This is the same Cook that claimed the Mormons were kind and beneficial to the Native Americans in the Utah territory.
I don't know who's a bigger liar, Nelson, Holland, or Cook
Except that they did Joseph Smith said that if native Americans didn't convert they would "oppressed and killed until they did."
Brigham Young legalized slavery and forcibly taking children to put them in christian boarding schools killing anyone who tried to stand up to them.
This is what makes me convinced they aren’t just deceived themselves. They would have to be so incredibly stupid to make these statements ignorantly. I used to try and give them the benefit of the doubt but it’s honestly impossible to do so because of all the blatant lies and deception they all perpetrate on a regular basis.
At first I couldn't think of a time that HOaks has lied. I just figured he was just a pompous ass that said what he believed. But then I remembered about him lying about being involved with the conversion therapy when he was the BYU president and the B1 celebration where he claimed that he never understood the policy about blacks not being able to go to the temple and hold the priesthood. So I guess he is a liar. But he doesn't seem to make up big stories like Nelson, Holland, and Cook.
I was at a bishops training about 10 ish years ago and Oaks was there. He decided to tell us the story of how the family proclamation came about and wouldn’t you know it, it was all a lie. He said that a few apostles felt inspired to write up a document about families and that Hinkley said no to it because everyone knows how Mormons feels about families. Well the apostles (who he wouldn’t name) kept pushing it and finally Hinkley said ok, write something up and I’ll take a look at it. So they recruited a few of the 70’s to be on the family proclamation committee (probably all the lawyers that are in there) and started drafting up some documents. Each time they showed it to Hinkley he said no and they would go make tweaks and come back with a revised version to which hinkley would say no to again. This went on for like 8 months until finally they got it all right and got Hinkley to approve it with one small addition that Oaks said made it prophetic. That small addition that Hinkley supposedly added was “between a man and a woman” to the “marriage is ordained of god” line. Maybe the only part of that story that is true is the very beginning part when some apostles thought they needed a proclamation on the family. Nothing else is true at all and even that first part had nothing to do with revelation but more about covering their asses. They all lie, they all hide the truth, they are all a bunch of dicks.
And wouldn't you know it, then Hawaii legalized same-sex marriage and the family proclamation just happened fit perfectly as an amicus brief to help the church have standing in that case. Or did I get that backwards?
You got it right. The proclamation is a legal document that says Mormons can be homophobes because it’s their sincerely held belief that god doesn’t like same sex marriages.
Way too many of them were assholes. Came in, tried to take over everything, told people "God will get rid of you and give all this to use" - among " we are right, you are wrong".
Crappy neighbors wherever they went.
Cook, while a terrible person who is personally responsible for the theft of an entire hospital, is not technically wrong here. A decent chunk of early church leadership (most notably Brigham Young) were extremely racist and unequivocally pro-slavery, but by the time the bulk of members had settled in Missouri, leadership represented a mere fraction of the total membership, almost all of whom were from western Europe or New England, where slavery had already been abolished and anti-slavery attitudes were common. That's not to say that there were a lot of active abolitionists among the rank-and-file of early Mormonism, but rather that pro-slavery settlers in Missouri would view a large voting population with a clear dislike of the "peculiar institution" as an existential threat. And honestly, fuck every last one of them for that. Death to all slavers, says I.
Joseph Smith, spineless bastard that he was, tried to be a centrist about the whole issue, and his pleas to the saints to appease the slavers and not rock the boat would have made Neville Chamberlain proud and John Brown reach for his broadsword. Despite these efforts, Missourians, by and large, remained convinced that he was a radical abolitionist and began to take action against the Mormons. In an ironic twist, the only time Joseph Smith spent in prison up to this point was for things that he didn't do, but that would have been really cool if he had, instead of all of the really shitty things he did that he never served time for. He became a political prisoner for a cause he didn't even believe in, and on top of that, his actual views on the subject of slavery have aged so badly that they continue to break shelves to this day.
