Juvenile Instructor » Repudiating Racism: A Black Latter-day Saint’s Response
 


Repudiating Racism: A Black Latter-day Saint’s Response

By: andrearm - March 02, 2012

This week’s events have produced some of the most succinct, thoughtful and probing essays on the history and implications of race and Mormonism perhaps yet written: here, here, here, and here.  Indeed, I love that we indignant white folks have raised our voices against the doggedly persistent and  painfully antiquated racial ideologies within our religion. Truly, I do.  I love that we’ve circled the wagons, that we’ve stormed the castle walls (pardon all of my martial metaphors, but they seem appropriate considering the climate.)  Our esprit de corps is admirable and convincing.  The problem is that some of our intellectualizing has perhaps had the counter-effect of privileging the white voices in our community over others who need to be heard from just as much, or moreso.  To that end, I present for your consideration the story and words of a a former student of mine, an African-American convert to the Church and a returned missionary– I’ll call her “Kris” . . . . well, because that’s actually her name.  Four years ago,  as a recent graduate in history, she took an internship in a neighboring state and attended the local singles’ ward.  One Sunday . . . . indeed, let’s give privilege to Kris’s voice, in a letter that she penned to her stake president following a disturbing incident in her ward.

______, 2007

_________ Stake

Dear President _______:

This summer I had the pleasure of being a member of your stake as part of the ________Ward. While I enjoyed participating in the ward, I am writing to you concerning an incident that occurred about two weeks before I left to return home. In Sunday School we were discussing continuing revelation. The teacher began the lesson by explaining that the 1978 Revelation on the Priesthood was an example of continuing revelation in our day. As she proceeded with the lesson, Bishop _________stopped her in order to explain why blacks were denied the priesthood prior to 1978.

According to Bishop _________, blacks were denied the priesthood due to their unworthiness or unrighteousness in the premortal existence. The unrighteousness of these people in the premortal realm led to the denial of priesthood blessings here on earth until 1978, when the last of those unworthy blacks probably died, thereby allowing the priesthood to go to all men. After hearing this explanation I removed myself from class, first, to avoid making the situation worse by responding in anger, and second, to not publicly chastise the bishop for teaching false doctrine in class.

Afterwards I resolved to speak to the bishop about what happened. I made an appointment to speak with him the following Sunday. As we sat down to talk about what was said the previous week, I asked where he got his information from. His response was that it was stated clearly in Official Declaration 2. I am sad to say that instead of listening to each other and allowing the Spirit to instruct us, Bishop ________ sought to convince me that he was right. In regard to why blacks were prevented from obtaining the priesthood blessings prior to 1978, the Spirit has not testified to me that his hypothesis was true.

I have read through that declaration several times since then, and have not found anything that hints at his reasoning about why the priesthood was denied to blacks until 1978. I have my own theories as to why the priesthood was withheld, but as members we are to nourish and teach each other gospel truths, not speculative theories on what the Father has not revealed to his prophet and apostles, or to us regarding those we have stewardship over. But if the words of prophets and apostles are needed for validity on this point, I offer the words of Elder Bruce R. McConkie, dated August 1978, when he said: [She cites McConkie's "Forget Everything I have said" talk] here]

In addition to the words of Elder McConkie are the words of Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, written ten years after the Revelation on the Priesthood. Elder Hinckley said: [She cites President Hinckley's 1988 talk on Priesthood Restoration here]

My reason for writing this letter is not to get Bishop ______ in trouble. The fact that I have to write a letter concerning this grieves me beyond words, especially because I consider Bishop ______ my brother in Christ. His words cut deeper than words can express, and hurt more because of the respect I have for him.

My personal feelings aside, those in my Sunday School class will be future leaders and teachers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Beliefs and feelings such as this have no place in the Kingdom of God on earth, among people who believe that God is no respecter of persons and that each is a beloved son or daughter of Heavenly parents. In Moses chapter seven, verse eighteen, we are reminded that “the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.” One heart and one mind. We have enough things in this world that seek to divide us. This issue like others must be purged from the Church, just as the Lord will separate the wheat from the tares. President Hinckley stated in his April 2006 Conference Address “The Need for Greater Kindness,” that: [She cites President Hinckley's 2006 "Racial strife still lifts its ugly head." address here]

Until we unify ourselves in the gospel of Jesus Christ we will not find Zion among us in this life, so important in a world where people seek to divide and destroy us.

