The anti-Mormon at an educators' conference

Last week I attended a conference of educators in another state.  One of the presenters talked briefly about some statistics that indicate various trends in education that touch upon social justice.  He displayed PowerPoint slides with various states and figures regarding graduation rates, literacy rates, the impact of dropout rates on delinquency and incarceration, etc.  Along the way, he showed a slide that showed three states, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, and asked which one of these states had the highest disparity in income between men and women. 

Most of the room answered Utah. (The correct answer was Wyoming.)  The presenter called upon one woman to explain the reasoning behind her choice of Utah.  She said in a sarcastic, hostile tone, “Mormons!”  Another lady sitting near her asked regarding the state of Utah, “Have you ever BEEN there?”  Across the room there were many nods of agreement.

I was too polite to stand up and address the issue of religious intolerance and derail the speaker’s presentation, but I sat there on a low boil for the remainder of the meeting.  The question that came to my mind forcefully was, “When will people realize that making such statements is just as unacceptable as making derogatory comments about Jews, Muslims, African Americans, Asians, Mexicans, or any other minority?”

If the presenter had showed a slide showing the abysmal graduation rates in Detroit and asked someone to point out a reason for them, would the woman have said, “The blacks!”  No reasonable person would tolerate such overt racism.  If the speaker had showed disparities in incomes by neighborhood in New York or Florida, would the woman have said, “It’s because of all those Jews that live there!”  The Anti-Defamation League has done a fantastic job in educating the American public that such comments about Jews are offensive.  Anti-Semitism still exists, but people are generally more circumspect about it.  They know it’s wrong and, if they harbor hostile feelings towards Jews, they only vent them in like-minded company.

The problem with anti-Mormonism is that EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE is considered “like-minded company.”  A conference of educators, a college classroom, a business office, the supermarket checkout line, the bleachers at the little league field, in the youth group of an evangelical church, or on a news program on MSNBC.  It is ironic that the world has become so politically correct, yet it is still alright for liberals and conservatives, atheists and clergymen, to bash Mormons. 

When Proposition 8 focused the ire of homosexual activists against the Church in California in 2008, there were large protests, vandalism, and threats of an organized boycott against Mormon-owned businesses.  Recently, conservatives were talking about organizing a similar boycott against Mormon-owned businesses because the judge who ruled that Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s department was illegally profiling Mexican immigrants and arresting them was a Mormon. Religious intolerance is thoroughly entrenched on the left and the right regarding latter-day saints.

Why is this so?  When will people figure out that it isn’t OK to disparage Mormons?  The Church’s “I’m a Mormon” campaign is an attempt to put a human face on Mormonism.  People should know that there are Mormons all around them.  The lies, distortions, and half-truths told about us are hurtful.  These manifestations of religious bigotry pop up when people feel confident that their words won’t be challenged.
 

Several years ago, my daughter was in a middle-school English class.  The African American teacher made a hostile, belittling comment about Mormonism. My daughter bravely and politely challenged the teacher, offering a correction on what she had erroneously represented as our belief.  Instead of realizing her mistake, the teacher doubled down on her bigotry.  She got In my daughter’s face and said, “You’re a Mormon?  How many wives does your father have?”  My daughter was only 12.  Should any child have to face such an attack in school?  My child got up and left the classroom to go to the office.  She went there to calm down and explain to the school’s counselor what had just occurred.  There was no action taken against the teacher.

Most people could care less about Mormons.  We don’t register on their radar.  However, when Mormons do pop up on the radar, the general level of prejudice and hostility that has been sown by the hundreds of anti-Mormon ministries and parachurches becomes the norm.  We try to deal with prejudice and persecution as the Savior would.  We put up with it.  We turn the other cheek.  We know that they speak lies about us.  Jesus’ own detractors called him Beelzebub, the prince of devils.  He told his followers that they should not expect more favorable treatment.

The kinds of comments made at the education conference are typical.  Anti-Mormonism is entrenched in the minds of far too many people.  How do we effect change?  If I had stood up in that meeting and defended myself and the Church, there would have been bad feelings.  I didn’t have time to approach the individual privately.  The Church has the right idea, I think.  Just letting people know you’re a Mormon has value.  Let them put a face on it.  It’s kind of like illegal immigration.  Many conservatives are willing do have “illegals” deported until they have a personal connection with one.  When they discover that their gardener or housekeeper is an undocumented immigrant, that’s different!  They know that person.  They have empathy for him or her.  They instantly become more reasonable.  The issue becomes more nuanced.

Likewise, when we let others know we’re a member of the Church and let them see our “light” shining, that does some good.  We need to do more of that, a little every day.

The 35h anniversary of the revelation that ended the priesthood ban

June 8^th was the 35^th anniversary of the lifting of a Church policy that prohibited African American members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from holding the priesthood.  To this day, it remains a controversial issue, one that causes pain to some, embarrassment to others, and is used by the enemies of the Church to gainsay it.

Many have taken in hand to write about or explain the origins of the policy, but they remain sketchy at best.  It had its roots in the “seed of Cain” doctrine that was believed by many early American Protestants and was promulgated long before the Church was established.  Phillis Wheatley, an African slave and poet, who was also a converted Christian, wrote in her poem, "On Being Brought from Africa to America" the following in 1773:

'Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,/ Taught my benighted soul to understand/ That there's a God, that there's a Saviour too: /Once I redemption neither sought nor knew./ Some view our sable race with scornful eye,/ "Their colour is a diabolic die."/ Remember, Christians, Negros, black as Cain,/ May be refin'd and join th'angelic train."  (http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/webtexts/Wheatley/brought.html)

A Quaker author named John Woolman, who opposed slavery, wrote in his journal the following passage about how he was disturbed by the Christian justification of the practice as he journeyed down into slave-holding Maryland.  Woolman wrote:

"Having travelled through Maryland, we came amongst Friends at Cedar Creek in Virginia, on the 12th; and the next day rode, in company with several of them, a day's journey to Camp Creek.  …After some time, … a Friend in company began to talk in support of the slave-trade, and said the negroes were understood to be the offspring of Cain, their blackness being the mark which God set upon him after he murdered Abel his brother; that it was the design of Providence they should be slaves, as a condition proper to the race of so wicked a man as Cain was.  (See Woolman, John.  Journal of John Woolman, p. 212-213, University of Virginia. 1774.)

I give my opinion that the doctrine entered Mormonism with 19^th century converts from Protestantism.  In 1820, when the Restoration began with the First Vision to Joseph Smith, this “seed of Cain” doctrine was already used in the churches of Christendom to defend the keeping of slaves.  The Prophet Joseph Smith grew up in Vermont and New York and his personal opinions about slavery were similar those of his neighbors.  He opposed slavery.  Some years after the establishment of the Church, Joseph was asked what converts who owned slaves should do.  His reply was, “I have advised them to bring their slaves into a free country and set them free-educate them-and give them equal rights”  (Compilation on the Negro in Mormonism, p.40). 

Note that Joseph promoted giving African Americans “equal rights.”  Even Lincoln did not support equality.  Joseph Smith’s views were progressive for his time, but as any reformer today knows, changing hearts and minds can be a slow process.  The Prophet Joseph spoke of the process of conversion and how the Spirit of God gradually transforms a person saying, “…[I]t is often the case that young members of this Church for want of better information, carry along with them their old notions of things, and sometimes fall into egregious errors. 

Joseph Smith ordained a free African American man named Elijah Abel to the important office of Seventy in the priesthood at Nauvoo, Illinois by the Prophet Joseph Smith. This is an office that was subordinate only to that of apostles in our hierarchy. Elijah Abel was a faithful member of the Church all his life and served as a missionary. He was a Mormon pioneer who crossed the plains and eventually died in the faith in 1874 in Salt Lake City.

However, Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob in Carthage, Illinois in 1844 and he did not live to see Elijah Abel and the rest of the saints gather in Utah.  The saints were expelled and driven by mobs into a desert wilderness.  Gathering the saints and struggling for survival became the dominant theme of the Church and its leaders for the next generation.  The Civil War, which was prophesied by Joseph Smith in 1832, came and went, leaving the Utah saints out of the fray.  During the subsequent struggles against the government and the strife over statehood, seizure of Church properties, and persecution of Mormon leaders, there was little time to be concerned for social justice.

Many anti-Mormons dig up old, militant statements from the sermons of Mormon preachers in this late 19^th century period.  Indeed, those sermons are fiery.  They contain denunciations of those who sought to destroy the Church during the struggles for its survival.  Among those statements, one will find racist statements by those preachers.  Brigham Young is often provided fodder then for those who want to stir up enmity against Mormons today.  Like many of his time, Brigham Young apparently struggled with his conflicting personal feelings about race relations and those feelings that were begotten of the Spirit of God.  One of the accusations made by anti-Mormons against the Church in the mid 1830s that caused so much trouble for the Church was that we intended to baptize and free all the slaves in Missouri.  Many of Brigham Young’s defenses of the Church were made to allay the fears of the slave-holding Missourians.  Little good it did; however, because the Missourians disarmed the saints, burned homes, killed livestock, shot men, women, and children, and drove them from their homes in the dead of winter. 

Mormons don’t believe that prophets are infallible.  They are men with weaknesses and passions like every other mortal.  Even a person with racist feelings can have those feelings moderated over time, as the Spirit of God softens their hearts and changes their views.  Brigham Young came to say that African Americans “…should be treated like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites shall be cursed, unless they repent” (Journal of Discourses 10:111).  This should give hope to those who seek social justice inside and outside the Mormon culture.

As Mormonism entered the 20^th century, an era of stability began, leading to larger acceptance and growth.  The Church truly became international in its scope.  Nevertheless, the United States was still a racist nation as were many of its citizens.  Mormons were not isolated from the general culture of segregation, discrimination, and Jim Crow.  The pressures from the civil rights movement were intense.  As the hearts of American changed, so did those of latter-day saints.  Yet there is an understanding in the Church that it is guided by prophets through current revelation.  We are not at liberty to fashion the Church as we will it, but we seek to follow God’s will.  Latter-day saint leaders understood that, as the Church grew in the world, a change in the policy that prevented those of African descent from assuming leadership in local congregations would be necessary.  We had to wait for the Lord to confirm that path before we could go down it.

From what I understand, Brazil became the key in this process.  The Church was growing rapidly in Brazil and new members were researching their family history to provide names of deceased ancestors for temple work.  In the temples, those who died without proper baptism can receive it by proxy.  Members can also be sealed to their families for eternity, a supernal blessing.  It was apparent in the genealogies of new Brazilian converts that their ancestry was of mixed race in many cases.

The Church reached a critical moment, much like that moment in the Bible when the ancient Church turned to preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.  Prior to that moment, they followed the directive of Jesus to take the gospel to the “lost sheep” of Israel (see Matthew 10:6, 15:24).  A vision came to Peter that he did not fully comprehend.  It corresponded with the visit of an angelic messenger to Cornelius, a Gentile, who was told to send for Peter. When Peter came to his home, not knowing what to expect, a marvelous outpouring of the Holy Ghost helped him to understand the significance of his vision.  The time had come to take the gospel to Gentiles as well as Jews.  The global mission of the Church changed.

Likewise, in 1978, the significant growth in Brazil, along with the cultural changes in the United States that had touched many members and changed their hearts, the “Peter and Cornelius” moment occurred.  The President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball, received revelation that the priesthood ban was to be eliminated.  This revelation was then confirmed by a second one with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency together.  There was no doubt as to the course of action.  There was also no justification given or explanation of the reason of the past policy.  It was simply done away by the voice of the Lord to his servants.  Compliance was immediate.  The announcement was made.  Saints all over the world rejoiced.  It changed the nature of the work for the better.

As the Church has grown in Africa over the past 35 years, the progress has been astonishing.  There are over 400,000 members there and three operating temples (soon to be five).  Activity rates there are among the highest in the Church.  The culture and organization of the Church helps facilitate change.  We are not a collection of different churches under an umbrella association.  We are one single Church of 14 million members that is organized into geographical units.  As researcher Dalyn Montgomery explained, the Church’s physical and geographical organization tends to mix diverse groups together in a congregation.

Mormonism doesn’t allow [dividing congregations by race] , Montgomery says. "Because of its lay ministry, everybody has to work together to make Sundays run. In any geography that captures both [black and white] races, people are enabled to spend time together on leadership councils and in each other’s homes.

In places such as Philadelphia and Atlanta, he says, a young, white, highly educated family and an older African-American woman of little means "are in each other’s homes, meeting in meaningful ways on something — faith — that matters to both of them." (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/56418444-80/black-church-says-lds.html.csp?page=1)

In Paul Kivel’s book, “Uprooting Racism,” he lists five points of self-examination for organizations committed to changing the culture within them.  He asks:

1. How will the training relate to preceding and ongoing efforts to create a practice of racial justice within the organization?

2. Is there sustainable leadership at the highest levels for this effort?

3. Is a serious commitment to diversity built into the core mission of the organization?

4. Is there a strategic plan for diversity within the organization at all levels, and/or is it an integral part of the overall strategic plan?

5. Is there an adequate, sustainable and dedicated budget for long-term anti-racism work?  [See Kivel, Paul (2011-09-27). Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice - 3rd Edition [p. 297]. New Society Publishers. Kindle Edition].

As an observer, it appears that the Church is seriously undertaking efforts to be more inclusive and determined to build a true fellowship between people of all races.  Obviously, some of those changes are more visible in areas where there is already greater racial diversity.  My son and his wife attended a ward (parish) in Maryland where Mormons from all races and many nations met together.  One weekend, as we visited them, I recorded these observations:

Sunday, as I looked around the chapel, there were two sister missionaries there; one of them was Hispanic. An Asian sister gave the opening prayer in heavily accented English. At the sacrament table, there sat a brother who appeared to be African-American until his speech gave away his Ghanian accent. Two other African or African-American youth passed the sacrament to the congregation. My wife said the sister who taught the Relief Society lesson was African-American. I greeted a couple in the hallway on the way to the Sunday school classroom who answered with German accents.

I also met members there from Vietnam, Cambodia, Tibet, and several other countries.  There were members of many races in substantial positions, leading, directing, and teaching.  Would a visitor find this to be the case in a more demographically homogeneous congregation in Southern Idaho or rural Utah?  Probably not.  However in any large city anywhere in the world, you will find latter-day saints of all races and ethnicities working together to preach the gospel.  Has there been progress?  Definitely?  Do we still have a ways to go?  Yes.  The work is not done.  President Gordon B. Hinckley, one of our most beloved prophets of recent decades stated in General Conference 2006:

"I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us.  I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the church of Christ."

In 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles answered a question about the priesthood ban:

"We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason," Holland said. "But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared" 

(http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53618613-78/church-priesthood-lds-mormon.html.csp).

In March 2012, the Church issued a statement disavowing comments made by a Brigham Young University professor and unequivocally condemned all racism.  Touching upon the priesthood ban:

"For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent," the statement said. "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

"We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

That’s pretty straightforward.  Those of us who sustain these leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators take statements like these very seriously.  They are the cause of serious reflection among us.  We are working toward greater social justice because it is God’s will.

Nevertheless, individuals have to change and that process can happen slowly.  Intolerance can be very sneaky and guise itself in the cloth of piety.  I have debated with conservative Mormons over the issues regarding immigration and, frankly, it seems that the more conservative “law and order” views are frequently a cover for racist views against Mexicans.  Those views tend to moderate when we have names and faces to put on an undocumented person.  A spirit of Christian charity emerges when we see people as people and not as a part of some generic group.  The same happens with white members who connect with African American members.  Friendships form, old prejudices can fade away. 

