Daniel Peterson Attacked By Progressives As Racist For Publishing A Balanced Perspective On Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Daniel Peterson, the longtime Mormon Studies Review editor who was purged by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University in June 2012, is under attack again, this time accused of "racism". The attack was published on Mormon Curtain in a post entitled "Apology For Daniel C. Peterson's Racist Blog Post", in which someone called Everybody Wang Chung presumptively offers an apology to all African Americans on behalf of Daniel C. Peterson because Peterson dared to expound on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s weaknesses as well as his strengths. Using slippery-slope logic, this joker claims that Peterson would have no problem with slavery because slavery can be portrayed to make perfect free market sense.

So let's go to Daniel Peterson's blog post, entitled "A Hasty Note on Martin Luther King Day". And yes, Peterson did allude to the weaknesses and imperfections of the flesh with which Dr. King had to contend:

Martin Luther King was a seriously flawed man. The plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation, the adulteries, the blurring of his Civil Rights mission and his dalliance with various leftist causes in his latter years — these were and are unfortunate. In this respect, he reminds me of the Jaredite king Morianton, in the Book of Mormon: ”And he did do justice unto the people, but not unto himself because of his many whoredoms” (Ether 10:11).

This is hardly new information, although it has been largely suppressed by the elite which control the U.S. behind the scenes and who have imposed their cultural totalitarianism from the top down. Another LDS member, Joel Skousen, also discussed Dr. King's weaknesses and imperfections in even greater detail in his World Affairs Brief in 2002 (scroll down to January 25th).

But Peterson also acknowledged Dr. King's strengths, in particular highlighting his eloquence:

That said, he was also a man of remarkable bravery, and he paid for it with his life at the hands of a much lesser human being (possibly but not certainly James Earl Ray). And he was stunningly eloquent, delivering powerful, biblically-cadenced speeches that moved millions, and that still move me. (Barack Obama’s vaunted oratorical skills pale into insignificance alongside Dr. King’s, and, unlike Dr. King’s, the content of Mr. Obama’s speeches, when not confused, is very often vacuous.)

Absolutely correct. Just as the Prophet Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his blood at Carthage Jail, so Dr. King also sealed his testimony with his blood.

Because Daniel Peterson is, by his own definition, a quasi-libertarian, he believes in freedom of association. To be consistent, he believes people should be free to do business with whoever they want, even if it results in racial discrimination. But Peterson also thinks it was obscene and immoral for government to support forced segregation and the associated Jim Crow laws and is glad those laws were overturned; he supports freedom of association, freedom of economic transaction, and free exchange.

But progressives do not believe in free speech or freedom of association, and brook no criticism of their holy secular icons. The same progressives who think nothing of savaging respected LDS Church leaders like Elaine Dalton cannot tolerate any criticism of Dr. King or any of their other holy icons. While they spent eight years bashing George W. Bush, they characterize anyone who criticizes their Obamessiah as disloyal and seditious. Progressives tend to follow the model prescribed by Saul Alinsky, which is basically to attack, attack, attack. By the way, I don't consider "progressive" and "liberal" to be interchangeable; while classical liberals like Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) are honorable and responsible, progressives are hard-left extremist insurgents who know no respect.

In response to questions directed to Peterson as to whether he would consider publishing a similar "balanced perspective" on Joseph Smith, Peterson wrote the following:

No. And here’s why: The claim that Joseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon is, along with the claim that he was an adulterer, a very disputed and controversial one that tends to be part of the standard anti-Mormon attack on him. I would not formulate the argument that, though he invented polygamy to satisfy his lusts and plagiarized Solomon Spalding in order to create a phony scripture that would dupe the yokels, Joseph was still a great prophet. Such an argument would be, in my view, incoherent.

The situation is different with Martin Luther King. His plagiarism and his adulteries are, so far as I’m aware, undenied by any serious student of his life. And there’s no particular controversy about them. No “Kingite” sect is claiming that his dissertation is actually revealed scripture or that his adulteries occurred by divine command. More importantly, it’s entirely coherent to argue that, despite his personal failings, Martin Luther King was a very great moral voice on one of the greatest issues in American history. That is, in fact, the argument I was making — and for which I’m being attacked.

To his credit, Daniel Peterson hasn't backed down and issued a craven apology like so many others who "sin" against political correctness do. He models himself after Sarah Palin, who has said in the past that when you're taking flak, it merely means you're over the target. The way to deal with progressives is simple. When they sow the wind, we make sure they reap the whirlwind. When they chastise us with whips, we chastise them with scorpions. There can be no dialogue, fellowship, or reconciliation with those who practice the politics of personal destruction.

Countering Revisionist Attacks On Christopher Columbus: Did You Know That Book Of Mormon Prophecy Made Reference To Christopher Columbus?