I know this Church is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine it teaches will lead us to salvation if we follow the commandments of the Father. Because it is, it is up to all of us to uplift and nourish one another with the truth, and to correct whatever falsehoods arise quickly and with love. I leave this matter to you as the Lord’s chosen steward. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

Sincerely,

Kris

 

Today, I am glad for my minor tendency toward hoarding, especially old correspondence.  Considering the events of this week, I could not have asked for a more serendipitous rediscovery in my saved email messages than this four-year-old letter.  At the time, I saved it with the intent of resurrecting it for some future rainy day.  And that rainy day is upon us; nay, a Category Four hurricane is upon us.  I don’t think I could have invented a more eerily similar situation for consideration with such astounding and unscripted parallels:  a notable youth leader (educational, in the case of Professor Bott; ecclesiastical in the case of this bishop) sells a bale of racist goods to a group or groups of impressionable LDS youth, he stands by his case using controverted doctrinal interpretations, and then gets caught.  In Bott’s case, he was “caught” in the national public eye, in this bishop’s case, he was “caught” by one young woman, who then dared to challenge his unrighteous and unworthy guidance by  confronting him– without result– and then appealing to the next logical court of appeal that she could think of– her stake president.

I approached Kris in the last few days for permission to publish her letter.  She granted it without hesitation and agreed for me to use her first name– a somewhat surprising move for someone I know to be firmly resolute in her convictions but also to be self-effacing and non-confrontational.  Indeed, even in approaching the bishop, she revealed a patience and generosity of spirit far beyond my own, if I had been in her shoes.   “I felt sad.  I wasn’t angry because I’d had a whole week to think about it.”   She knew that her “correction” needed be “out of love.  He was misled, but still a good person.”  And, consistent with her personality, she had no desire to “condemn him.” Still, as she described in her letter, his refusal to see her point of view was most demoralizing.  “I knew that what he believed was not true, but he wouldn’t see the flaws in his argument.”  We just “couldn’t find common ground.”

But her biggest disappointment came in what did not happen in the long run.  The stake president did talk to the bishop, but to the end of just “discussing” matters with him and allowing the bishop to clarify his statement, without repudiating it altogether.  Kris remembered, “I just didn’t think he took it seriously enough.”  I do not presume to know what went on between the two men, and nor does Kris, although she did receive a letter from the stake president (which she has misplaced, and is currently trying to dig up for my benefit).  But the important thing is how Kris felt as a result of non-action by both leaders– invalidated and re-marginalized.  I asked her what she had hoped for.  She said, “Well, even if they had gone back and had a class to address the issue,” by correcting what had been taught, especially because he taught false doctrine “to a group of people who could take what they learned and continued to teach it as truth.”

I’ve heard and read periodically this week that the BYU professor in question represents an “anomaly,” a “dying breed,” a “rare leftover,” even a “dinosaur.” And yet, Kris’s story reminds us how pervasive these ideas continue to be among lay members– and even more damagingly– among lay leaders in the church.  I think of Kris’s singles’ ward experience as a microcosm of this larger and more public-faced controversy.  But both should demand the same reaction.   For that reason, it’s important to remember, as Jana Riess has pointed out, “Members of the Church take their cues from leaders, and if those leaders do not name the mistakes of the past (and, it seems, the present), members will not be challenged to realize that denying the priesthood to blacks was wrong.  I don’t presume to instruct the Church on how it should address its racist past, (although the Church’s recent public statement was a hopeful start, here) but I do think that if even one incident like Kris’s goes unaddressed, then we run the risk of allowing our fellow Saints to continue to feel as though their role and presence in our great religion is secondary and not worthy of  more official and public renouncement. 