I wish to share a personal anecdote if I may.  I joined the Church in 1978, shortly after the revelation about the priesthood ban was announced.  I recall hearing Tom Brokaw on the NBC Nightly News relate the story that the President of the Mormon Church had received a revelation indicating that the time had come for all worthy members (including blacks) to be able to receive ordination to the priesthood.  My first reaction, as a young liberal person would normally have been, “Well it’s about time that those racist Mormons got on the ball.  After all, it’s 1978!”  Instead, my reaction was “Revelation from God?”  You see, all the other Christian sects teach that there is no more revelation.  We only have the Bible—and because we have thousands of different interpretations of the Bible, we have about three thousand Christian sects and denominations.  I was more astonished to hear that there was a church today that proclaimed current revelation than I was to hear the content of that revelation.

In the first year or two of my conversion, I befriended an older gentleman who served as the ward mission leader.  He was from the South and, like many people from the South, he still harbored some very intense racist sentiments.  When missionaries asked him to help provide rides to African American members, he usually declined to help.  He struggled with the idea that the Church no longer had the barrier against African Americans holding the priesthood.  When a young black man was ordained a priest and was given the assignment to pass the sacrament (communion) to the congregation, he refused to take the sacrament from the black man. 

However, God has a way of softening even the hardest hearts.  It didn’t take marches in front of his home or protests to get him to change.  The Lord took care of that.  His 19 year-old daughter fell in love with a black man, one who was not a member of the Church.  His man was horrified at the prospect and withdrew all support from the daughter, alienating her.  She ended up living with the black man and became pregnant.  Eventually, to her father’s horror, the young woman became pregnant with the black man’s child.

When the child was born, and her father saw the child, his heart melted.  All the anger and the hate melted away.  He was filled with love for her.  His change of heart won back his daughter and gained him a son-in-law.  The couple married.  Eventually, his daughter’s husband joined the Church and the family bonds were sealed in the temple.  The Spirit of God worked in individual lives to bring about transformation.  Despite what any organization can do, it is the love of God that has the greatest power to break down barriers and change hearts.  Joseph Smith once said:

Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be. He will be inquired of by His children. He says, "Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find;" but, if you will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things--who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy. (Aug. 27, 1842.) DHC 5:134-136.

As a lay member of the Church, I am pleased that the priesthood ban was lifted.  We still have a long way to go, but it is good sometimes to look back over the ground we have covered and celebrate the successes along the way.  I hope all of us can look forward to the development of a gospel culture that enshrines equity, harmony, and goodwill to all people.  Most of all, I'm thankful to belong to a Church that does not deny utterance of the Holy Spirit to living prophets and anticipates that God "will yet reveal many great and important truths pertaining to the kingdom of God" in the last days.

Moving to the action stage in the Steve-Step Hate Model

A couple years ago, I wrote an article about the Seven-Step Hate Model that was developed by an FBI agent to profile the development of hate groups.  I demonstrated how anti-Mormons fit into that model just as readily as a skinhead or neo-Nazi group does.  Here were the seven steps the FBI experts listed:

Stage 1: The Haters Gather
Stage 2: The Hate Group Defines Itself
Stage 3: The Hate Group Disparages the Target
Stage 4: The Hate Group Taunts the Target
Stage 5: The Hate Group Attacks the Target Without Weapons
Stage 6: The Hate Group Attacks the Target with Weapons
Stage 7: The Hate Group Destroys the Target

The folks on Free Republic have moved through stage four at this point.  This not being sufficient, they have been looking for a way to move to Stage 5.  A recent story in the news has given them the means to do that.  It's just starting to develop, so keep an eye on it.

The story involves an Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a hero of the Tea Party and of anti-immigration conservatives.  Arpaio has been renowned as a tough-on-crime sheriff, but a federal court recently determined that his department was illegally profiling Mexican immigrants and arresting them.  The decision will likely be appealed.  Arpaio has also been targeted by the liberal left because he formed a "posse" to investigate the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate.

The judge that ruled against Arpaio apparently is a latter-day saint who served a mission in Mexico.  This information is now being used by some Freepers to incite a boycott of LDS-owned businesses.  Here's a sample of one of the FR comments:

===================================================

To: Colofornian; All
This is GOOD news? I think not. The Judge who ruled against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Murray Snow is a Mormon who did his missionary work in Mexico and speaks fluent Spanish and made an absolute mockery of the law by declaring Arpaio's enforcement of the law "racial profiling" against a new race called "Latinos". Snow is disgusting and un-American- AND MORMON- AND his father is a BIG WIG in the LDS.

It is time for a boycott of all LDS-owned businesses and entities until they stop protecting illegal alien lawbreakers and endorsing amnesty.

5 posted on 6/9/2013 10:07:13 AM by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

===================================================

As you can see, this is the first step toward Stage 5, attacking the target (Mormons) without weapons.  Latter-day saints may not take this seriously, but we need to understand that these haters, in any situation that results in a breakdown of the normal civil order, will turn violent against Mormons, which is Stage 6.  Of course, like the scribes and Pharisees of old, these folks might not actually be the ones doing the violence, but they'll be happy to "hold the cloaks" of those who do while they look on with relish.

An open letter to Colofornian

Dear Colofornian,

You should know by now that I know who you are.  It's not my intent at the present time to reveal your identity, but I reserve that right for the future.  I believe in openness on the Internet.  I believe it is cowardly to attack a religion or any other group and not own it.  I have openly operated on the Internet.  It has made me the butt of many jokes and ridicule, but because I believe in what I do, I stand by it.  It makes me careful about what I write.  It makes me consider the person on the other end.  

The Gospel of Luke contains this passage in chapter 9 of its pages.  Jesus was traveling and sought to enter a Samaritan village.  The Samaritans rejected his offer of a visit because he looked like a Jew headed to Jerusalem.  Their bigotry offended the disciples who traveled with Jesus.  Bearing his priesthood authority (which is held today by Mormon apostles), they knew somewhat of the power they possessed.  James and John asked Jesus:

54 ...Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

Colofornian, I know what manner of spirit I am of.  As a follower of Jesus Christ, I don't wish destroy anyone's life.  My purpose is to get people to consider the hurtfulness of anti-Mormon remarks.  Perhaps, if you will consider the harm you do, you might find it in your heart to refrain from posting your hateful posts on Free Republic.  

The ill will you and your fellow anti-Mormons generate is not harmless.  It is read by many people and repeated.  After several "hops" it ends up in the hands of an unstable, irresponsible person.  That person might do something like burn a Mormon meetinghouse.  Perhaps they may deface a temple. In California, where you live, there have been bomb threats at our meetinghouses and temples.  You can see a chronological list of the kinds of things that occur at this link:

Anti-Mormon Incident Reports

Every anti-Mormon shares some of the blame for these incidents.  Those who actively fight the Church on the Internet contribute to it.  You may not have lit the match, but you and your fellows incited the enmity that inspired the vandalism or violence.  

As the founder of the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism, I have a deep curiosity about what drives anti-Mormon actions.  There is a fascinating obsessiveness about it.  Why do anti-Mormons do what they do?  Now that I know who you are, I have many questions.

You have said in the past that you love to talk with ex-Mormon atheists.  Is this because of your husband or his business partners?  Do you feel frustrated because your sectarian Christian views are inadequate to compete with the arguments of a philosophy professor? Do you lash out at Mormons because your husband doesn't believe in your denomination's interpretations of the Bible?

What occurred in your life in 2004 that turned your Free Republic activity into an anti-Mormon crusade?  Did missionaries knock on your door and you nearly joined the Church?  Did someone in your family or a close friend join the Church against your wishes?  Did someone marry a latter-day saint in a temple and you were unable to attend?

