Mormonism’s Grinch smiled and said,
“‘Only Begotten Son.’ Only Begotten in the flesh, meaning in mortality. This designation of our Lord signifies that he was begotten by Man of Holiness as literally as any mortal father begets a son. The natural processes of procreation were involved; Jesus was begotten by his Father as literally as he was conceived by his mother.” (Bruce McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 1:144)
His smile grew bigger and he said,
“Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547)
You got that right, I just won’t give this issue a rest.
James S. (Mormon) of the blog Lehi’s Library chimed in earlier today with a substantive comment. I have some forthcoming YouTube videos on this subject of Mormonism and the not-so-virgin birth, but I’d like to use this Christmas blog post as an opportunity to respond in text.
Let me start out by saying that I appreciate the comment James wrote, even though I have a vehement response to offer.
James writes,
Undoubtedly there have been LDS who believe that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary. There are still some who do. I hope that Aaron’s presentation points out the following things:
1. No statement by any LDS leader explicitly teaches that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary. Some of them hint at it, but nobody actually says it.
So let me get this straight: that they said it without saying it—that they communicated it without using the most explicit language available–mitigates the hideousness of it? They essentially communicated that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary, but were polite about it, and that is supposed to put more “merry” in our “merry Christmas”?
Is this akin to the increased tendency in Mormonism to describe “becoming full-blown Gods who are worshiped and prayed to as the Holy of Holies and Almighty God by billions of future spirit children” as “becoming like Heavenly Father”?
Is using euphemism to describe jaw-dropping blasphemy one of the fruits of the Spirit? As you can tell, I am outraged that you extol your leaders for mainly avoiding the use of direct language. For now,
a) I think you perhaps overstate the degree to which leaders were unclear about the issue. See the aforementioned McConkie quotes.
b) As Mike Reed points out:
“Some of the quotes critics use are indeed ambiguous, but I believe that this is at least partly due to the fact that the early saints were living in the Victorian era (1831-1901), when discussion about sex (and the mechanics involved) were highly taboo. But other quotes are a little more explicit…”
James writes on,
2. The real focus of such statements is on the literal father/son relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ. LDS are concerned that some will mistakenly read Matthew’s and Luke’s words to mean that Jesus is the son of the Holy Spirit. LDS want to simply emphasize that God the Father is in fact the father of Jesus Christ in a literal way, and not in a symbolic way.
I agree that is the general focus, but the issue for me is not a matter of emphasis, but rather of propositional truth/false content. Did or did not God the Father have sexual intercourse with Mary? Leaders essentially affirmed this and fostered within members a tendency to believe it.
I believe this appeal to emphasis (or lack thereof) plagues discussion over grace, faith, and works too, so I have thought about it before. The example I sometimes give is this: What if congress had put forth an Affordable Health Care bill that emphasized better cost control measures, better use of technology, efficiency, and regulations on health insurance providers, yet in one footnote in only one of thousands of pages, required that every citizen–while living–donate one of their kidneys?
Do you think the excuse, “But that wasn’t the focus of our bill!”, would be a reasonable response to those concerned?
Think about it another way: If Mormon leaders had, in passing, taught that Jesus was a horrific sinner in pre-mortality and then redeemed by another savior from another generation in the ancestry of the Gods, would it solve the problem by pointing out that they hadn’t emphasized this teaching? I assume (I hope?) you agree that it wouldn’t.
3. Those LDS who might believe that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary usually also believe that they were married. No LDS conceives of a situation in which unmarried individuals had sexual intercourse to procreate the Son of God.
Hence Brigham Young taught (as Orson Pratt):
“The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 268)
On a somewhat related note, because of quotes like this from Brigham it is unreasonable to assume that Brigham had Orson Pratt’s The Seer condemned partly over any major disagreement with Pratt over this issue. They essentially agreed that Mary and Joseph “associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife.” (158-9) Brigham’s disagreements with Pratt concerned other matters. Indeed, Young and Pratt seemed far more in agreement on the not-so-virgin birth than Mormon apologists are today.