Fortunately, Kris’s faith and humility were bigger than the offending situation.  In spite of feeling cast aside by her leaders, Kris stood by her certainty in how she responded:  “I did the best I could do.  My conscience was clean. “  And the letter?  “When I was was writing, I prayed to know what to say.  I felt the spirit the whole time.  I knew that the letter was not written by me.  It was so clearly and eloquently written, that it couldn’t have been written by me.”  How providential, then, that a letter that was first ignored by the non-action of two supposedly trusted leaders, and then lay under piles of Giga-dust in my inbox for four years, can now resurface as part of this larger conversation to silence racist dogma in LDS circles once and for all.   Thanks, Kris.

Share and enjoy:


31 Comments

  1. Kris, thank you very much for writing the letter and for sharing it here at the JI where others can benefit from it.

    I’m reminded of the white ex-mission president who responded to a presentation I gave on interracial marriage a few years ago by saying that this priesthood ban issue was something that only seemed to bother white Mormons. Fortunately Margaret Young was there then to tell him that that wasn’t the case, and fortunately your letter is here to continue to refute such nonsense.

    Also appreciate your thoughts, Andrea. I was looking back and it’s interesting that your first post about racism in Lucy Smith’s diary was posted just a few hours before the Washington Post article hit the web. We would do well to go back and read it in light of the last few days.

    Comment by Jared T — March 2, 2012 @ 2:27 pm

  2. Thanks, Kris, and Andrea, for sharing this poignant letter. It reinforces the idea that change happens not just top down, but also bottom up, as ordinary members seek to educate their fellow Saints regarding these issues.

    Comment by David G. — March 2, 2012 @ 3:41 pm

  3. Thanks for taking the time to share this. I don’t envy Kris but admire her efforts to address this problem. Thank her from the readers, please!

    Comment by Hunter — March 2, 2012 @ 4:23 pm

  4. Kris and Andrearm–

    Thanks for your courageous work here. Extremely powerful.

    Comment by Max — March 2, 2012 @ 4:35 pm

  5. This is phenomenal. Thanks, Kris, for embodying Zion, and thanks to Andrea for bringing this to our attention.

    Comment by Ben P — March 2, 2012 @ 4:49 pm

  6. Timely for multiple reasons. This is a nice juxtaposition of February and March (black history and women’s history months). We could certainly use more examples like this.

    Comment by Rachel — March 2, 2012 @ 5:12 pm

  7. Thank you for sharing this. I hope it increases all of our conviction to spread the word (and at least the Church Newsroom’s recent statements) far and wide so that it eventually reaches every member–leader or not.

    And then I hope that all those who formerly (as in the case of this bishop and even my mission president, who shared with me the exact same “explanation”) or currently propagate this racist baggage as truth will be convicted to expedite the repentance process–including correcting the error of their ways.

    Comment by Clean Cut — March 2, 2012 @ 5:13 pm

  8. Thank you, Kris, for your willingness to share this painful incident.

    Yet one more among thousands of reasons that there has got to be a stop to this teaching. I hope we hear something over the pulpit at Conference that will lay to rest these false and hurtful ideas that have been perpetuated far too long.

    Comment by Sonny — March 2, 2012 @ 5:39 pm

  9. Wonderful story and letter. Thank you.

    I hope that someone important in SLC is taking note of this outpouring of commentary on this situation, and realizes that something significant needs to be done about it. That Kris should have had to go through this and the ignorance of these local leaders is just awful and not in keeping with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Comment by Kevin Barney — March 2, 2012 @ 9:56 pm

  10. Thanks for sharing Kris’s voice.

    Comment by smb — March 2, 2012 @ 10:54 pm

  11. I’m so sorry Kris got put through this, and I am in awe of her spirit and her resilience in her response to it: she represents the best of what we all hope to be.

    Comment by AlisonH — March 3, 2012 @ 12:49 am

  12. Thanks for this Andrea. And thanks to Kris for standing up and challenging false doctrine. I wrote my one and only letter to a GA last year after a lesson in deacon’s quorum on the attributes of God went awry. We were talking about God as no respecter of persons and I wanted to make sure that they understood what that meant in all possible ways, including race. One of the deacons raised his hand and said, “well then why did He curse black people.”