The celebration of Columbus Day has been increasingly targeted for criticism in recent years. Much of the criticism originates from anti-white racist minorities and their self-hating progressive white allies who mistakenly believe that today's white population has to make up for the so-called "sins of the past" under the false doctrine of historical remediation. The Dayton Daily News takes a typical cheap shot at Columbus. Minimization and eradication of white symbols and cultural icons is all part of the race replacement strategy originally pursued in South Africa and now being actively implemented in other majority-white nations under the guise of mass immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism. The late, unlamented Susan Sontag once said, “The white race is the cancer of human history.”

The fact is, most Americans celebrate Columbus Day not because he was white, but because he made a voyage to the Western Hemisphere propelled and motivated mostly by faith. In fact, he did not anticipate discovering a new land, but was actually seeking a shorter route to the East Indies in Asia. But what makes Columbus' accomplishments even more special is that as the first identifiable European to visit the Western Hemisphere, his voyage led to the wholesale migration of European peoples to the Americas. Fueled by European immigration and a unique idea of a nation based upon common ideas of liberty and justice for all, the United States subsequently became a superpower.

Personal character should not enter into the equation. If it is appropriate to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for his civil rights struggles even though he was a plagiarist, a womanizer, an abuser, and had Communist ties, it is just as appropriate to honor Christopher Columbus even if he did employ some harsh measures in dealing with the indigenous populations of the lands which he discovered. It is unfair to judge the actions of someone in the 15th century through the prevalent morality of the 21st century, an eternal principle which explains why those who are not offered salvation in this life get offered salvation in the spirit world.

But another solid indication of the singularity of Columbus' mission is provided by the Book of Mormon. One of the founders of the Nephite civilization, Nephi himself, had a vision of the future of the American continents, in which he also foresaw the discovery and colonizing of America. The specific verse believed to be identified with Christopher Columbus is 1 Nephi 13:12; it's presented below with surrounding verses to provide context:

10 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld many waters; and they divided the Gentiles from the seed of my brethren.

11 And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Behold the wrath of God is upon the seed of thy brethren.

12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.

13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.

14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the bland of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

Although there were many explorers who subsequently journeyed to the Western Hemisphere and launched more permanent colonies, Christopher Columbus was the first. And that's why we believe 1 Nephi 13:12 identifies Christopher Columbus rather than any other explorer.

According to Arnold K. Garr, several Church presidents share this point of view. In 1976, President Ezra Taft Benson stated, “God inspired ‘a man among the Gentiles’ . . . who, by the Spirit of God was led to rediscover the land of America and bring this rich new land to the attention of the people in Europe. That man, of course, was Christopher Columbus, who testified that he was inspired in what he did.” Brigham Young, Spencer W. Kimball and Joseph F. Smith also expressed similar sentiments. In 1992, Friend magazine published an article entitled "Heroes and Heroines: Christopher Columbus, Inspired Seaman", and at the same time, Ensign magazine published an article entitled "Columbus and the Hand of God".

The bottom line -- all our heroes have flaws. But it doesn't make their heroism any less heroic.

Peter Vidmar Browbeaten Into Resigning As U.S. Olympic Chief Of Mission By Gay Extremists Due To Previous Support Of California Proposition 8

A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who was appointed to serve the U.S. Olympic team as a chef de mission in the 2012 London Olympics has resigned under pressure after gay extremists targeted him over his support for California Proposition 8 in 2008. Peter Vidmar announced his decision to resign on May 6th, 2011.

It started on Thursday April 28th, when the U.S. Olympic Committee named Peter Vidmar, a two-time Olympic gold medalist gymnast, as one of two chef de missions (chiefs of mission) to act as liaisons during the Olympics and Paralympics in London in 2012. His job would have been to represent the U.S. delegations if issues arise between the USOC and the London Organizing Committee, the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee and other Olympic entities. On the surface, it looked like a good call; upon appointment, Vidmar said "I'll give my very best efforts to ensure that every athlete selected to represent the U.S. in London has the experience that they've prepared for...For many of these athletes, this could be their first and only Olympic Games, and each deserves to have their best experience."

However, it turns out that Vidmar had actively supported California Proposition 8, which defined marriage as only between one man and one woman, and which passed in 2008. He even donated $2,000 to the campaign. The LDS Church encouraged its members to work for Prop 8's passage. And openly gay figure skater Johnny Weir jumped all over it, condemning the choice of Vidmar and saying that he wouldn’t want to be represented by someone who is anti-gay marriage. In response, Vidmar explained that his views on gay marriage would not influence how he treats any gay Olympian, saying “I fully respect the rights of everyone to have the relationships they want to have...I respect the rights of all our athletes, regardless of their race, their religion or their sexual orientation. I will cheer and do all I can, passionately, for every athlete on the U.S. Olympic team.”