I find it interesting that you lead a dual life of sorts, one that is full of contradictions.  A 70-something grandmother in a million-dollar home, who enjoys the accolades of the professional and artistic class, surrounded by affluent, hip, new-agey friends, who supports the Sierra Club, contributes money to Democrat Barbara Boxer and endorses Democrats for county offices, secretly haunts the Internet's arch-conservative site trying to tear down Mormonism.  It just doesn't add up.

I try to imagine your guests, enchanted at the tones of your grand piano as they lie down beneath it, enjoying the marvelous resonances and overtones.  They sing your praises.  How marvelous!  Beautifully done!  Amazing!  Then, on the morrow, you arise again and resume your anti-Mormon mission on Free Republic.  You have a background in music therapy and psychology.  Go and analyze that!  What is the obsession that drives this kind of behavior?

Why is it that, at Christmas time, your anti-Mormon posting on Free Republic INCREASES?  What happens during the holidays to incite that hostility?  Does a Mormon family member come home and stir up those emotions?  When Mormons and Christians alike celebrate Jesus' birth, you are sitting at a computer trying to damage a church that bears the name of Jesus Christ.  How very festive!  How much would your efforts please the Prince of Peace?

Sometimes you may go away for a few weeks to your second home in Idaho and there is a little lull on Free Republic.  But you always return with a vengeance.  Is it your Mormon neighbors in Idaho that set you off with their pleasantries?

For years, the only topic you posted about on Free Republic was Mormonism, always with the intent to defame or belittle it.  Only recently did you return to posting about current events or conservative politics--after I posted the information that you supported Barbara Boxer and other Democrats.  Were you afraid Jim Robinson would "zot" you from the site, and you'd lose your "ping list" buddies?  As you showed during the election, you considered Romney a bigger threat to the world than the Socialist-in-Chief, President Obama. Were you willing to risk the Constitution for your anti-Mormon crusade?  If America collapses because Obama's underlings are successful in their efforts, you will own part of the blame for that, too.

But politics isn't really the issue.  You are.  Your soul is.  Does your family know you do this in your spare time?  Or do you hide your anti-Mormon activity on FR like a porn addict hides his shameful habit?   When your husband comes into the room, do you suddenly click off the Free Republic screen or close Internet Explorer?  Isn't there something better you could be doing?  In the dusk of life, in your seventies, isn't there a more fruitful use of the remaining years God grants you on earth?  

I would like to issue an invitation to you, to enter into a dialogue.  That dialogue can be public or private.  It doesn't matter to me.  I would like to hear from you and ask you these questions and more.  It's not about the Church--it's about you.  Why do YOU do this?  It isn't healthy.  It isn't right.  It isn't Christian.  It's hate, pure and simple.  Anti-Mormonism is always personal.

I would like to know what caused that hate to grow in your life and why an intelligent, mature, educated, and talented woman would indulge in something so unseemly.  If you wish to join me in a private or public dialogue, please sign up at the S.P.A.M. site (www.spamlds.org).  I can verify you membership there with the other information already in my possession and confirm your identity (others needn't bother to try to trick me).  I await your answer.

Sincerely,

Greg West

Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism

When anti-Mormons turn on other anti-Mormons...

Official "Elsie" Icon

When the anti-Mormons on Free Republic start to criticize the other anti-Mormons on the site, you know that the whole thing is wearing thin.  Case in point: a discussion started on the site yesterday after "Servo1969" about a very anti-Mormon rant that was published on the conservative Townhall.com site.  "Servo1969" is new to the anti-Mormon ranks on FR.  He has been active there several years, but his daily activities are all about conservative politics.  Why did he choose now to join the party?  Who knows!

Anyhow, the usual suspects (Elsie, Utah Binger, and the gang) joined in to bash the Church. In particular, Elsie went "over the top" with the usual cut-and-paste stuff, even so much that another anti-Mormon bigot called him (yes, Elsie is a him, I'm told by my sources) out on it.  Freeper "Rome2000" wrote:

"Now that Romney is gone I don't see the purpose of the Mormon bashing. It was necessary for people to know that he belongs to a wacky cult when he was running for POTUS. People are free in the USA to believe whatever they want, and as long as the Mormons are not blowing things up, speaking ill of them just makes the site look bigoted."

 As you can see, Rome2000 isn't a friend of Mormons.  He considers us a "wacky cult."  He apparently, like many on FR, thought the anti-Mormon activity on the site was just to inform potential voters about Romney's religion, as spreading religious intolerance was a public service.  However, now that his side lost and he's stuck with Obama, he's ready to bury the hatchet.  We heartily concur, that Elsie's antics do indeed make Free Republic look bigoted.  Jim Robinson himself has publicly proclaimed his own anti-Mormon bigotry.

Elsie, in reply to Rome2000's criticism, admitted his own bigoted ways.

"I, for one, AM bigoted! I am VERY concerned when some jackleg False Prophet makes up a bunch of crap and tries to foist it off as better than CHRISTIANITY! And; I am NOT going to shutup about it!!! [Bold print per original]

 It's always nice when they make your point for you.  Elsie is an anti-Mormon bigot.  He is cut from the same cloth as those who crucified Jesus and those who murdered the prophets throughout history. Remember, Elsie:

Matthew 12:34-37
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.  [Italics added for emphasis.]

What if Colofornian was a Democrat?

Free Republic is the most red-meat Republican site on the Internet.  Jim Robinson uses his "zot" powers to ensure that the site only tolerates those who have no liberal leanings at all.  Robinson frequently went on rants about RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and listed that as his primary reason for not supporting Romney. The site has no tolerance for liberals, who are hated even more than Mormons on the site, if that's at all possible.

So the question comes up, what if Colofornian, the leading anti-Mormon Freeper was just using the site for her anti-Mormon purposes, and didn't subscribe to Jim Robinson's conservative principles?  Would she get the boot or would he allow her to stay because she serves as his anti-Mormon proxy?

Well, let me just say that I now know who Colofornian is.

Yes.

I know.

And, since political contributions are a matter of public record, I know that she and her husband have made political donations to Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer.

I also know that she publicly endorsed a Democrat for county office where she lives.

Are you getting the message Jim Robinson and all you Freepers?  Your buddy Colofornian is a liberal, Northern California Democrat.  Yep.  She is just using your site for anti-Mormon purposes.  Politically, she is on the other side.

As I wrote earlier, Free Republic's "freepathon" fund-raisers are taking longer than ever.  The daily intake during the fund-raising is less than they made back in 1999!  My data shows that it dips during periods of anti-Mormon activity.  The purges and the anti-Mormon hate is costing Free Republic money.  It's bleeding FR to death.

And your number one anti-Mormon on the site is a Democrat.  Are you hearing me, Mr. Robinson?

When it comes to your wallet and your hate for Mormons, which one will you pick?  Colofornian's hundreds of anti-Mormon posts are costing you.  If you want to contact me for my proof, you know how to find me.

Maybe that "Viking Kitty" will come out for a "Zot."

Ignorance of the scriptures is bliss to anti-Mormons

Anti-Mormons love to tell us to "believe the Bible," but they actually know very little about it.  Mormons believe more of the Bible than any sectarian Christian.  Instead of picking and choosing what we want from it cafeteria-style, we actually believe it and try our best to live it.

The Bible tells us that God has a body. that Jesus called his hearers "gods," that the righteous are destined to become gods like their Creator, and that faith and our works are both factors in our judgment and salvation. However, our detractors choose to turn the Bible upside down.  Everything that is literal, they construe to be figurative and everything figurative to be literal.  

I can't count the number of times I've been confronted by some anti-Mormon whose "proof" that the Book of Mormon was false was because it used the term "steel," to describe Nephi's bow.  They gloat that steel was a modern invention and couldn't have existed in ancient times when the Book of Mormon was to be written.  However, they failed to check their own Bible beforehand. The Bible mentions "steel" four times and three of those refer to a "bow of steel"  (Jeremiah 15:12, Job 20:24, Samuel 22:35, and Psalm 18:34).  Nevertheless, when you show the critic those passages, it doesn't change their mind.  Their hearts are hardened against truth.  They stopped listening to reason, scripture, and the Spirit long ago.