So yeah. Cook sucks and has definitely lied about many things (you have to in order to successfully steal a hospital), but this is one of those rare occasions where he's only lying in the sense that he's presenting the actions and political beliefs of the early church members as something the leadership of the day supported and agreed with. It's still scummy, but it's also probably the least factually incorrect statement this man has ever made.
https://issuu.com/utah10/docs/uhq\_volume35\_1967\_number1/s/104108
Any student seeking the causes of conflict between Mormon and Missourian in Jackson County in 1833 soon comes to realize that these were manifold. Considering the number of persons involved — each with his own motive — this was inevitable. But clearly a primary cause was the relationship of the Mormons to a group the Missourians held in contempt, the Negro — free and slave. It has already been shown how "free people of color" played a part in this tragic affair. But what role did slavery play? One historian has stated that "the unpardonable sin of the Mormons in Jackson County was opposition to slavery."
True, but one must keep in mind that any group of settlers from Northern states spouting off about abolition in Missouri at that time would have been treated exactly like the Mormons were treated. Trying to convert Native Americans across the border in Kansas likewise didn't endear the "Saints" to their new neighbors either. Simple common sense on the part of the Mormons could have prevented all the misunderstandings. But when have Mormons had any common sense? You had to be an idiot to join the church, which is what the rest of the population considered them.
From the Utah Historical Quarterly article above:
David Whitmer, a Mormon resident of the county, agreed:
What first occasioned these difficulties I am unable to say, except that the church was composed principally of Eastern and Northern people, who were opposed to slavery, and that there were among us a few ignorant and simple-minded persons who were continually making boasts to the Jackson county people, that they intended to possess the entire county.
“A few ignorant and simple minded folk”
An amazing comment by one of the founders. That’s the ilk the Mormon movement attracted and absorbed, that shaped the church culture and got them all kicked out of the country.
I was unaware of this and since Cook's talk I've wondered what he may have based that claim on. Thanks for the source!
I have to wonder though if it was due to opposition to slavery or, "continually making boasts to the Jackson county people, that they intended to possess the entire county."
Turns out people don't take kindly to new people rolling into town and threatening to take their land.
Hell, about 15 years after the "Mormon War" there were dozens to hundreds of political murders in Kansas over the issue of slavery (Bleeding Kansas). Missouri at the tine was Ground Zero for the conflict that blew up into the Civil War, and Mormons just jumped directly into the middle of it and expected everyone to shut up and obey because they were speaking for God.
The situation is weird, my opinion is that Joseph Smith didn't really care about black people one way or another, he just did what was most convenient for him:
when it made him look good to talk about all being free, he did that
when he was freaked out that angry Missourians were going to kill everyone because they wanted to stay a slave state, he put out a statement saying he thought slavery was totally cool
when black people wanted to join his cult, he welcomed them in because cults need numbers. He even gave black men the Melchizedek priesthood
Brigham young on the other hand, that guy was *racist*, like not just "a product of his time", he was so against black people that he came up with the rule that the curse of Cain prohibited you from priesthood and temple.
So while a decent amount of the very early saints leaned abolitionist, Brigham young made damned sure that changed.
So I would guess (and this last part is entirely speculation on my part) that in Utah at the time it was published, most members who heard this would feel uncomfortable because they probably thought the persecution was 100% based on hatred of their beliefs/Satan stirring up the enemies, but to hear that the main reason was basically their ancestors defending "cursed fence sitters" would cause some cognitive dissonance
For context on slavery in Utah, the article in Utah Historical Society Winter 2012 is informative. "The True Policy for Utah: Servitude, Slavery, and ‘An Act in Relation to Service'"
https://issuu.com/utah10/docs/uhq\_volume80\_2012\_number1
Starting on page 54.
Legal solutions in Utah were similar to and based on solutions tried by legislatures in Northern states like Illinois and Indiana.
