope this at least makes him ask himself real questions.
permalinkparent
[]YoungModern 3 points 3 months ago
Put it to him this way: "The fact is that you are accept the truth claims of the
church purely on faith before any other consideration. This is known as fideism
. In literally every conceivable endeavour you would consider such a basis of di
scerning truth untenable. You wouldn
t buy a house purely on faith in the words
of the salesman, so how much more odious is it to suggest I build an entire life
on on the principle? Moreover, when this approach is accepted as a legitimate m
eans to discern truth you accept an approach proves every other contradicting re
ligion true. It only excludes contradicting conclusions through and enthusiastic
embrace of bias -again, it puts the Mormon religion on equal footing with every
other religion. It
s an absurdly week position and it
s no surprise that it mus
t defend itself by threat, fear, and cultivating ignorance. You have taken a pur
ely moral stance by refusing to play this impossible game.
permalinkparent
[]goingsick[S] 3 points 3 months ago
All great points. If I ever send this to my dad, I want it to be as light as it
can be. I fear that tearing him down on a personal level about his decision to r
emain with the church will only help substantiate his belief that I
m doing Sata
n
s work now. Instead, I want to show him the flaws of the doctrine, and not the
flaws in his belief. That way, when the time comes and if he chooses to accept
what I (and the rest of the world) are saying, he will believe it came from a pl
ace based on his own renewed understanding. People are more likely to accept thi

ngs if they believe it
s their own idea.

permalinkparent
[]YoungModern 2 points 3 months ago
Why is there so much incongruence between prophesies prophecies from old to new
and back again?
verb--->noun
permalinkparent
[]goingsick[S] 3 points 3 months ago
Good catch. Thanks!
permalinkparent
[]non-utard 0 points 3 months ago
who cares....follow the thought...who gives shit...and you wonder why planet ear
th looks at Mormons as nothing but goofy and a pain in the ass. maybe poster isn

t an English major who are you to say whats proper?
permalinkparent
[]YoungModern 1 point 3 months ago
who cares...who gives shit
And yet here you are getting worked into a lather about it. Troll on, wayward so
n
nothing but goofy and a pain in the ass.
Physician, heal thyself.
permalinkparent
[]ElizaCochran 3 points 3 months ago
Fantastic. What a tremendous amount of work! What
s next?
permalink
[]goingsick[S] 3 points 3 months ago
Thank you! I think either an in-depth analysis on polygamy, or the Word of Wisdo
m. I
ll be doing baptism and the age of accountability, too at some point.
permalinkparent
[]exl3mmingmo 3 points 3 months ago
Wowsers. You have definitely done your research and mske sound, logical, and val
id arguments. I have only this to add.
When fairmormon states:
the reader is left to decide whether critics are completely ignorant of the hist
ory of race theory, anthropology, and the centuries-old Christian use of the Bib
le to justify slavery or if they are simply race-baiting.
They do of course realise abolitionists, during TSCC
s beginnings were frequentl
y religious organizations. Quakers and other evangilsts. I hate it when apologis
ts just throw their hands up in the air and declare "everyone else is doing it."
On a snarky note:
Since TSCC was for "servitude" during BYs time, and TSCC claims one true church
with direct telegraph to JC, I am forced to conclude abolitionism went against g
ods will and was inspired by Satan.
permalink
[]JamesStrang 3 points 3 months ago
You should add the quote by Brigham about blood atonement for mixed marriages an
d john Taylor about Ham marrying a black woman for the seed of the devil to surv
ive the flood and be on the earth as a temptation for mankind.
permalink
[]goingsick[S] 2 points 3 months ago
It
s true that there is a lot more that I could include. I was considering some
of blood atonement and some of the talks by Mark. E. Peterson, but I wanted to k
eep this letter as short as possible while reaching the major points. Basically
I want him to see the outright racism and how it ties directly with why prophecy
isn
t real, and why.
permalinkparent
[]galtzo has not chosen
2 points 3 months ago
Typo:
church [t]ends to flip flop on
Great letter!

permalink
[]goingsick[S] 3 points 3 months ago
Another good catch. Thank you!
permalinkparent
[]non-utard 0 points 3 months ago
piss off with your spelling corrections....we all know what they meant
permalinkparent
[]galtzo has not chosen
1 point 3 months ago
He is sending this to his father. Were you not aware that we provide a free proo
f reading service here on reddit?
Piss off with your piss!
permalinkparent
[]norlene58 -2 points 3 months ago
Blacks have the preisthood sense 1978 i don
t why people are harpping on it, its
women that don
t have and probably never will.
permalink
[]goingsick[S] 4 points 3 months ago
But that
s isn
t the point. It isn
t that it took a long time for Blacks toget t
he priesthood, it
s WHY they weren
t given the priesthood.
permalinkparent
[]ElizaCochran 2 points 3 months ago
Read "In Sacred oneliness" and you
ll see that in the beginning of the church t
he elite Mormon women had the priesthood or at least thought they did.
permalinkparent
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2014 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the A IEN ogo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.