4. Many (most?) LDS today do not believe that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary. It is an incredibly difficult thing to gauge because it isn’t an issue anyone wants to talk about. For LDS, it is totally irrelevant to salvation and so we don’t really care all that much. It becomes hard to know how widespread this folk doctrine is, but it is possible that only a minority believe it anymore.
I happen to agree (with qualification) that it has become a minority view in Mormonism today, and I mentioned this in my presentation. My qualification is this: in my experience, when Mormons do find out either that leaders taught such a thing, or that some fellow modern Mormons still believe it, they usually shrug their shoulders. That isn’t good. It shows me there is still a heart-matter, a lack of repentance over the issue.
Also, I object to the term “folk doctrine” here if it is not made simultaneously clear that it was a belief fostered significantly from the top-down. It was promoted, fostered, acquiesced to, and today is still essentially is condoned (tolerated) by leadership. It’s a “folk doctrine” only if considered in the same sense as historic Mormonism’s institutionalized, leadership-endorsed doctrine of blacks in the pre-existence. It is a folk doctrine that had its significant origin in the Brethren. It was an institutionally fostered folk doctrine. I say this because I get the impression people use the term “folk doctrine” to get leaders off the hook.
5. Notions of sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary spring from an era in which there was only one way to conceive a child….sexual intercourse. God revealed to LDS prophets that Jesus Christ is the son of God the Father, and then left LDS leaders and members to work out how exactly that works. In the early days of the Church, before the miracle of in vitro fertilization was developed, one logical conclusion was to suggest sexual intercourse.
I agree. And this shows all the more that Mormon leaders weren’t referring to something like in vitro fertilization. They were referring to an act of sexual intercourse between a mortal woman and an immortal man, something which Mary was thought to have been able to withstand only because the Holy Ghost empowered her to participate.
6. Today, with the development of in vitro fertilization, nobody has any reason to suggest that the mechanism by which God the Father’s chromosomes were contributed had to have been through sexual intercourse.
If by “nobody”, you mean thoughtful Mormons like Cheryl Bruno (bored in vernal) who write,
“There are those who would like to skirt the issue by postulating that Mary may have been impregnated by some means such as artificial insemination. But I see no reason, if God has a body and parts, that he would not use his parts.”
… then yeah, I can see how you would say that. More directly to your point: Cheryl did not say it had to happen this way. But this is the way many Mormons (including the past leaders who spoke on it) were naturally led to believe it happened. Mormonism lacks a Biblically robust and faithful view of God’s power to perform miracles, and it fosters a view of God the Father as an exalted man who was just like one of us. The problem isn’t how Mormonism says it “had to be”; the problem is Mormonism’s larger system of theology which suggests how it naturally happened (especially when considered in conjunction with statements by past leaders).
7. The LDS released the following statement to Fox News: “The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary”
This sidesteps the issue of whether Mormon leaders like Orson Pratt and Bruce McConkie were correct to redefine “virgin” to a woman who hasn’t had sexual intercourse with a mortal man. I originally noted this persistence of ambiguity in the statement to Fox News here.
8. Nephi said the following: “And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.”
The Book of Mormon teaches a lot of things that aren’t believed or at least aren’t unequivocally, officially affirmed by Mormonism anymore. You have to understand that outsiders like me see the Book of Mormon as representing the Mormonism of 1830, not necessarily the Mormonism of 2010.
9. Ezra Taft Benson said: “He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth”
See #7.
10. Finally, this now famous statement from the LDS Newsroom is appropriate: “Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.”
I have responded to the its-ok-it’s-not-official attitude here. In short, there is no binding and official position in Mormonism on what constitutes a binding and official position. But more important, lack of officiality doesn’t resolve the bigger issue of whether something is true or false. As I wrote to a Mormon a few days ago:
At the end of the day I don’t care if something is “official” [well, to some degree I do, but not as much as other concerns], and I don’t believe my engagement of Mormonism should be limited to that which is allegedly “official.” As I outline in the aforementioned article, our concerns with Mormonism as an institution and as a collection of personal individuals trasncend the abstract, impersonal, elusive notion of what is “official.” Instead of asking yourself if something is “official”, ask yourself whether it is true. Instead of asking whether a false teaching by a Mormon prophet is “official”, ask yourself whether the false teaching is the kind of fruit that Jesus warned would proceed from false prophets. Instead of asking whether a quote by a Mormon prophet is in the “official” Standard Works, ask yourself whether the teaching led people astray and impacted real individuals, with names, birthdays, hopes, beliefs, emotions, families, bank accounts, and eternal futures.
