In a world where many are afraid of terrorist attacks from radical Islam and drugs from Mexico, some think the Church is insane to have its current pro-immigration stance. However, there are two important points the Church considers in establishing its stance.

First, immigration has long been the lifeblood of the Church. When Joseph and the Church were struggling in Kirtland, Missouri and Nauvoo, he did not hunker the members down to weather storm. Instead, he sent out missionaries.

In the middle of the Missouri trials, Joseph sent one of his staunchest supporters, Heber C. Kimball to England. While there, Heber converted hundreds of people, the majority of whom immigrated to join the Saints. Continue reading →

In 2000, a British judge found Deborah Lipstadt innocent of libel with respect to her book, Denying the Holocaust. The movie Denial, now in post-production, documents the real-life court battle between Holocaust-denier David Irving (played by Timothy Spall) and Professor Lipstadt (played by Rachel Weisz, pictured). Directed by Oscar-nominee Mick Jackson and based on the book Deborah Lipstadt wrote about the trial, the movie may be expected to emphasize the difference between conscientious or objective historical research and “histories” that knowingly and “deliberately mis-represent or manipulate historical evidence.”

David Irving waited to sue Lipstadt in the British courts because English libel law puts the burden of proof on the defendant rather than the plaintiff. Lipstadt and Penguin won the case by demonstrating in court that Lipstadt’s accusations against Irving were substantially true and therefore not libelous. Mr Justice Gray produced a written judgment 334 pages long detailing Irving’s systematic distortion of the historical record.

The trial was the first time a legal standard was established for historical objectivity. For those of us who don’t have time to master all 334 pages, Wendie E. Schneider distilled the ruling into seven concise principles:

1) Treat all sources with appropriate reservations. This is a principle too often ignored in treatments of Mormon history. One can often predict the leanings of a historian by which sources they will include without critical review and which sources they will pretend don’t even exist. Continue reading →

President Wixom [General Primary President] will be conducting this meeting. President Thomas S. Monson presides.

President Wixom: Welcome! The First Presidency, several other apostle’s, and the presidencies and boards for the Relief Society, Young Women’s Organization, and Primary are present on the stand.

Choir of Primary girls, Young Women, and Relief Society sisters from over 50 cultures. Instead of the traditional pastels, the choir members are all wearing white shirts.

Choir and Congregation: #223 – Have I Done Any Good in the World Today?

Opening Prayer: Young Woman Continue reading →

This is a guest post by Nick Galieti. Nick Galieti is an experienced podcaster and was named the recipient of the 2015 John Taylor: Defender of the Faith Award by FairMormon. Nick is the voice of Book of Mormon Central’s “KnoWhy” podcasts, and has directed and produced two documentaries on the life of Joseph Smith Jr., Picturing Joseph, and Murder of the Mormon Prophet.

An article was released by The Atlantic with the title, “Choosing Love or the Mormon Church.” The article addresses the issues of individuals who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and whom identify as gay, or experiencing same sex attraction. Aside from being somewhat divisive (something most article titles are supposed to do by design), the title makes as the assumption that the two, Love and the Mormon Church, are mutually exclusive. A good portion of the article makes a valiant attempt to humanize both the Church and those who identify with the LGBTQ community. I appreciate the effort that was put into the article and fear that my comments may be seen as an attack, which is not my intent. At the same time, the article makes some inaccurate assumptions that would be natural for one coming from the perspective of one on the outside looking in on the Mormon Community.

I won’t spend a great deal of time attempting to redefine how people identify themselves as being gay vs. not acting on same sex impulses. Although the world at large doesn’t see much of a difference between our impulses, or attractions, as being “who we are”, I see my effort to try and change that understanding to be a losing effort. However, I hope that those reading are able to understand that at least within a majority of the LDS or Mormon community, we seek to not define people by their sins, or by their impulses, but by their acts and in the intents of their hearts, if we “define” them at all. So if a person feels attraction to a person of their same sex, or if they feel attracted to someone of a different sex, it is the same so long as they don’t act in contrary to the Church’s Law of Chastity that states that there should be no sexual relations, except between husband and wife who are legally and lawfully married.
Continue reading →

Another week, another false claim about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You may have seen this post or a meme related to it. The title claims that the Church “endorsed” socialism based on a little-read priesthood manual from 1939. Farther down in the post, the author implies that President Heber J. Grant himself “advocated for” socialism.

Let us be very, very clear: as I point out in this post, nearly every LDS prophet, including President Grant, has spoken out against systems of government-based charity. What the Church favors is voluntary, personal charity.

But let me go further: the Church was vehemently opposed to government-based welfare programs during the 1930s and reformed its own welfare system to encourage 1)more voluntary charity by latter-day Saints and 2)a private system of giving and receiving that would emphasize self-reliance.

As many readers may know, in the 1930s, most Mormons lived in the inter-mountain West. That area suffered greatly during the Great Depression. In response, the federal government and state governments set up public assistance programs. The Church was unwaveringly opposed to these programs, which they felt encouraged idleness and dependence. The Church emphasizes thrift and self-reliance, instead of what it called “the evils of the dole.” (“Dole” is a word that was used in the 1930s to refer to public welfare programs).

In General Conference in 1933, President Grant said he was worried that latter-day Saints were succumbing to what the Brethren called the “dole mentality.”

Many people have said….’Well, others are getting some (government relief), why should not I get some of it?’ I believe there is a growing disposition among the people to try to get something from the government of the United States with little hope of every paying it back. I think this is all wrong.” (Source: Conference report, Oct. 1933, p. 5).

Continue reading →