Colofornian made one of those kinds of errors recently.  In an ongoing discussion on Free Republic, she attacked the use of the term "everlasting burnings" by Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets to describe eternal glory.  She tried to twist things to appear that the Mormon "heaven" is actually the Protestant Evangelical's "hell."  Unfortunately, she forgot to consult her own Bible.

If we actually read the Bible, we find this passage in Isaiah, which perfectly describes the "Mormon" heaven, which we call "celestial glory" or the "Celestial Kingdom:"

14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil;
16 He shall dwell on high: his place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks: bread shall be given him; his waters shall be sure.
17 Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty: they shall behold the land that is very far off.
--Isaiah 33:14-17

Who does Isaiah say will live in "everlasting burnings?"  The wicked?  The evil ones?  The people who refuse to repent of their sins?  No!  It says that the righteous will "dwell with everlasting burnings!"

The ironic thing is that Colofornian and her counterparts believe in a heaven where a mass-murderer can confess Jesus with his mouth on the way to his execution and be saved, while someone like Ghandi or Mother Teresa would burn in hell forever because they didn't say the "Sinners Prayer."

Think of it.  Which heaven would you rather be in?  Would you rather be in a heaven full of liars, cheats, adulterers, swindlers, and murderers who confessed Jesus' name with their last breath or would you rather lie in a heaven filled with honest, God-fearing, righteous people who practiced charity, benevolence, kindness, and mercy all their lives?

In the "Mormon" heaven, I anticipate meeting polygamists like Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, whose having more than one wife would be condemned by modern sectarian Christians.  (Heck, even Jesus called heaven "Abraham's bosom" in Luke 16:22.)  I anticipate that I'd also meet Luther, Tyndale, Huss, Ghandi, Muhammad, Buddha, John Paul II, and other people who longed for and sought righteousness all their days.  The Mormon teachings of baptism for the dead and the preaching of the gospel in the spirit world after death tell me that many who didn't find the gospel here will embrace it there.

So which heaven would you choose?  The one full of intolerant, anti-Mormon bigots?  I certainly hope not!

As a last point on the subject of "everlasting burnings," having shown that the Bible says that only the righteous can dwell in such a place, I'd like to mention a non-canonical reference as well.  The Ethiopian Book of Enoch is not recognized as a canonic work by Latter-day Saints, but it was once used as scripture by ancient Christians (in fact, Jude quotes a prophecy from it in the New Testament. See Jude 1:14), In it, Enoch repeatedly describes heaven as being filled with a holiness that appeared as "tongues of fire." The day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit fell upon the apostles comes to mind also. Enoch recounts his approach to God's heavenly throne:

"A fire also of great extent continued to rise up before Him; so that not one of those who surrounded Him was capable of approaching Him, among the myriads of myriads (22) who were before Him. To Him holy consultation was needless. Yet did not the sanctified, who were near Him, depart far from Him either by night or by day; nor were they removed from Him. I also was so far advanced, with a veil on my face, and trembling. Then the Lord with his own mouth called me, saying, Approach hither, Enoch, at my holy word." (Enoch 14:25)

Enoch described God's throne as surrounded by fire and that only the righteous were pure enough to come before him into its penetrating light and heat.  Isn't it funny that an uneducated farm boy like Joseph Smith would describe heaven so much like the Ethiopic Book of Enoch that was quoted by first century Christians! Where on earth would a Palmyra farm boy get a copy of the Book of Enoch?  Or perhaps he simply saw the same visions as that ancient seer of seers! But, I digress--

To Colofornian and her anti-Mormon chums, this author invites them to repent of their hateful anti-Mormon acts and to call upon God for forgiveness, that they might be able one day to enter into the cleansing fire of "everlasting burnings" where the righteous saints will dwell in eternity.  Only then will they receive the blessings Isaiah promised, that they "...shall dwell on high: [their] place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks: bread shall be given [them]; [their] waters shall be sure.  [Their] eyes shall see the king in his beauty: they shall behold the land that is very far off.

Elsie, 'Queen of the Cut-and-Paste' attack

Elsie?

If you've ever noticed the anti-Mormonism that takes place on Free Republic, you may have become familiar with some of the names.  Colofornian tends to lead the pack in the numbers of anti-Mormon posts, but Elsie is perhaps even more prolific.  "She" (I'm not sure of her gender; some tell me that "she" is actually a man who uses a female screen name) doesn't originate many threads, but when she is summoned via the anti-Mormon ping list, she attacks with viciousness that's hard to stomach.

I previously did a profile on Colofornian, back in 2009.  Back then, I didn't know who he (or she, actually) was.  I thought it might be interesting to run a similar profile on Elsie.  It's sort of a "traffic analysis"--an attempt to derive some hypotheses from the communications and the patterns within them.

Methods and tactics

Elsie's modus operandi is jumping into existing anti-Mormon threads after being "pinged" by one of the anti-Mormon cabal.  "She" has fewer than 50 original posts. Free Republic's database does not provide data going all the way back to the beginning of Elsie's early days on the site, but if one googles the terms "elsie" and "Free Republic" together, you'll get over 30 pages of results.  (At least, I stopped scrolling after 30-plus pages.)  Unlike Colofornian, "she" is not a single-topic poster.  She is viciously anti-Catholic as well as anti-Mormon.  She regularly eviscerates her fellow post-Nicene Christian brothers and sisters when the Pope makes headlines.  She also is a knee-jerk Christian conservative who condemns abortion and gays, supports prayer in schools, teaching creationism, and fears conspiracies like Agenda 21 and Common Core education standards.

Her favorite anti-Mormon tactic is using pre-made "cut-and-paste" HTML inserts.  The coding on these is rudimentary, like that of the 1990s and the early days of the Internet.  They're not sophisticated, but they do set themselves apart from FR's otherwise plain presentation.

Elsie seems to have a fondness for Presbyterianism, because one of her favorite attacks against a "live" LDS defender in the forum is to demand an answer to the question, "Why did Joseph Smith say that he knew that Presbyterianism wasn't true" after the First Vision.  The reader may recall that Joseph's family was being proselyted in the years leading up to 1820 by the Methodists and the Presbyterians in particular.  His mother was more partial to the Presbyterians and his personal inclination was more toward the Methodists.  After the First Vision, in which he saw the Father and the Son, he learned that the creeds of the existing sects of the day were false--directly from the mouth of Jesus himself.  Thus, when he came home and seemed to be distracted and out-of-sorts by his experience in the forest, and his mother inquired as to his welfare, he told her that he was alright, but he had learned for himself that Presbyterianism was not true.  This statement seems to stick in Elsie's craw.  Maybe "she" is a he and a Presbyterian minister.

Elsie likes to take militant statements made by early Church leaders that condemn the apostate sects of their time.  One must figure that persecution was a very real thing to them.  In their day, the Prophet Joseph was brutally murdered, and two apostles (David W. Patten and Parley P. Pratt) were killed by anti-Mormons.  The militancy of their rhetoric was fiery and the denunciations of those sects that condoned cold-blooded murder of Mormons were certainly justified.  The rhetoric is softer today, perhaps because the monopoly these sects once held on political and social power is greatly diminished by liberal groups like the ACLU and the Anti-Defamation League.

Elsie often attempts to point out the perception that Mormons want to be viewed as Christian (because we are in fact THE Church of Jesus Christ, not an offshoot from the Roman Church that was formed by a pagan emperor and a bunch of corrupt bishops in the fourth century) and the denunciation of false, apostate Christian sects.  Her claims are based in the false assumption that existing sectarian Christian denominations are indeed the Church of the ancient saints.  She misunderstands the fact that we do not wish the acceptance of modern sectarian Christians.  We simply claim, without apology, that we are the Church and that they are not.  This gets Elsie's shorts in a wad.