James writes on,
In summary, the LDS Church does *not* teach that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary. Some LDS leaders in the past have emphasized the doctrine that God the Father is the actual biological father of Jesus Christ’s mortal flesh, and the implication in that day and age was that it must have been done through sexual intercourse. But it was never, ever, ever, taught as an “official” doctrine of the LDS Church, and it has been specifically repudiated by later prophets.
An unambiguous, unequivocal repudiation would require more than a simple affirmation of the “virignity” of Mary–it would also require a repudiation of the historic Mormon redefinition of the term “virgin” itself.
The issue of “what the Church teaches” is a complicated one. Because different Mormons have different views on what it even means for the Church to teach something, it is an issue that covers institutional teachings, tradition, scripture, academia, and cultural views which are acquiesced to and indirectly perpetuated by leadership. It’s a big issue, and again, I would refer you to my article on the issue of official doctrine.
But I do want to thank you for at least being so honest and explicit to say that some LDS leaders thought “it must have been done through sexual intercourse.” Mormon apologetics has a long history of avoiding explicit admissions like that, so it is refreshing.
It is simply unChristian to misrepresent this issue, and to not tell the whole story. I hope that Aaron tells the whole story.
It would indeed by unChristian of me to misrepresent the issue, which is why in my presentation I have tried to take a very broad and holistic approach to it, replete with qualifications. But the burden not to misrepresent goes both ways: Mormons have an ethical responsibility not to offer up glib and superficial responses like, “We never taught that” or “We don’t believe that.”
James, thanks for your thoughtful comment. Have a merry Christmas!
To the broader Mormon readership: If you buy into McConkie’s view of the not-so-virgin birth, or if you at least shrug your shoulders at it like it’s no big deal, then I hope your take the Mormon “Christ” out of Christmas and replace it with the true Jesus Christ of the Bible, truly born of a virgin!
Again, merry Christmas!
"I accept your interpretation of the NT as a valid possibility"
Wow! You have to stretch your imagination a lot to say that. When people that are not influenced by Joseph Smith read the Bible they don´t come to that conclusion.
Jesus is clear that God is Spirit, He´s not physical. God created the universe out of nothing, therefore God is not part of space/time and that ultimately means God cannot be a physical being PERIOD. So, if you take the Bible as your sole authority there´s no such possibility as God having actual sexual intercourse with a human being.
"And some Muslims would say, because of the nature of deity, that it is blasphemous to teach that God became flesh."
That´s why Muslims don´t claim to be Christians – if they were Christians they wouldn´t be saying that. Thanks for being honest though, for acknowledging Mormonism isn´t Christianity.
"I suppose it depends on how you define “Christian.” Some Ebionites, for example, rejected the virgin birth, and some Gnostics rejected the whole notion of Jesus being born at all"
Wow, great examples – Gnostics fall under the Christian category? Where do you take that from? Ebionites weren´t Christians either. The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles define Christianity, the term it´s not up for grabs.
I could invent my own Buddha character and call myself a buddhist – but then i´d just be stealing the title from those who really invented it.
"since it seems obvious (I think to both of us) that the 21st century Church is moving away from the “folk”-doctrine."
Yes, and that proves your leader´s authority is only valid as long as it helps your church to become mainstream. See, no more polygamy, no more blacks being restricted to hold the priesthood, no more god having sex with Mary… if it keeps going that way nobody is going to know mormonism is even there anymore…
It´s not offensive at all
It says your heart isn´t honest, and it doesn´t care about truth.
Ralph, if your going to quote me, then quote me exactly, not what you think I said.
I said
You said I said
You make it sound like I said God taught Adam about Jesus. God only told Adam and Eve of a Savior to come, And that Savior would be Jesus, who else could crush the head of satan, and He did that at the cross.