Even though the U.S. Olympic Committee was unaware of Vidmar's position before it named him chief of mission, they stood behind him, saying “Peter is a tireless advocate for sport in this country and someone who has inspired many with his successes in the world of sport. That is why we chose him as our chef for the London Games. We respect Peter’s right to religious freedom, and we understand and respect he fact that many Americans do not share his views.”

When The President Of The LDS Church Speaks Officially On Matters Of Doctrine, The Debate Is Over, Because The Thinking Has Been Done

There is a discussion taking place on the By Common Consent blog, in which quite frankly, some respondents are making me hot under the collar.

The discussion centers around a post entitled "God Loves Racists, Too". The author suddenly came to the realization that we don't need to apologize for the ban on Black Priesthood membership, using the “God loves racists, too” theory to explain it. He states that "God tends to give us what we want, because he loves us. God tends to let us ask for stupid things, because he loves us and recognizes that getting what you want is a good way to learn to not want stupid things. I think that the priesthood ban lapsed because we finally saw the petty stupidity of it. We, as a church, stopped wanting it and God, gratefully I think, let it go".

But others are not prepared to "let it go". In response, some commenters are playing the "Mormon Doctrine" card (based upon a book written by Bruce R. McConkie) and suggesting that the revelation issued by President Spencer W. Kimball in 1978 extending Priesthood eligibility to worthy males of African descent was merely a cover, despite the fact that McConkie actually updated the book to reflect the new revelation.

I will not tolerate such a suggestion that the revelation was merely "cover". Here's the bottom line. Spencer W. Kimball was the President of the Church, ordained to be a prophet, seer, and revelator, and authorized to speak for the ENTIRE Church on matters of doctrine. Bruce R. McConkie was an ordinary elder, not authorized to speak for the entire Church. On that basis alone, President Kimball TAKES PRECEDENCE over Elder McConkie.

Secondly, it no longer matters what previous Presidents of the Church had to say about this issue. The word of a living prophet ALWAYS takes precedence over that of a dead prophet. Living prophets have access to wisdom and experiences not available to dead prophets.

Why do Church bookstores continue to sell Mormon Doctrine? Because we are the Lord's Church, not a Soviet Church. During the 75-year Soviet occupation of Russia, every time a new General Secretary was chosen, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia was completely scrubbed down and re-written. This means Russian history was re-invented for political reasons. The LDS Church does NOT re-write or re-invent history. Yes, we've made about 3,000 or so minor editorial tuneups to the Book of Mormon, but that was merely for clarity, and did NOT change the fundamental message. Yet we have imperfect critics demanding perfection from an organization operated by other imperfect beings. That's beyond stupidity; that's outright disingenuity. The term "Latter-day Saint" doesn't so much describe what we are, but more like what we are trying to be.

This is why those of us Mormons who remain faithful to Church doctrine believe that when the President of the Church officially speaks on matters of doctrine, the debate is over, because the thinking has been done. In accordance with free agency, we are free not to obey counsel, but we will not debate the veracity of that counsel. We may suggest adjustments to individual policies, such as the length of meetings, or whether or not non-members should be admitted to temples to witness temple marriages of loved ones, but we will not dispute the fundamental doctrine itself. We don't consider the President of the Church to be personally infallible, but when he issues revelations on behalf of the Church, they become indisputable.

Latter-day Saints who question the veracity of a revelation aren't merely dissenters; they are apostates, and need to be dealt with as such. This means reprove, betimes with sharpness, but don't forget to leave the door open for their return by showing an increase of love towards them thereafter if they are willing to repent.

Foundation For Individual Rights In Education (FIRE) Report Can Help LDS Students Choose A Secular University Offering Maximum Freedom Of Conscience

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly encourages its young people seeking a college education to attend one of the Church-owned schools available. These include Brigham Young University (Utah), as well as BYU-Idaho and BYU-Hawaii. Church members in good standing pay lower tuition at these schools, and because they are Church-owned, LDS students will be able to fully abide the laws and ordinances of the Gospel without fear of being sanctioned out of political correctness.

Of course, there's a tradeoff for this guaranteed freedom of conscience. To remain students in good standing at these three schools, LDS students must remain Church members in good standing as well. This means remaining qualified to possess a temple recommend, and to receive an annual worthiness certification from an LDS bishop or branch president. To some LDS students, this might prove to be too stifling. So many LDS students will pick a different Christian school (like Liberty University) or even a secular school to obtain an academic degree.