How she/he began

Elsie first posted on Free Republic on 19 June 1999, two years before Colofornian. There was no apparent hostility against Mormons until 2008.  Records before 2001 are gone, probably due to a FR server accident, but the topics before that time were pretty much the usual conservative themes: abortion, prayer in schools, creationism, etc.  After 9/11, her posting dropped off significantly.  She posted once in 2002, not at all in 2003, and twice (January, May) of 2004.  Then there's a four-year gap, starting again on 1 January 2008.  After this time, the anti-Mormon stuff begins.  It is interesting to note that Colofornian had a similar two-year gap and came back anti-Mormon.

With the missing FR data, there's no way to tell if she was replying to anti-Mormon threads before 2008, but her anti-Mormon debut was this post about the city of Draper, Utah considering making "free speech" zones for anti-Mormon protesters who always show up to harass Mormons and their guests at temple open houses and dedication services.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2139311/posts

Draper mulls 'free speech zones' near new temple

11/27/2008 5:01:54 PM · by Elsie · 90 replies · 1,090+ views

Deseret News ^ | November 27, 2008 | Rebecca Palmer

Obsession

It's interesting to note that there was a four-year gap and, upon returning, the commencement of anti-Mormon attacks some months later.  What caused her to become "radicalized" against Mormons in that time?  How does someone go from having a passive dislike or intolerance of Mormonism to launching a full-blown daily crusade against us?  What turns a person like that to the "dark side?"

Was Elsie converted to the Church in that time and then fell away?  I would have to say that's doubtful, just reading the comments she has made since I've been monitoring FR's anti-Mormon activity.  ExMormons tend to brag about their connection to the Church as if it adds "street cred" to their aspersions.  They wear their apostasy like a badge of honor.  Elsie doesn't do that.  No, Elsie comes across as merely an intolerant, barely-informed bigot who copied some pages from anti-Mormon sites and repeats them in her pathetic cut-and-paste attacks on FR.  

Perhaps Elsie studied with missionaries and nearly joined the Church.  Perhaps she felt those stirrings of the Holy Ghost in her heart and considered being baptized.  I have seen people in this position who suddenly come under pressure of friends and clergymen.  They get all kinds of anti-Mormon literature given to them and they feel like they've dodged a dangerous situation.  Unlike a person who simply has no interest in religion or who is too steeped in sin to feel the witness of the Holy Ghost, these good people have felt the Spirit's voice testify to them that it is true.  They know deep down inside that God spoke to their hearts and confirmed that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true.  However, because they lack the moral courage to face the possible persecution and derision that can come from friends and family, they retreat from the impressions of personal revelation.  Because the Spirit strives with them, they have to stamp it out.  That lends a peculiar vehemence to their anti-Mormonism.  They have to attack that still, small voice that haunts them and testifies of their guilt.  

Perhaps Elsie had a close personal friend of family member who nearly joined the Church and that caused a panic.  I have encountered several anti-Mormons who took on a personal crusade against the Church because a sister, brother, parent, dear friend, or college roommate was investigating the Church and having positive experiences in the process.

Or last of all, maybe Elsie is a sectarian clergyman--a hireling who feeds his flock for filthy lucre, a practice condemned by the Bible (1 Peter 5:2).  The regularity and frequency of the attacks suggest that the individual doesn't have a regular job like the rest of us.  Who among us has time to spend hours on Free Republic every day spreading hate against Mormons unless they get paid to do so?  A person at a regular job doing such things would be stealing precious bandwidth and time on the clock from his employer.

Summary

Last of all, like I did with the profile on Colofornian, I want to point out that the Free Republic web site is being used by Elsie and a handful of anti-Mormons to promote hatred of Mormons. Free Republic's disclaimer on its home page states:

"Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience."

I have clearly documented that a pattern of religious bigotry is active on Free Republic and I have identified the individuals responsible for this activity. If Free Republic is sincere about individuals refraining from religious bigotry on their pages, I call upon them to ban Elsie and the other anti-Mormons who are involved from the Free Republic site and issue an apology to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism and the Free Republic Anti-Mormon report will continue to monitor Free Republic for its tolerance for intolerance. Jim and John Robinson, it's time to do the right thing.

Freepers attack Church over scouting decision

Over the past few years, the Church has announced more moderate positions on a couple of issues like illegal immigration and gay rights.  Despite the overwhelmingly conservative rank-and-file membership, the Church has often taken more liberal positions than are generally accepted by other, sectarian Christian groups.  Today, the Church announced a compromise position on gay youth participation in the Boy Scout program.  The Church does not condone gay leadership in the ranks of the scout organization, but it sees no reason to marginalize youth who may be struggling with same-sex attraction.  The Church advocates for chastity among unmarried people (both heterosexual and homosexual) and fidelity between married couples.

This decision will surely start a firestorm among Evangelicals and, as you would expect, Free Republic's anti-Mormon cabal has seized onto the issue in this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3012521/posts

Their take is that the Church is intentionally doing this to push the legalization of polygamy as the next step.  My take is that the Church is advocating compassion for young people who are struggling with sexual identity issues while still encouraging individuals to live morally pure lives.  The actual Church statement is found here:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-boy-scouts-of-america

One of the things you can count on for sure, if anti-Mormons oppose it, the Church is on the right track and doing the right thing.

Freepers use Boston bombing to bash Mormons

The Freeper antis took a faith-promoting story from LDS Living's site about a Mormon marathon runner and turned it into an attack on Mormonism.  The runner, Heather Ekola, expressed the sentiment that she received divine protection from harm.  The antis on FR twisted Ekola's statements of gratitude to mean that, as a Mormon, she deserved protection that others did not somehow merit.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3009339/posts

Despite the fact that Ekola didn't say anything that should be understood in that context, it does bring up an interesting subject.  I would like to challenge the folks of Free Republic to go back and look at the stories of past disasters and see how many Mormon missionaries were killed in them.  Or again, go look up how many Mormon meetinghouses were destroyed by natural disasters.

Over the years, it has always amazed me that some enormous catastrophe will strike a region of the world and, as the Church prepares to send to send humanitarian relief to the area, it will usually report on the damages to Church resources and the status of members and missionaries in the area.  I am always amazed that, in many cases where hundreds of people have died, no missionaries were killed.  Do they receive divine protection?  If any reader would go back and research the casualty counts for large disasters and then look up the corresponding reports about the missionaries in the area, I think he or she would find something rather remarkable.  Likewise, great earthquakes, typhoons, landslides, and other disasters have stricken many areas of the world where we have meetinghouses and temples.  Very often, they suffer minimal or no damage at all, which is astonishing when one views the utter devastation that takes place around them.

It is not uncommon for Christian believers of any denomination to express a belief that God spared their life in a dangerous situation.  Do Christians believe God favors them over Muslims, Jews, or Hindus?  If not, why should they express any special gratitude?  If so, why should it be unanticipated that God would protect any righteous soul, regardless of their religious affiliation.

As an odd observation, I might also note that those who attack Mormonism sometimes end up being the recipients of something that might be interpreted as divine judgment.  For example, back in 1998, anti-Mormons fought long and hard to block the construction of a Mormon temple in Nashville, Tennessee through the zoning board.  This is a frequent tactic they use and it is almost always unsuccessful.  Nashville was the only place I recall where they successfully blocked approval.  A week after the board voted to deny the permit to the Church, a tornado swept through the city that did a billion dollars in damages.  The Church ended up building the temple in a Nashville suburb instead, but the city still had to deal with all the damage.  Divine retribution?  Maybe.

I've seen it happen on personal levels, too.  I've seen anti-Mormons destroy their own lives and alienate those who love them.  Helen Radkey's son once mentioned in an interview that his mother's anti-Mormon crusade basically got in the way of healthy relations with the rest of her family.  One odd, very public case was Conan O'Brien's show.  He lampooned the Church with a song one night and a week later, he was off the air.