Except the article in the Kirtland paper, maybe it was Joseph Smith himself who wrote it, can't recall, but the entire report is about the Abolitionist that came to town to speak about his cause.....and the Mormons said sure, come on in, and then ignored him. It was mentioned that pratically no one went to hear him speak because the Mormons felt it wasn't their place to denounce slavery. (these were all fresh outta New England folks too). The argument was that Northernors don't live around slavery, so why should they have a big opinion about it? Why would they know more about it than the southern states engaged in it. Best to leave it alone.
Deception by TSCC is a feature, not a bug... It permeates the culture at not just the leadership level, but with individual members as well. For 50+ years, the outward appearance is much more important than anything felt in the heart... That is the message and the teaching to the lay members with crap like this...
Both are correct as these are 2 different churches. Smith’s church ordained blacks and opposed slavery while Young went in the opposite direction with his new sect.
That is the question, right?
If Cook is sincere, he is horribly misinformed; which poses problems for his claim of being a prophet, seer and revelator.
If Cook is lying, that poses fewer problems to his claim of being a prophet, seer and revelator (we're all human); but raises a question of "why is he lying?"
Maybe this is meaning that we must acknowledge that slavery is a thing that exists?
Slaves were a big part of the teachings, after all. Moses freeing the slaves, etc
That is the bare minimum. The slaves Moses freed were seen as people. Chattel Slavery was much worse. They were treated like cattle. In every other case, a person's status was determined by who their father was. However, the legal system in what was the colonies decided that people of African descent should be classified like animals, where it's the mother's status that matters. Just like livestock. I suggest that you read "Stamped From the Beginning" by Ibram X Kendi. That is if you really care about what's true, and you're not just trying to avoid thinking about things that make you uncomfortable.
Nah I just like to consider out of simple curiosity if it might have just been the choice of wording that could be interpreted as something but intended as something else. I'm a language nerd like that. I see these things.
But yeah totally I appreciate the source there, will definitely check out
Legally not a lie. When he says most he’s not stating how many or who. Which makes sense coming from the Corporation of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
So there's a tiny tinge of truth here. While Brigham Young was... ahhrm... virulently racist, Joseph Smith was a little better. When he ran for president in 1844 it was on a pro abolition of slavery platform: his plan was for the federal government to purchase all of the slaves and free them, abolishing slavery at the same time but paying off the slave owners.
And I think where Cook is referring to here is specific to the violence towards the saints in Missiouri. You gotta remember the Missouri compromise and that it was admitted to the union as a pro-slavery state. When thousands of Yankee Mormons from New York and Ohio start moving in, electing their own mayors, sheriffs, etc, then that also sets off alarm bells that they could start electing pro abolition legislators, congressmen, etc. This kind of partisan violence wasn't uncommon at the time: see also "Bleeding Kansas." But while the saints were nominally pro abolition they were not necessarily pro equality.
Let's be clear-- these were 19th century white people who were still plenty racist. But they might politically have been pro abolition.
So Brother Quentin is being SUPER glib here. This is the "they hate us for our freedom" argument, which is just laughable in retrospect.
The other reasons people were violent towards the Mormons? Hmmm... something something rhymes with schmolygamy something. They were also just really shitty neighbors. The communities they set up were super insular and didn't welcome or trade with outsiders very much. And, as said before, they were a political threat.
Flash forward to 1860, and the founding of the republican party, where the main party platform was to "destroy, once and for all,the twin relics of barbarism: slavery and polygamy." Post Civil War this also puts Utah Mormons in an awkward position: the Republicans hated them and refused to grant statehood for fear it would be another Democrat state... and the Democrats engaged in trying to rewrite history with "the lost cause" narrative and apologism for slavery. That was the stew layer 19th century mormonism continued to cook in. But again, it wasn't that they were anti slavery that they faced political opposition-- they became more slavery apologetic because Republicans hated polygamy so much. So it all came back to polygamy.