Now Ralph, you really disappoint me. Your the second person to ignore what I said, even after I pointed it out. You and Clyde take issue with me saying Mary WAS ALREADY PREGNANT. But you guys forget I said the Bible had a prophecy about a virgin being born, that would be a false prophecy if she was not a virgin because she had sex with the God the father.
But this is the part you and Clyde ignored. So let me re-post what I said and add
fmelo,
Thanks for that, I missed that one. I usually read the scriptures rather than the chapter headings.
RickB,
So Jesus isn't the Saviour? What's wrong with using His name instead of His title?
I got your point but you missed mine. According to you Mary was pregnant when the angel came to her, where-as the scriptures clearly state she was not. And the angel told her all that she needed to know at that point in time, he did not have to say anything more as you have speculated.
Ralph said
Where do you get that I said Jesus isn't the savior? Also I never said Mary was pregnant, I said it was implied she could be, but if she was not, then I was saying, If LDS teach or believe, and some did and some still do believe that Mary had actual sex with God the father, then first off, how could she be a virgin and Jesus was born of a virgin, and then how come the angel did not tell her she would need to be married first to God, then must have sex in order to conceive. I was saying that stuff never happened.
Thank you Dale and falcon!
f_melo: Jesus is clear that God is Spirit, He´s not physical. God created the universe out of nothing, therefore God is not part of space/time and that ultimately means God cannot be a physical being PERIOD. So, if you take the Bible as your sole authority there´s no such possibility as God having actual sexual intercourse with a human being.
Me: Although there are passages in the Bible that clearly state that God is a "spirit," there are many other passages (particularly in the Old Testament) that portray him anthropomorphically. A Mormon apologist could also rebut your statement by pointing out that the New Testament also asserts that "God is Love." Does this mean that God is ONLY love? No. Of course not. Then why should verses stating that God is Spirit be interpreted in such an exclusive way? Spirits can be clothed in a physical body, can they not? You may also want to reconsider your remark about what God cannot do? Isn’t he all-powerful?
f_melo: That´s why Muslims don´t claim to be Christians – if they were Christians they wouldn´t be saying that. Thanks for being honest though, for acknowledging Mormonism isn´t Christianity.
Me: You missed my point. No surprise. I won't bother asking why you've infered that I "acknowledge" any such thing.
f_melo: Wow, great examples – Gnostics fall under the Christian category? Where do you take that from? Ebionites weren´t Christians either.
Me: Gnostic Christians (as opposed to Gnostic Jews) fall under the "Christian" category, yes. Where did I get this from? Um… Every credible scholar that I can remember reading commentary from on this topic. But if you want names… have you heard of Elaine Pagels? How about Karen King? You are aware of these two who are arguably the foremost scholars of Gnosticism, aren't you? Contrary to your wishful thinking, Ebionites were indeed an early "Christian" sect too.
f_melo: The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles define Christianity, the term it´s not up for grabs.
Me: Apostles define? <chuckle> Which documents do we have (if any) that most credible scholars would say were even written by the apostles? Who were Jesus' "true" apostles? And how would you know that they were his true apostles, without falling guilty of circular reasoning? Incidentally, some Ebionites Christians rejected Paul's apostolic claim.
Wyomingwilly: can I presume that your " artificial insemination " rational is only a guess on your part or do you
have evidence that Mormon leaders taught that God literally used this method to impregnate Mary ?
Me: Hello WW. It seems you misunderstood my comment. I agree with Aaron that Brigham Young and other early Mormon leaders believed and taught that God impregnated Mary through sexual intercourse. I just don't agree that Aaron should have substantiated this position with James of Lehi's following statement: "In the early days of the Church, before the miracle of in vitro fertilization was developed, one logical conclusion was to suggest sexual intercourse." The implication here is that artificial insemination was unknown of in Brigham Young's day, which is false (as I've shown). Not only had the first known artificial insemination been performed decades before, but theories that it was *possible* existed in the Middle Ages. In other words, I disagree with the premise, not the conclusion. Hope that clarifies things a little better.
Ralph, you said ( after quoting Luke 1:35) , " We are told nothing more of 'the mechanism' of her
conception. So some speculate the sex was involved,others speculate an in vitro set up,others
artificial insemination,while others(like me) leave it alone because it is not relevant to our lives."