    It is not dying out, it is not going away, it is being passed to the next generation. Would someone please declare and teach doctrine from the pulpit in GC, not from the Newsroom. (For as much as the bloggernacle has been in a dither over Bottgate the last few days, the average Mormon won’t have a clue that any of this has occurred, let alone that there is a lesson to be learned.)

    Comment by Paul Reeve — March 3, 2012 @ 12:56 am

  13. Awesome post Andrea. When my dad was bishop one of his counselors was black. In elder’s quorum a teacher gave a lesson about the priesthood revelation and stated that they were denied the priesthood because they were less valiant in the premortal existence. My dad, who is not the most politically correct person in the world, did not hesitate to correct this teacher in front of the whole quorum the following week after he heard about it. I’m so proud of him for doing that, but it did not take away the hurt this counselor felt. The worst part is, this was only two or three years ago. How long is it going to take some members of the church to figure out God is no respecter of persons?

    Comment by Brittany Larsen — March 3, 2012 @ 2:58 am

  14. [...] 11:43 am: Juvenile Instructor adds a Black Latter-day Saint’s Response. [...]

    Pingback by The Bott Gaffe: A Chronology [Updated] | Times & Seasons — March 3, 2012 @ 8:07 am

  15. Thank you Kris and Andrea! While gettting yelled at by my brother for “causing problems for the Church” and “making a fool of myself” by posting links on facebook to many of the fabulous essays that have appeared in the last few days over this issue, my main question for him was, “Who’s perspective are you looking at this from? Have you ever considered what it feels like to be black in the church, or to be a black student at BYU–who hears something like this coming from a professor or from peers, from a gospel doctrine teacher or a local leader? I’m afraid his viewpoint is all too common among white members in America. But am hopeful that moving accounts like this can help to break down the unthinking racist thought that exists everywhere, not just on the fringes in the 21st century Mormon church.

    Comment by Reb — March 3, 2012 @ 9:56 am

  16. I am surprised by the lingering notion of the “less valiant” nonsense being used to justify the ban. I thought more people were aware that Brigham Young tried to stamp it out in his day. I realize that it is cold comfort that he rejects one false doctrine by shoring up another, nonetheless, if it is the “neutral” one that persists, then Young is on record as rejecting it. Wilford Woodruff records this in his journal on 25 December 1869:

    “I attended the school of the prophets. Many Questions were asked. President Young answered them. Lorenzo Young asked if the Spirits of Negroes were Neutral in Heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said No they were not. There was No Neutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebellion. All took sides. He said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Say that the spirits of the Blacks were Neutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph Say to the Contrary. All spirits are pure that Come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cane are Black Because He Commit Murder. He killed Abel & God set a Mark upon his posterity But the spirits are pure that Enter their tabernacles & there will be a Chance for the redemption of all the Children of Adam except the Sons of perdition.”

    Comment by Paul Reeve — March 3, 2012 @ 11:04 am

  17. Another great post from a black latter-day saint and his experiences from Keepapitchinin.

    Comment by Austin — March 3, 2012 @ 11:35 am

  18. Thanks for sharing this entry from Woodruff’s journal Paul. But the phenomenon is not so surprising with so many members still looking to BRM’s Mormon Doctrine for answers. My mother-in-law, on her way to her second mission, just picked up a “pocket guide” to Mormon theology. She was so happy to have a small reference book (this raises other concerns, I know). I suggested it could be helpful, depending on where the information came from. Sure enough, thumbing through, most of the topical references included quotes from Mormon Doctrine. This book (which I can’t help but think of as Mormonism’s version of Massive Resistance) may finally be out of print, but it’s still lots of members’ go-to text, and shows up in other seemingly official reference materials, not to mention comments in BYU religion classes and in Sunday Schools. As many have suggested, we need a thorough repudiation over the pulpit in GC of specific ideas from one or more of the Twelve. What we also really need are church manuals that include quotes like the one from Woodruff and stories about people like Elijah Able, Jane Manning, Blue Ridge Mountain Saints, and Kris!