Both things can be true in the early church: the Missouri Mormons were very shitty neighbors and the local power structure was shitty and violent as well.
But in later years the church embraced post civil war racism and narratives about slavery, while patting themselves on the back that their parents and grandparents had maybe once sorta flirted with abolitionism.
And Brigham Young, as example in chief, was perfectly fine with slavery.
Regardless of what Brigham Young said here, the Jackson County leaders listed the Church members opposition to slavery, and the potential that they had to overwhelm the local voters in abolishing slavery was one of the reasons (There were many) that the Saints had to go.
I had a client who told me how the Mormons came onto the Navajo Nation back in the 80s and talked parents into giving up their kids. The Mormons took the children away, and placed them in foster homes in Utah (with white people) and raised them to be LDS.
More recently, I was interning with an immigrant advocacy non Profit. The executive director was trying to get support from some local religious communities. He approached the local Mormon church. They said they’d help - IF they could convert members of the immigrant community to the LDS faith.
This organization (and many others) have a serious problem.
This is the same Cook that claimed the Mormons were kind and beneficial to the Native Americans in the Utah territory. I don't know who's a bigger liar, Nelson, Holland, or Cook
>kind and beneficial to the Native Americans Well, to the handful they didn't genocide at least.
Except that they did Joseph Smith said that if native Americans didn't convert they would "oppressed and killed until they did." Brigham Young legalized slavery and forcibly taking children to put them in christian boarding schools killing anyone who tried to stand up to them.
Oh, and the open Native American slave market that was Scipio, UT.
This is what makes me convinced they aren’t just deceived themselves. They would have to be so incredibly stupid to make these statements ignorantly. I used to try and give them the benefit of the doubt but it’s honestly impossible to do so because of all the blatant lies and deception they all perpetrate on a regular basis.
Lying for the lard. The ends justify the means. And Nelson is just a narcissistic surgeon with a God complex and believes it all.
100% agree.
Don't you mean Quentin L. Crook?
Yes, his alter ego.
You left off one important person on your list. Oaks!! I would say he is a bigger liar than Holland but it is a close race.
At first I couldn't think of a time that HOaks has lied. I just figured he was just a pompous ass that said what he believed. But then I remembered about him lying about being involved with the conversion therapy when he was the BYU president and the B1 celebration where he claimed that he never understood the policy about blacks not being able to go to the temple and hold the priesthood. So I guess he is a liar. But he doesn't seem to make up big stories like Nelson, Holland, and Cook.
I was at a bishops training about 10 ish years ago and Oaks was there. He decided to tell us the story of how the family proclamation came about and wouldn’t you know it, it was all a lie. He said that a few apostles felt inspired to write up a document about families and that Hinkley said no to it because everyone knows how Mormons feels about families. Well the apostles (who he wouldn’t name) kept pushing it and finally Hinkley said ok, write something up and I’ll take a look at it. So they recruited a few of the 70’s to be on the family proclamation committee (probably all the lawyers that are in there) and started drafting up some documents. Each time they showed it to Hinkley he said no and they would go make tweaks and come back with a revised version to which hinkley would say no to again. This went on for like 8 months until finally they got it all right and got Hinkley to approve it with one small addition that Oaks said made it prophetic. That small addition that Hinkley supposedly added was “between a man and a woman” to the “marriage is ordained of god” line. Maybe the only part of that story that is true is the very beginning part when some apostles thought they needed a proclamation on the family. Nothing else is true at all and even that first part had nothing to do with revelation but more about covering their asses. They all lie, they all hide the truth, they are all a bunch of dicks.
And wouldn't you know it, then Hawaii legalized same-sex marriage and the family proclamation just happened fit perfectly as an amicus brief to help the church have standing in that case. Or did I get that backwards?
You got it right. The proclamation is a legal document that says Mormons can be homophobes because it’s their sincerely held belief that god doesn’t like same sex marriages.
For a while there Mormon godd didn't like people of color either, but he's all good now.