The scriptures teach that the Holy Ghost was responsible for Mary being with child. It was a miracle,
no man of any kind ( exalted or un-exalted) was involved. Mormon leaders are the ones who could'nt
let it stand at that.The Mormon prophet is said to interpret the scriptures for all LDS.This he did with
the Virgin Birth narratives . This is why all those speculations of "others' (like yourself) are not to be
taken seriously– no authority to feed the flock spiritual truths. Thank goodness you have a prophet
who knows the mind of God, to clear up the opinions of rank and file LDS on doctrine, right?
cont. Also, Ralph, Your church publications have stated that at various times there have
been heresies threatening scriptural truths which attempt to creep into the Christian church.
these false teachings have involved the doctrine of the Virgin Birth , and other important
doctrines. Thus Mormon leaders , as teachers, have warned LDS of false teachings, this
Brigham Young did.He used his authority to declare not only what false notions were, but to
also advance the true interpretation of the scriptures on this doctrine.Former Mormon leaders
used the teaching of HF 's procreative acts of fathering His sons in pre-existence as a clear
correlary to define how He fathered Jesus through Mary, and unless you're attempting to say
that His producing babies in heaven was through artificial insemination, or such,you need to stop
trying to rationalize out of what Mormon authorities did teach — discreetly of course. The lesson
in all this is that while we can respect them as people, to respect the claimed authority of Mormon
prophets/apostles as teachers , as reliable spiritual guides, is ill advised.
" there are many other passages (particularly in the Old Testament) that portray him anthropomorphically"
Right!!! You´re absolutely right – one example being Psalms 36:7 – "How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings."
Thank you, i had forgotten God had wings!
"Does this mean that God is ONLY love?"
Love and Spirit are different things, belong to different categories. Spirit is a feeling like love? For mormons that difference should be even bigger since they believe spirit is actually composed of some pure form of matter.
"Of course not. Then why should verses stating that God is Spirit be interpreted in such an exclusive way?"
Because i believe that God created everything in the beginning like it says in John 1:1, 3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 3 – "ALL THINGS were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."(emphasis added)
Jesus created All things in the beginning, that includes the Universe. That´s exactly what Genesis relates as do many other passages of scripture. So, God is outside space/time, He can´t be a physical being.
"You may also want to reconsider your remark about what God cannot do? Isn’t he all-powerful?"
That remark has nothing to do with what God can or cannot do, it has to do with His nature. He came as a physical being in Jesus, so the Word, Jesus, the second person of the trinity took upon Himself a body of flesh and bones, and Paul says in Colossians 2:9 – "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily", that being the case, God the Father is a Spirit(as the Lectures on Faith also declared before being removed from the Doctrine and Covenants volume).
"Me: You missed my point. No surprise"
No, i didn´t miss your point at all, i understood that people can have different perspectives and you were just pointing out that varies according to one´s opinion. You were the one who missed the point. Since the Bible is accepted by mormons as well as the Word of God, we having the same source of information should come to the same conclusions on the basics doctrines presented in it. The reason that is not so it´s because mormons don´t base their understanding of the Bible on sound Biblical Exegesis, but on Joseph Smith´s twisted understanding and supposed "revelations" that contradict the Bible just like the Muslim s do. Therefore mormons are not Christian, they´re something else that want to supersede original, historical Christianity on their own terms.
"Gnostic Christians (as opposed to Gnostic Jews) fall under the "Christian" category, yes. Where did I get this from? Um… Every credible scholar"
I highly doubt that. The Gnostics were the very first threat to the Church and even Paul adresses them, referring to them as the "mystery of iniquity". Gnostic teachings couldn´t be further from Christianity and for me for you to include them in the Christian category is just a desperate attempt to make room for mormonism to be accepted as such.
"have you heard of Elaine Pagels? How about Karen King? You are aware of these two who are arguably the foremost scholars of Gnosticism, aren't you?"
Oh, they can be the foremost scholars of whatever they want, Gnosticism couldn´t be further from Biblical Christianity, even if they say "huh, they were christians – look they talk about jesus, blah, blah, blah"
This is one of the Gnostic beliefs:
"A belief that salvation is achieved through relational and experiential knowledge. In the words of The contemporary Gnostic Apostolic Church, humanity needs to be awakened and brought "to a realisation of his true nature. Mankind is moving towards the Omega Point, the Great day when all must graduate or fall. This day is also the Day of Judgment in that only those who have entered the Path of Transfiguration and are being reborn can return to the Treasury of Light."
