Skeptic..... Ok, First I would like to point out, that I do not consider myself mormon. I was raised LDS and have a fairly good understanding of the church, however the last time I went to church, George Bush SR. was president. However I see so many assumptions and closed minded arguements that I have to comment here.
It is disingenuous to argue that Mormon preaching and practice as directed by the leaders of its church wasn't racist until quite recently (after 1978).
Ok, So have you not considered alternative ways to think about this? Here is one. I am not saying it is true, simply that it is a simple, and logical, way to consider this in a different light then what you think of it as.
Fact 1. those of African decent were not allowed to hold the preisthood in the mormon church until 1978. This is undeniable. It is simple fact.
Postulate 1: "fact 1 is proof the doctrine of the mormon church was racist until 1978"
However it does NOT alone prove that the doctrine (aka preaching and practice) is racist. You could safely postulate that it enables racism. But not that it is inherently racist. Like all theories, your assumption here must withstand the test of reason from all directions. A single example of a non racist way to interpret this is enough to prove it false. So here is one off the top of my head. If the mormon church practitioners themselves were not worthy of accepting blacks as equals, then perhaps this privilege needed to be withheld until they attained enough tolerance to accept it. There is no need for the doctrine to be inherently racist.
Given that the rights to vote for African Americans were only firmly protected in 1965 by the National Voting Rights Act, It is safe to say that a large portion america was very much racist for a long long long time. Does this make every American racist as well? Does this make the government racist prior to 1965? No. However a government's responsibility is to look after the stability of it's people, (as well as the rights, freedoms, and protection thereof) at the end of the american civil war, the laws that abolished slavery did not go over smoothly, and the conflict over these festered for years. While the 15th amendment in 1870 required the right to vote be extended regardless of race, it was NOT heavily protected by action for a long long time. (1965) it took 95 years for the american population to get used to the idea enough to consider it reasonably enforced. Was this the blacks fault? No. It was simply the fault of the population itself. This does NOT mean the U.S. government was racist. although the idea that many of them were not would be ridiculous, given they are still just people. with all human weaknesses and little different from the rest of the population. Hundreds of years of social preconceptions do not overturn quickly or easily. This is no different from church leaders. They were simply men, with the same human weaknesses. I would be surprised if none of them could ever be viewed as racist. however this does NOT prove the doctrine is racist.
The Lamanites are generaly assumed to be native americans. This is hard to deny, given that this is taught freely among mormons. They are definately described to be cursed. But also listed to be among the most blessed peoples as well. While calling them cursed is not exactly praise, from a realistic point I find it hard to deny this. If you wish for proof, then look no further then native american history following 1492......... if you wish I could provide some nice flashy links, but I don't think it's exactly needed, as you don't seem like a complete moron. They hardly have an attractive history. In fact it's more brutal and disgraceful then any work of fiction I have read (including George R. R. Martin's works) Yes calling them cursed and other less savory adjectives is hardly pleasant, it's hard to refute the simple fact that they have had a hard, brutal history. Perhaps this is simple bad wording on the part of early church leaders? It's rather hard to claim it's not plausible...
As for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. well this AND the Aiken Massacre which you could have mentioned but didn't, were both decided in a court of law to be the work of local groups, NOT church leaders. Your claim that Brigham Young ordered The Mountain Meadow's Massacre is entirely unfounded and simple propaganda. There is no proof one way or the other. If you wish to try to prove the mormon faith wrong, stick to facts please. NOT your own personal speculation based on nothing more then your bias, and the rumors of other people equally biased. When you use claims like these, you simply undermine your entire argument. After all, if you state falsehoods on one front, then your entire argument is cast into doubt. As for the fact that mormons DID in fact murder quite a few people. well, avoid looking at the history of your own ancestors. you might find equally unpleasant truths there as well.
Your claims that educated mormon men were persecuted by church leaders for their beliefs is also inherently flawed, as even IF you could prove any sort of cause and effect, you still would have to know the entire situation from both sides to sort through either case. As an example of alternate ways to view it. Sure we have genetic testing to prove closer genetic background with Asians then with middle eastern background for the native american population. However the book of mormon does NOT rule out the existance of other populations in north america OTHER then the nephites and lamanites. Given a relatively small group moving into a region with a much larger pre-existing population, you are going to have any genetic traits in that larger population become dominant after a couple generations, let alone after 2600 years or so that the book of mormon claims. Genetic testing does NOT disprove the book of mormon. However if someone DID try to say it disproved it, well, First this is a false assumption, and Second, if a well respected, and educated man, made the mistake of claiming it disproved his religion, well, can you honestly blame the leaders of said religion from not wanting him to be a part of their religion if he was undermining it? This is the actions of any leaders of any large group, as long as they are acting responsibly. (The responsibility of a leader is to protect the group as a whole. simple logic dictates that if one member of a group, or even a small minority of said group is damageing to the larger group as a whole, that actions must be taken to protect said group)
None of this proves the mormon church is true either. Because there is no proof ANY religion is true. we simply have to take our own beliefs on faith, whatever they are. However there isn't a single thing you have said that proves mormons, or their beliefs, are ANY worse at all then anyone else. In fact everything you state simply proves they are as human as the rest of us. So they made some mistakes. So have you. Who cares? None of your obvious bias and prejudice against the mormon church inherently has anything to do with BS. In fact your claims, which were FOUNDED on claiming they were biased against race at one point, are heavily undermined by the rather obvious bias you have demonstrated here. You are the raven calling the crow black. I personally do not believe that the mormonistic trends in places in his books are hardly noticeable enough to complain about, and as other people have stated, Harriet is editing this book, just like all the books she edited for her husband (robert jordan) Also, Robert Jordan outlined everything, left SO much notes and tapes, and even told the story to Harriet and a relative of his (Wilson) prior to his death. (I was reading his blog regularly LONG before he died, and personally remember when Wilson posted having just heard the entire story....) Conclusion. The last WOT book will be every bit as good as if James Oliver Rigney himself wrote it...
Loki