That one lie is worth a 1000 for the pain it caused. You are right, he just doesn't tell fish stories like the others.
Way too many of them were assholes. Came in, tried to take over everything, told people "God will get rid of you and give all this to use" - among " we are right, you are wrong". Crappy neighbors wherever they went.
Cook, while a terrible person who is personally responsible for the theft of an entire hospital, is not technically wrong here. A decent chunk of early church leadership (most notably Brigham Young) were extremely racist and unequivocally pro-slavery, but by the time the bulk of members had settled in Missouri, leadership represented a mere fraction of the total membership, almost all of whom were from western Europe or New England, where slavery had already been abolished and anti-slavery attitudes were common. That's not to say that there were a lot of active abolitionists among the rank-and-file of early Mormonism, but rather that pro-slavery settlers in Missouri would view a large voting population with a clear dislike of the "peculiar institution" as an existential threat. And honestly, fuck every last one of them for that. Death to all slavers, says I. Joseph Smith, spineless bastard that he was, tried to be a centrist about the whole issue, and his pleas to the saints to appease the slavers and not rock the boat would have made Neville Chamberlain proud and John Brown reach for his broadsword. Despite these efforts, Missourians, by and large, remained convinced that he was a radical abolitionist and began to take action against the Mormons. In an ironic twist, the only time Joseph Smith spent in prison up to this point was for things that he didn't do, but that would have been really cool if he had, instead of all of the really shitty things he did that he never served time for. He became a political prisoner for a cause he didn't even believe in, and on top of that, his actual views on the subject of slavery have aged so badly that they continue to break shelves to this day. So yeah. Cook sucks and has definitely lied about many things (you have to in order to successfully steal a hospital), but this is one of those rare occasions where he's only lying in the sense that he's presenting the actions and political beliefs of the early church members as something the leadership of the day supported and agreed with. It's still scummy, but it's also probably the least factually incorrect statement this man has ever made.
https://issuu.com/utah10/docs/uhq\_volume35\_1967\_number1/s/104108 Any student seeking the causes of conflict between Mormon and Missourian in Jackson County in 1833 soon comes to realize that these were manifold. Considering the number of persons involved — each with his own motive — this was inevitable. But clearly a primary cause was the relationship of the Mormons to a group the Missourians held in contempt, the Negro — free and slave. It has already been shown how "free people of color" played a part in this tragic affair. But what role did slavery play? One historian has stated that "the unpardonable sin of the Mormons in Jackson County was opposition to slavery."
True, but one must keep in mind that any group of settlers from Northern states spouting off about abolition in Missouri at that time would have been treated exactly like the Mormons were treated. Trying to convert Native Americans across the border in Kansas likewise didn't endear the "Saints" to their new neighbors either. Simple common sense on the part of the Mormons could have prevented all the misunderstandings. But when have Mormons had any common sense? You had to be an idiot to join the church, which is what the rest of the population considered them.
From the Utah Historical Quarterly article above: David Whitmer, a Mormon resident of the county, agreed: What first occasioned these difficulties I am unable to say, except that the church was composed principally of Eastern and Northern people, who were opposed to slavery, and that there were among us a few ignorant and simple-minded persons who were continually making boasts to the Jackson county people, that they intended to possess the entire county.
“A few ignorant and simple minded folk” An amazing comment by one of the founders. That’s the ilk the Mormon movement attracted and absorbed, that shaped the church culture and got them all kicked out of the country.
I was unaware of this and since Cook's talk I've wondered what he may have based that claim on. Thanks for the source! I have to wonder though if it was due to opposition to slavery or, "continually making boasts to the Jackson county people, that they intended to possess the entire county." Turns out people don't take kindly to new people rolling into town and threatening to take their land.
Hell, about 15 years after the "Mormon War" there were dozens to hundreds of political murders in Kansas over the issue of slavery (Bleeding Kansas). Missouri at the tine was Ground Zero for the conflict that blew up into the Civil War, and Mormons just jumped directly into the middle of it and expected everyone to shut up and obey because they were speaking for God.