Over the course of my life, I had two people personally go after me because of my religion.  One of them, a co-worker, had an accident that broke his back (and the company offered me his job) and another went to jail because of an act of criminal negligence.  One of my missionary companions had a father who published books against the Church. The anti-Mormon father gradually lost his sight.  Does this happen in every case?  No.  But sometimes we don't know the end of the story.  I wouldn't know what happened to the guy in France who physically assaulted me and a missionary companion, or the punk who spit in my face, or the guy who hit me with a brick.  In each case, I tried to do the Christlike thing and forgive.

Have I felt protected in my life?  Definitely.  Countless times.  Is it because I'm more righteous than anyone else?  I can't say because I don't know anyone else's heart.  I do ask for protection when I pray so, when it comes, I take it as an answer to those prayers.  Have bad things happened to me.  Certainly.  The rain falls on us all.  Our faith can't shield us from the lessons God can teach through adversity.  He wants us to have the tutelage of suffering as part of our lives.  We can also be chastened for our sins, which the Bible tells us is a special privilege.  Whom God loves, he corrects.  That isn't a painless process.

The Lord does indeed make the rain fall on the just and the unjust.  Who are the just?  Is it Christians?  Evangelicals?  Is it people who attack another religion because they feel it doesn't measure up to their preferred doctrinal template?

In America, there is an obvious "hierarchy" of religions.  Fundamentalists/evangelicals act as if they're superior to traditional, mainstream denominations.  The Christian majority exercises exclusivity and discrimination against non-Christians.  Mormons get under their skin because we show, with some degree of fearlessness, that their historical and scriptural foundations are questionable.  After all, God appeared to our founder and told us that he doesn't consider their churches as his own.  We are a direct challenge to their perceived dominance of American culture.  Our ascendancy is viewed by them as a loss of prestige and power.  Much anti-Mormonism is based in envy.

Personally, I believe the scripture that tells us that God is not a "respecter of persons" and that he loves--and protects--those who fear him and work righteousness.  I believe that his plan provides a way for all the good and honest in heart to find the desire of their heart and enjoy eternal felicity with him.  I believe he will bless, provide for, and protect those who work righteousness.  It doesn't matter their religion.  Good works are good works.  Are Mormons more righteous than others?  Perhaps not, but we believe that God expects us to do good works and we don't excuse ourselves with false expectations of free grace without obedience to the commandments of God.  Our faith isn't a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for hell.  Without good works, faith is dead being alone--just like James said.

Unfortunately, the Mormon-haters at Free Republic wouldn't know a good work if it bit them on the posterior.

Anti-Mormonism doesn't pay--literally!

A friend of the FRAM Report provided the following information to us recently.  For those who might be unfamiliar with the terminology, let me provide an explanation.  Free Republic depends on donations to operate.  It claims to have over 300,000 members, but only a small fraction of that are active participants in the forum discussions.  The fundraisers are called "Freep-a-Thons" and they are aggressively pushed on the site's pages with a graph showing how much is raised.  Their target is usually around $85,000 to $90,000 a quarter!

Many people have questioned the costs, because in this day and age, it is easy to build a social network on a paid web site that costs the owner from $250 to $2500 a year.  Freepers are well advised to ask what these funds support.  I could be wrong, but I believe that, although FR is based in California, its servers are hosted on servers owned by Jim Robinson's brother's company, which is in Colorado.  It certainly shouldn't cost $85,000 to keep the pathetic, low-tech, low-feature site on the air.

While anti-Mormons often demand "transparency" from the Mormon Church regarding tithing funds, they don't bother to ask Jim Robinson where the money goes that they donate for his site.  I'm not the first one to ask about the finances of Free Republic and the exorbitant costs they claim to have.  The bad economy, the purges of members who supported Romney, and the constant anti-Mormon bashing are turning people off and it's becoming harder for them to raise money to keep the operation going.

As I mentioned, a friend of the FRAM Report took the time to count up Free Republic's intake from their Freep-a-Thons going back to 1999.  It's interesting to see that it's taking them longer and longer to raise their targets.  Are the anti-Mormons costing them money?  Have look:

Date	Goal	Days	Avg. Per Day
December 1999	$13,500.00	8	$1,687.50
February/March 2000	$20,000.00	9	$2,222.22
June 2000	$40,000.00	10	$4,000.00
October 2000	$50,000.00	5	$10,000.00
Nov./Dec. 2000	$60,000.00	12	$5,000.00
March 2001	$80,000.00	18	$4,444.44
June 2001	$65,000.00	19	$3,421.05
September 2001	$75,000.00	17	$4,411.76
December 2001	$80,000.00	5	$16,000.00
March 2002	$80,000.00	7	$11,428.57
June 2002	$70,000.00	9	$7,777.78
1st Qtr. January 2003	$65,000.00	14	$4,642.86
2nd Qtr. April 2003	$60,000.00	9	$6,666.67
3rd Qtr. July 2003	$66,000.00	12	$5,500.00
4nd Qtr. October 2003$66,000.00		14	$4,714.29
1st Qtr. January 2004	$60,000.00	10	$6,000.00
2nd Qtr. April 2004	$60,000.00	9	$6,666.67
3rd Qtr. July 2004	$54,000.00	9	$6,000.00
4th Qtr. Oct. 2004	$60,000.00	5	$12,000.00
1st Qtr. January 2005	$70,000.00	7	$10,000.00
2nd Qtr. April 2005	$70,000.00	9	$7,777.78
3rd Qtr. July 2005	$70,000.00	12	$5,833.33
4th Qtr. Oct. 2005	$70,000.00	13	$5,384.62
1st Qtr. January 2006	$70,000.00	12	$5,833.33
2nd Qtr. April 2006	$70,000.00	13	$5,384.62
3rd Qtr. July 2006	$70,000.00	16	$4,375.00
4th Qtr. Oct. 2006	$70,000.00	19	$3,684.21
1st Qtr. January 2007	$70,000.00	19	$3,684.21
2nd Qtr. April 2007	$70,000.00	21	$3,333.33
3rd Qtr. July 2007	$66,000.00	28	$2,357.14
4th Qtr. Oct 2007	$66,000.00	25	$2,640.00
1st Qtr. January 2008	$70,000.00	28	$2,500.00
2nd Qtr. April 2008	$72,000.00	32	$2,250.00
3rd Qtr. July 2008	$76,000.00	37	$2,054.05
4th Qtr. Oct 2008	$80,000.00	24	$3,333.33
1st Qtr. January 2009	$80,000.00	43	$1,860.47
2nd Qtr. April 2009	$80,000.00	59	$1,355.93
3rd Qtr. July 2009	$80,000.00	62	$1,290.32
4th Qtr. Oct 2009	$88,000.00	35	$2,514.29
1st Qtr. January 2010	$88,000.00	28	$3,142.86
2nd Qtr. April 2010	$86,000.00	37	$2,324.32
3rd Qtr. July 2010	$88,000.00	22	$4,000.00
4th Qtr. Oct 2010	$94,000.00	38	$2,473.68
1st Qtr. January 2011	$92,000.00	28	$3,285.71
2nd Qtr. April 2011	$90,000.00	46	$1,956.52
3rd Qtr. July 2011	$88,000.00	47	$1,872.34
4th Qtr. Oct 2011	$88,000.00	50	$1,760.00
1st Qtr. January 2012	$94,000.00	53	$1,773.58
2nd Qtr. April 2012	$88,000.00	60	$1,466.67
3rd Qtr. July 2012	$88,000.00	57	$1,491.23
4th Qtr. Oct 2012	$85,000.00	61	$1,393.44
1st Qtr. January 2013	$85,000.00	58	$1,465.52

Note that it's taking longer and longer for them to meet their goals.  There are some interesting correlations.  We started tracking Free Republic's anti-Mormon activity in January in 2009 and we published our first FRAM Report in April 2009.  This caused a huge stink and there was a record-breaking anti-Mormon thread where Jim Robinson accused the FRAM Report of trying to bankrupt the site.  It wasn't our intent to do so, but Mr. Robinson's remarks were "prophetic" in a way.  Note that it took FR a long time to reach their fundraising goals in early 2009.