But the downside of many secular universities is draconian speech and anti-hate codes which go beyond mere protection and actually oppress those who prefer to live by LDS or other Christian standards, according to the dictates of one's conscience. An LDS student may be required, for the sake of "diversity", to room with a drunken party animal who listens to black metal or some ghetto transplant who listens to loud, offensive, obscenity-laden rap. Or worse yet, an LDS student may be forced to room with a homosexual or transsexual. And an LDS student who resists the advances of a homosexual may even be formally accused of "hate" (although the latter extreme is still admittedly rare).

So what LDS students seeking a secular university should look for is a school that allows them the greatest freedom of conscience to avoid being forcibly exposed to culturally-antagonistic lifestyles. Fortunately, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) comes to our rescue. They've just issued a report in which they rate and categorize most of the secular universities in the United States for tolerance of free speech. Read their press release HERE. On pages 15 and 16 of their 16-page report, they group universities into three categories: Red Light, for universities openly antagonistic to free speech; Yellow Light, for universities with variable or selective oppression; and Green Light, for universities generally respectful of free speech with only a bare minimum of speech codes.

To find out about universities in your state, click HERE to select the state of interest. From there, you can select the campus of interest.

LDS students should first consider universities on the Green Light list. Unfortunately, this is too easy because there are only eight of them. They are listed below:

(1). Alabama A&M University: Individual FIRE report HERE.
(2). Carnegie Mellon University: Individual FIRE report HERE.
(3). Cleveland State University: Individual FIRE report HERE.
(4). Dartmouth College (NH): Individual FIRE report HERE.
(5). University of Nebraska–Lincoln: Individual FIRE report HERE.
(6). University of Pennsylvania: Individual FIRE report HERE.
(7). University of Tennessee–Knoxville: Individual FIRE report HERE.
(8). University of Utah: Individual FIRE report HERE.

Bear in mind that these eight universities merely meet FIRE's standards for supporting free speech; they still may provide a social environment inconsistent with LDS standards. The idea is that if you are LDS and are looking for a university where you have the best chance of practicing your religion unmolested, this is the list you should check first.

If none of the schools on the above list are suitable, then you can start checking the list of Yellow-Light universities on page 15 of the report. They may have only one or two objectionable policies which you can easily trend around.

However, Red-Light universities may have numerous objectionable anti-free speech policies, and you're better off avoiding any of them if possible.

YouTube Video: Former LDS Apostle Neal Maxwell Foresaw The 21st Century War Against Christianity During BYU Speech In 1978

Elder Neal Maxwell, ordained an Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1981, may have been prematurely recalled to heaven in 2004 after a prolonged battle with leukemia, but he left behind a rich legacy of wisdom and foresight.

Elder Maxwell was a renowned wordsmith, famed for his ability to present doctrine in such a manner that even the least amongst us could understand it. Elder Maxwell was also famed for identifying "wallflowers" at social gatherings and making a special effort to welcome them. More on his life can be found in Wikipedia, and a host of official LDS stories about him can be accessed HERE.

However, it was a speech delivered at Brigham Young University on October 10th, 1978, while he was still President of the First Quorum of Seventy, that stands out today. This speech effectively symbolizes prescience on his part. Elder Maxwell foresaw the slowly escalating war against Christianity which continues to unfold during the closing years of the first decade of the 21st century. He outlines how "irreligion" would not only supersede religion culturally, but also discusses how "irreligion" would become America's unofficial "state denomination". He even chillingly reveals the Orwellian cultural reversal currently taking place, where people of faith would be demonized as "haters" by people of hate who seek to cover up their own hate by transferring the label to their victims. Video embedded below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMMu4Sv0-QI



Much of what Elder Maxwell foresaw has or is currently coming to pass. The shrill and hysterical reaction of many gay activists to California's constitutional reaffirmation of traditional marriage best personifies the hate directed towards people of faith. Gay activists falsely portray marriage as a "fundamental" constitutional right, even though the term "fundamental right" is customarily restricted only to those rights formally specified in the U.S. Constitution. Some even assert that the Founding Fathers were "irreligious" and were even "Deists", although a visit to the Adherents.com website puts that canard to bed straightaway. By viewing the lists of signers of the Declaration of Independence, the signers of the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitutional Convention delegates including signers of the U.S. Constitution, you'll find that NONE of them are listed as "Deists".

Indeed, the gay hate campaign directed against Mormons and other like-minded Christians is beginning to backfire. The recent "Day Without A Gay" campaign fizzled badly, even in California. And the proposed gay boycott of Utah has not caught fire. This shows the opposition cannot win if we at least hold firm to our convictions. Just because we Mormons are in the world does not mean we need to be of the world. What good does it do if our church gains the approval of the world but loses the approval of the Lord? We are supposed to be the Lord's church, not the world's church.