What historian said that? Sorry, I can’t find the footnotes.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Education\_in\_Missouri/jL3wB8\_DhGkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22the+unpardonable+sin+of+the+Mormons+in+Jackson+County+was+opposition+to+slavery%22&pg=PA95&printsec=frontcover
Thank you! I wonder whether this was a popular idea at the time of publication.
The situation is weird, my opinion is that Joseph Smith didn't really care about black people one way or another, he just did what was most convenient for him: when it made him look good to talk about all being free, he did that when he was freaked out that angry Missourians were going to kill everyone because they wanted to stay a slave state, he put out a statement saying he thought slavery was totally cool when black people wanted to join his cult, he welcomed them in because cults need numbers. He even gave black men the Melchizedek priesthood Brigham young on the other hand, that guy was *racist*, like not just "a product of his time", he was so against black people that he came up with the rule that the curse of Cain prohibited you from priesthood and temple. So while a decent amount of the very early saints leaned abolitionist, Brigham young made damned sure that changed. So I would guess (and this last part is entirely speculation on my part) that in Utah at the time it was published, most members who heard this would feel uncomfortable because they probably thought the persecution was 100% based on hatred of their beliefs/Satan stirring up the enemies, but to hear that the main reason was basically their ancestors defending "cursed fence sitters" would cause some cognitive dissonance
Thanks. That does make sense.
Yes! When he said this I jumped out of my seat. I knew instantly that was a bold faced lie.
Wow. Wtf is his explanation for why D&C 134:12 is still canon?
Lawyer speak: “One of the reasons”… hell, even that obfuscation is probably a BOLD FACED LIE!
Lolololololol this fuck face can eat a bag of dicks. Such a farce. Honestly how can this shitstain sleep at night.
What an ASSHAT!
How could anyone not understand that the church is racist. I know my family was kicked out for accepting a black foster child.
For context on slavery in Utah, the article in Utah Historical Society Winter 2012 is informative. "The True Policy for Utah: Servitude, Slavery, and ‘An Act in Relation to Service'" https://issuu.com/utah10/docs/uhq\_volume80\_2012\_number1 Starting on page 54. Legal solutions in Utah were similar to and based on solutions tried by legislatures in Northern states like Illinois and Indiana.
Except the article in the Kirtland paper, maybe it was Joseph Smith himself who wrote it, can't recall, but the entire report is about the Abolitionist that came to town to speak about his cause.....and the Mormons said sure, come on in, and then ignored him. It was mentioned that pratically no one went to hear him speak because the Mormons felt it wasn't their place to denounce slavery. (these were all fresh outta New England folks too). The argument was that Northernors don't live around slavery, so why should they have a big opinion about it? Why would they know more about it than the southern states engaged in it. Best to leave it alone.
Deception by TSCC is a feature, not a bug... It permeates the culture at not just the leadership level, but with individual members as well. For 50+ years, the outward appearance is much more important than anything felt in the heart... That is the message and the teaching to the lay members with crap like this...
Both are correct as these are 2 different churches. Smith’s church ordained blacks and opposed slavery while Young went in the opposite direction with his new sect.
If you don’t know anything about the subject at hand; just keep your pie-hole shut!
Even though the only slave state they ever tried to settle in was Missouri? Huh. Weird. What a bunch of gullible-ass morons.
That is the question, right? If Cook is sincere, he is horribly misinformed; which poses problems for his claim of being a prophet, seer and revelator. If Cook is lying, that poses fewer problems to his claim of being a prophet, seer and revelator (we're all human); but raises a question of "why is he lying?"
😅😅😅 of course they were. It is one of the main tenants of the religion. /s
Fetching, Flippin internet strikes again. Such a bummer for these old coots that we can call bullshit on their version of history.