Taking a look at some dates, January 2011 was when the "purge" of Mormons began on FR, culminating in April of 2011.  In July 2012, some of the religion moderators quit in protest over Jim Robinson's allowing anti-Mormon activity to go unchecked on the site. When we correlate the numbers of anti-Mormon posts increasing on FR, the donations to the Freep-a-Thons go down and it takes them longer to achieve their goals.  The numbers don't lie.  Jimbo, your buddy Colofornian and his friends are going to bleed Free Republic to death.

Verily, verily, I say unto thee--anti-Mormonism doesn't pay. Jim Robinson, you ought to give that some thought!

Dragging Mormons into a fight

Today's anti-Mormon topic on Free Republic began as a discussion of the history of the Trinity.   A non-Mormon on FR posted an article titled Greek Philosophy's Influence on the Trinity Doctrine which discusses the historical background on how the doctrine developed.  The original poster cited this article from the United Church of God.  The article is historically accurate and dovetails perfectly with the latter-day saint teaching that an apostasy occurred.

It is historically very clear that first century Christians believed different doctrines about the Godhead than those that became the foundations of the later Christian creeds.  The UCG article is a worthwhile read by itself.  However, in the discussion that ensued on Free Republic, Colofornian and the gang dragged Mormonism into the fray.  The article wasn't even about us, but they can't miss an opportunity to attack Mormonism.  The original poster, DouglasKC wrote to Colofornian saying, "Okay, you're really going over the top now... :-)  And don't be dragging the Mormons into this fight...I'm perfectly capable of being called a monster all by myself!"

So, there's not even one Mormon involved in discussing Mormonism on this thread, but the antis can't leave us alone!

Big Jimbo Robinson is trying to run a Free-a-Thon to raise money for his site, so it's necessary to drag out the haters and attack Mormons, even though we're virtually banned from the site.  If you have a few bucks to put into a worthy cause, please consider picking another one.  Free Republic doesn't deserve it.

Wishful thinking

I can always tell when Colofornian posts something he (or she) thinks is big news on Free Republic.  He (or she as some have told me) always visits the FRAM Report to check in.  In this case, he was so excited he posted two anti-Mormon posts on the same topic five seconds apart.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3006016/posts

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3006014/posts

The threads detail a story from an ex-Mormon's blog that says that the general authorities don't believe that the Church is true and that it's a big corporate scam to keep us Mormons paying tithing.  Colofornian is simply giddy over this, as if it will be the end of the Church altogether.  He might as well forget about it.  It's never going to happen.

Let me speak very personally for a moment.  I converted to the Church in 1978, when I was about to turn 19.  I'm 53 years old now.  I served a mission for the Church, married in the temple, raised my children in the Church, and I continue to serve.  Like every other member of the Church, I'm a flawed, imperfect, and hapless sinner who relies upon the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ.  I need Christ's forgiveness every bit as much as any other person.

My faith journey began when I was young.  At the age of 10 years, I became "saved" in the traditional Protestant Evangelical sense.  I responded to an altar call and accepted Jesus because a Baptist preacher scared the living daylights out of me.  He made me believe I was going to burn in hell forever--as a 10-year old boy.  That's the God that the Evangelicals (like Colofornian) believe in--the one who sends children to hell.  I don't fault them for it.  It's all they know.

Over the years from age 10 to 19, I drifted away from the Baptist Church to more liberal denominations that taught the notion of a loving, compassionate God, like the Methodists.  Eventually, I found things in Methodist teachings I didn't agree with and left to explore elsewhere.  Mind you, according to Baptist-Evangelical teachings, I was still "saved" and couldn't be "un-saved."  I drifted into the study of eastern religions and eventually agnosticism.  At one point, I declared myself an atheist, but it didn't "stick."  I realized that being an atheist makes you have to be as dogmatic and stubborn as a fundamentalist Christian.  Both were stuck with "creeds" that were inflexible.

When I discovered Mormonism, I was taught that God himself gave revelation to those who asked.  In particular, I could know for myself that God revealed the Book of Mormon and that he appeared to Joseph Smith.  I took upon myself that challenge and invitation to learn from God directly.  I found that it was indeed true.  I know, like millions of latter-day saints have known--through personal revelation--that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true.  I don't need "proof."  I have it from God himself.  I don't need apologetics or scholars.  I have the "more sure word of prophecy."  That's why I'm still going after three decades in the Church.

For some people, that's not enough to accept Mormonism.  That's unfortunate, because that testimony brings power into one's life.  I have seen real miracles in the past 30 years--and not a few of them.  I have personally had the experience to lay my hands upon the sick and bless them in Christ's name, by the authority of the priesthood that came down through Peter, James, and John to Joseph Smith.  I have seen people recover from serious, even life-threatening illnesses.  Just because we don't do it like the faith-healers on TV, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

I have enjoyed great spiritual blessings: answers to prayers, inspired dreams, personal revelation through the whisperings of the Spirit.  I know that God is real and that he has blessed me for following Christ's teachings as they are given in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

It's funny that the devil never took any interest in me until I prepared to join the LDS Church.  All my life, he was content to let me go my way without any opposition whatever.  When I announced my plan to be baptized as a Mormon, literally all hell broke lose.  I gained a testimony that Satan indeed exists and that he opposes God's plans.  The opposition he generates is sufficient enough alone to convince me that the Church is true.  The devil does not harass any Church that has no power to save.  He only opposes those who have that power.  Indeed, because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the keys of the kingdom committed unto it, it receives the full brunt of the fury of demons and ungodly men.

So Colofornian and every other anti-Mormon or ex-Mormon should be able to figure out by now that they can't kill Mormonism.  They tried burning homes and shooting Mormon settlers in Missouri.  They tried the same in Nauvoo.  They killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith.  They killed apostles David W. Patten and Parley P. Pratt.  They drove the Mormons into a desert wasteland where we prospered and grew.

The Church has come forth out obscurity and is nearly ready to rise and build the New Jerusalem when the current world order collapses.  The anti-Mormons' efforts since 2007 have only accelerated this process.  They will be dismayed at what will be the result of their labors.

There are millions of us who have the old faith--the faith of the pioneers.  The faith of Christian martyrs of old is what we have.  We are willing to live our lives to serve Christ and we're willing to lay down our lives as a testimony for him.  We are non-violent.  We are committed to serving others and doing so with kindness.  As Joseph Smith said, (paraphrasing him) if God were to send us to hell, we'd kick the devil out and make it a paradise.  It's what we do.

Thus, it doesn't matter if some general authority loses faith or even if an apostle falls away.  We've had this happen before.  Even Judas Iscariot was chosen by Jesus.  Whether or not any man is faithful is irrelevant to the truth.  We worship God in spirit and truth, according to a revealed religion that has come to each of us personally.  We KNOW the truth and can't un-KNOW it.  So long as the keys of the kingdom are with us, we will shoulder the burden of preaching the gospel to the earth, saving souls, and building up the kingdom.  We will individually take that upon us.  They can't silence all of us.  They can't kill all of us.  The gospel will go forth until it fills the entire earth.

That is the strength of the Church--that we members know by the Holy Ghost things that can't be known any other way.  It doesn't depend on any living man today.  It is here to stay.  There may be individuals who fall away, but the Lord will bring the Church off triumphant, even if it has to suffer tribulations along the way.  When the dust settles at the end of those tribulations, Colofornian and his friends will be shocked to see what they have opposed and how strong it really is.  Anything else they're hoping for is just wishful thinking.

You can't fight against God.  How long will they keep trying?