    Comment by Reb — March 3, 2012 @ 11:45 am

  19. Andrearm, Thanks so much for this post! I am an African American woman and convert to the church, served a faithful mission and a personal friend of Kris. I remember the incident quite well. What hope her words and spirit gave me for this letter was truly led by the spirit. What a great day it will be when a General Authority will hear our words and feel our pains through letters such as this and clarify and address the situation so when the Priesthood comes up in classes such as Sunday school the Spirit could be with ALL of us and we wont have to feel like we need to defend ourselves from false doctrine.. How great that would be that we wont have to walk out of class so we wont chastise anyone, or duck in the back from anger or embarrassment.

    Comment by Quanda — March 3, 2012 @ 11:55 am

  20. Thanks for the blog, Andrea. Well done, Kris! I agree with Reb re: Mormon Doctrine‘s unfortunately enduring half-life.

    Our society once placed an iconic skull and cross-bones image on things poisonous.

    The entire concept of pre-existential worthiness/unworthiness needs such a label slapped across it in the press, in manuals, in conference talks, and have it duct-taped across the mouths of appointed leaders who teach it, along with the customary text and image: “Poison! Danger!”

    Comment by Hajj Idries — March 3, 2012 @ 1:29 pm

  21. This is an excellent example of why we still have racism in the Church today, and why it took so long to abolish the practice. It was inconveivable to the bishop and stake president that church leaders before them could have been in error. Yet, President Kimball acknowledged that possibility as one of the reasons why he was taking the matter to the Lord yet again.

    Comment by RFB — March 3, 2012 @ 6:29 pm

  22. If anyone is truly interested and want to know the will and mind of the Lord on this issue. Please time to view a lecture series by Darius Gray and Marvin Perkins, entitled Blacks in the Scriptures http://blacksinthescriptures.com/
    They use the scriptures to highlight all of the changes that the Brethren have made the scriptures, since 1978, to ensure that we correctly understand issues of lineage and race.

    Comment by Shawn — March 3, 2012 @ 8:11 pm

  23. [...] on Gender inRachel: Teaching Official Declaration 2Roger: Teaching Official Declaration 2Shawn: Repudiating Racism: A BlackRFB: Repudiating Racism: A BlackLucienne Jeanne: Guest Post: Professor Bott,David G.: Guest Post: [...]

    Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » JI Resources on Blacks and the Priesthood — March 4, 2012 @ 3:06 pm

  24. I appreciate what has to be said in regards to these things, that so many people are inquiring on these matters is rather astounding.
    What I find more astounding however is the blatant disregard for the knowledge God has given in regards to these things. Yes official declaration 2 states what is states, and as Kris says, said nothing in regards to what the Bishop taught, it only stated that “no worthy male member should be restricted” to the rights and privileges of the priesthood. It deeply saddens me that this is even an issue today, with statements like “God is no respecter of persons” – it is blasphemous that these things should be disregarded in the fashion they have.
    Truly, I would have to ask, if God is no respecter of persons, why than was cain’s sacrifice not accepted? It’s contradictory, no one can argue that, that Able would be accepted, and not Cain when God is no respecter of persons. It’s not then, what we have seen in the scriptures, but that we understand his sacrifice must not have been done correctly. This does not justify his Children however, not receiving the priesthood, for certainly we believe “Men shall be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgressions.” So why then? I cannot answer this, in any fashion anyone would agree with or understand, because first of all I stand in no place they validate to be a place of legitimate authority over them. Instead I must refer to the words of a prophet, and if you deny his words, you deny your acceptance of his calling.
    As written in Answers to Gospel Questions, by Joseph Fielding Smith, published by Deseret Book Company (The same which publishes many church books) in 1976, Volume 5 p 162-164 it is stated as plainly as can be understood by any person claiming proficiency in the english language, why the restriction was made. If that were not enough Alma 13 confirms, as have Brigham Young, Jon Taylor, and countless others. In fact in Journal of Discourses (Which Brigham Young and the first presidency testify to be for the benefit of ALL saints as doctrine(In volume 1 introduction)) Volume 7 pgs 290 and 291 it says
    “How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then
    the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.” -Brigham Young Intelligence etc.
    I’m sorry, but we have two options, Deny Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith and numerous others, or recognize that, though the word of God may be hard to understand, if God truly is no respecter of persons, this doctrine was true. Else God respected Race until 1978. Else the restriction was based on actions, and for the same reason I do not have the blessings of Abraham, the priesthood has been denied.
    The prophets have already said it… either it is so, or they were not prophets, take your pick. Question yourself, for only God knows all truth. I accept that I don’t have certain blessings because of my worthiness, and because I as well have not been as valiant as I should be. Only by accepting God can we receive Alma 12. Now choose ye this day whom ye will serve. For it is either God, or Mammon, there is no other choice. I must remember not to let the sins of my fathers be that cause of my ignorance, and would encourage you to do that same.