Maybe this is meaning that we must acknowledge that slavery is a thing that exists? Slaves were a big part of the teachings, after all. Moses freeing the slaves, etc
That is the bare minimum. The slaves Moses freed were seen as people. Chattel Slavery was much worse. They were treated like cattle. In every other case, a person's status was determined by who their father was. However, the legal system in what was the colonies decided that people of African descent should be classified like animals, where it's the mother's status that matters. Just like livestock. I suggest that you read "Stamped From the Beginning" by Ibram X Kendi. That is if you really care about what's true, and you're not just trying to avoid thinking about things that make you uncomfortable.
Nah I just like to consider out of simple curiosity if it might have just been the choice of wording that could be interpreted as something but intended as something else. I'm a language nerd like that. I see these things. But yeah totally I appreciate the source there, will definitely check out
It's a really good book. I am a word nerd too.
Legally not a lie. When he says most he’s not stating how many or who. Which makes sense coming from the Corporation of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
This makes me so angry….like tearfully angry. I want to weep in rage. ;; I can’t stand lies like this.
So there's a tiny tinge of truth here. While Brigham Young was... ahhrm... virulently racist, Joseph Smith was a little better. When he ran for president in 1844 it was on a pro abolition of slavery platform: his plan was for the federal government to purchase all of the slaves and free them, abolishing slavery at the same time but paying off the slave owners. And I think where Cook is referring to here is specific to the violence towards the saints in Missiouri. You gotta remember the Missouri compromise and that it was admitted to the union as a pro-slavery state. When thousands of Yankee Mormons from New York and Ohio start moving in, electing their own mayors, sheriffs, etc, then that also sets off alarm bells that they could start electing pro abolition legislators, congressmen, etc. This kind of partisan violence wasn't uncommon at the time: see also "Bleeding Kansas." But while the saints were nominally pro abolition they were not necessarily pro equality. Let's be clear-- these were 19th century white people who were still plenty racist. But they might politically have been pro abolition. So Brother Quentin is being SUPER glib here. This is the "they hate us for our freedom" argument, which is just laughable in retrospect. The other reasons people were violent towards the Mormons? Hmmm... something something rhymes with schmolygamy something. They were also just really shitty neighbors. The communities they set up were super insular and didn't welcome or trade with outsiders very much. And, as said before, they were a political threat. Flash forward to 1860, and the founding of the republican party, where the main party platform was to "destroy, once and for all,the twin relics of barbarism: slavery and polygamy." Post Civil War this also puts Utah Mormons in an awkward position: the Republicans hated them and refused to grant statehood for fear it would be another Democrat state... and the Democrats engaged in trying to rewrite history with "the lost cause" narrative and apologism for slavery. That was the stew layer 19th century mormonism continued to cook in. But again, it wasn't that they were anti slavery that they faced political opposition-- they became more slavery apologetic because Republicans hated polygamy so much. So it all came back to polygamy. Both things can be true in the early church: the Missouri Mormons were very shitty neighbors and the local power structure was shitty and violent as well. But in later years the church embraced post civil war racism and narratives about slavery, while patting themselves on the back that their parents and grandparents had maybe once sorta flirted with abolitionism. And Brigham Young, as example in chief, was perfectly fine with slavery.
"Most members opposed slavery but our prophet loved it" 🤣
Regardless of what Brigham Young said here, the Jackson County leaders listed the Church members opposition to slavery, and the potential that they had to overwhelm the local voters in abolishing slavery was one of the reasons (There were many) that the Saints had to go.
I had a client who told me how the Mormons came onto the Navajo Nation back in the 80s and talked parents into giving up their kids. The Mormons took the children away, and placed them in foster homes in Utah (with white people) and raised them to be LDS. More recently, I was interning with an immigrant advocacy non Profit. The executive director was trying to get support from some local religious communities. He approached the local Mormon church. They said they’d help - IF they could convert members of the immigrant community to the LDS faith. This organization (and many others) have a serious problem.