Source:"The Gnostic Handbook," from The Gnostic Apostolic Church.
Yeah, that sounds like salvation by grace through faith alone – very Christian indeed.
"Apostles define?<chuckle>"
My goodness – so, who define Christianity for mormons? Isn´t prophets and apostles?<chuckle> If you could call those men such things<chuckle>, apostles who don´t see Jesus, prophets that can´t get their doctrine straight<chuckle>
"Which documents do we have (if any) that most credible scholars would say were even written by the apostles?"
The letters of Paul. Even though nobody can prove it "beyond a shadow of a doubt", but see, a mormon would be the last one to raise issue on something like that because of something called the Book of Mormon which has not shown itself to having been part of reality. While i can go to the British Museum and take a look at the Codex Sinaiticus and see one of the ancient New Testament papyrus you can´t do that with the Book of Mormon… but who would need it anyways after Joseph made a fool of himself by butchering those Egyptian papyrus saying they were actually written by the hand of Abraham<chuckle>
"Who were Jesus' "true" apostles? And how would you know that they were his true apostles, without falling guilty of circular reasoning?"
Hum, by praying about it and expecting a burning in my bosom?
Everything we know about Jesus today comes from the Old and New Testament texts – that´s how history works. I could ask the same question about Cleopatra, Alexander the Great to name a couple – how do you know those texts were really talking about them???? You could also ask the same question about the Prophets of the Old Testament. But according to the mormon church no one can know without a burning in the Bosom.<chuckle>
Mike, now, let me give you and advice – throw away all your books of ancient history, the info in them wasn´t actually written by the people they claim to be – it´s all fairy-tale<chuckle>.
Mike said
Mike, this might come as a shocker to you, but even though God is ALL-POWERFUL, Did you know their are things God cannot do? The Bible tells us, It is Impossible for God to lie, and God cannot lie. 2 places it says that, You can look it up.
If God is all knowing, then God can never learn. God cannot get lost, as some wish He could. God Loved/loves us so much He died for us and cannot love us more that He does now. How do you handle that?
Mike Reed, thanks for the reply, and clarifying your position.
ww
Hello Aaron. I'm just now discovering this blog post. I appreciate the time you took to put this together, I certainly didn't expect any sort of response like this. You certainly spent far more time in your response than I did in my initial comments. I think you make some valid points and at this time I have nothing to add.
God Bless.
I never had a problem with the VIRGIN BIRTH argument, in that we're repeatedly told that one of the signs of Christ's divinity was that he would be born of a virgin.
If some fellow Latter-Day Saints have a problem with that it may be because they haven't thought the issue through. If you want to believe in the accounts of Christ (including one from Nephi who also emphasizes Mary's virginity) while still thinking "God had sex with her" or some such unsubstantiated notion, you are free to believe whatever you want. I cannot admit the two propositions in my mind at once, because they are mutually contradictory.
If the virgin conceived, she didn't have sex or there was no virgin conception. Difficult? I think not. As far as many fantastical notions bandied about in the Journal of Discourses, every one of those men was raised in a different faith tradition and converted to Mormonism. They brought all sorts of weird preconceived notions to the table and often expounded them from the pulpit. I'm surprised that the lens hasn't turned fully yet on Brother Brigham's irredeemable racism. Now, racism was a fact of American life in the 1800s and it was the current in which the whole society swam. But even then Brigham's views on the subject were…harsh.
So much so that purging 19th-century racial views from Mormon doctrine is to this day an incomplete project. There are weird views aplenty in the Mormon record, as there are in an examination of any church you care to name. I've got friends who say anybody who believes in any kind of sky pixie or Santa Claus or whatever is fundamentally insane, and it's not just Mormon doctrine they find strange, but Christianity, Judaism, Islam, whatever. So if you Christians want to gang up on Mormons, fine–but know you're equally ridiculed by a much larger group that is just as sure you're completely nuts.