    Comment by Danny — March 4, 2012 @ 3:08 pm

  25. I’m sorry, but we have two options, Deny Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith and numerous others, or recognize that, though the word of God may be hard to understand, if God truly is no respecter of persons, this doctrine was true.

    That’s easy. I’m denying Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and whoever else perpetuated this crap and tried to pass it off as theological truth.

    Comment by Christopher — March 4, 2012 @ 3:14 pm

  26. Danny, Christopher is right. This is an example where church leaders were just plain wrong.

    Comment by J. Stapley — March 4, 2012 @ 3:28 pm

  27. Danny, Elder McConkie picked the first option (i.e., denying Brigham Young, etc.). In a BYU talk shortly after the 1978 declaration, he stated the following:

    There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

    It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

    Comment by theOtherHolmes — March 4, 2012 @ 6:36 pm

  28. It saddens me, yet in time if we are not careful these same things will be said in regards to homosexuality in time. We will see similar statements, I have heard a few already. That gender specificity is not once what we thought it was. We will see it become accepted more and more, and over time it will be revealed that our understanding was one of ignorance. That two people of the same gender may be married for eternity. Perhaps then we will also change the scriptures in regard to this, and family will be reorganized to mean those who “love(read lust)” one another. It’s astonishing how quickly doctrine can change when the fear of man overcomes the fear of God. I have seen it in myself, and in my own life, I’m just sad to see it happen within such an organization that stood even against the mob mindset of the people in the early days of our great nation for oppressing them in their worship of what they believed.
    Thank you each for your time and consideration,
    Danny

    Comment by Danny — March 4, 2012 @ 8:13 pm

  29. Danny, this Andrea’s thread, and I’ll let her police it as she sees fit, but I will encourage you to stay on topic and take your homophobic rants to other forums.

    Comment by Christopher — March 4, 2012 @ 8:58 pm

  30. Danny, you are doing a great job of making my point, that racist dogma tends to persist, even in the most perceptibly faithful of members, like yourself. Plus, I think that you are doing more damage to the church by recycling the racist statements of dead prophets, which the current Church presidency is rightly trying to distance itself from, (as per its recent LDS Newsroom release). Whether you believe those statements to be spoken prophetically or not is beside the point, because they should no longer be taught at all. As to your second comment, I think that if you re-read my post, you will see that I make no mention whatsoever about issues regarding homosexuality or gay rights. So please do not detract from the subject at hand by trying to make this about something that it’s not. By doing so, you’re showing disrespect to Kris especially, who took great personal risk in exposing her very painful and personal experience her on this public blog. Plus, you’ll find that this is not the forum where you’ll find sympathy for those views, so I would suggest that you discontinue your racist, homophobic, and probably misogynist views, at least on this blog. This is your final warning.

    Comment by Andrea R-M — March 4, 2012 @ 10:18 pm

  31. A really interesting article on this topic that addresses many of the concerns in the comments above:

    http://ldsmag.com/component/zine/article/9406?ac=1

    Comment by Interested listener — March 4, 2012 @ 10:31 pm