Wondered whether Biden’s ‘in chains’ remark that Romney camp land-heaved over– had any correspondence in Mormonism… re slaves and enslavement. Brigham Young took over as leader of Mormon church in mid and late 1800s.

This is part of Brigham Young’s 1852 speech (during immense struggle in US in which holding slaves had been turned down by Northern States. At the time Young lived in a northern state but held the idea… well, you see: about how Mormons ought see other ‘non-Mormons’, slavery, citizens, ‘mixing of the races,’ and so on. He begins by claiming that Eve was God’s first slave when she ate of the apple, and so became no longer free but a slave. Then Adam ate the apple, Young says, making him a slave too, and therefor slavery comes from God.

Brigham Young, leader, goes on to say:

We know there is a portion of inhabitants of the earth who dwell in Asia that are negroes, and said to be jews.

The blood of Judah has not only mingled almost with all nations, but also with the blood of Cain, and they have mingled there seeds together; These negro Jewes may keep up all the outer ordinenances of the jewish releigeon, they may have their sacrifices, and they may perform all the releigeous ceremonies any people on earth could perform, but let me tell you, that the day they consented to mingle their seed with Cannan, the preisthood was taken away from Judah, and that portion of Judahs seed will never get any rule, or blessings of the preisthood until Cain gets it.

Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to apear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate.

The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church must go to desstruction–we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the preisthood untill that curse be removed.

Therefore I will not consent for one moment to have an african dictate [to] me or any Bren.[brethern] with regard to Church or State Government. I may vary in my veiwes from others, and they may think I am foolish in the things I have spoken, and think that they know more than I do, but I know I know more than they do.

If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?

In the Government affairs of States and Territorys and kingdoms by right, God should Govern.

He should rule over nations, and controle kings. If we suffer the Devil to rule over us we shall not accomplish any good. I want the Lord to rule, and be our Governor and and dictater, and we are the boys to execute, I shall not consent for a moment to give way to a Gentile Spirit of contention, which is the cause of angry…Difference to the alinations of every Good feeling.

It is for you and I to take a course, to bind our feelings together in an everlasting bond of union inasmuch as we love the Lord, which we ought to do more than selves.

Consequently I will not consent for a moment to have the Children of Cain rule me nor my Bren. No, it is not right.

But say some, is there any thing of this kind in the Constitution, the U.S. has given us? If you will allow me the privilege telling right out, it is none of their damned buisness what we do or say here. What we do it is for them to sanction, and then for us to say what we like about it. It is written right out in the constitution, “that every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty one years” &c. My mind is the same to day as when we where poreing over that constitution; any light upon the subject is the same, my judgement is the same, only a little more so. Prahapes I have said enough upon this subject. I have given you the true principles and doctrine. No man can vote for me or my Bren. in this Territory who has not the privilege of acting in Church affairs.

Every man, and woman, and Child in this Territory are Citizens; to say the contrary is all nonsense to me. The indians are Citizens, the Africans are Citizens, and the jews than come from Asia, that are almost entirely of the blood of Cain.
It is our duty to take of them, and administer to them in all the acts of humanity, and kindness, they shall have the right of Citizenship, but shall not have the right to dictate in Church and State matters.
The abolishonists of the east, have cirest them them, and their whol argument are callculated to darken Counsel, as it was here yesterday.

As for our bills passing here, we may lay the foundation for what? for men to come here from Africa or else where; by hundreds of thousands.

When these men come here from the Islands, are they going to hold offices in Government No. It is for men who understand the knowlege of Government affairs to hold such offices, and on the other make provisions for them to plow, and to reap, and enjoy all that human beings can enjoy, and we protect them in it. Do we know how to amilerate the condition of these people? we do.

Supose that five thousands of them come from the pacific Islands, and ten or fifteen thousands from Japan , or from China, not one soul of them would know how to vote for a Government officer, they therefore ought not in the first thing have anything to do in Government afairs.

What the Gentiles are doing we are consenting to do. What we are trying to do to day is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privilege. My voice shall be against all the day long. I shall not consent for one Moment I will will call them a counsel. I say I will not consent for one moment for you to lay a plan to bring a curse upon this people. It shall not be while I am here…

(Journal of Discourses)

While there were in the 1800s in the states, honest and dishonest, predatory and helpful, and greedy and generous people of Brigham’s time, the grasping to codify and rationalize one person owning another human being by ‘copying God’ (and it’s all a woman’s fault it is said) and the rampant making of other humans into less than human if they are jews or ‘affricans’ or of the ‘islands’ or ‘indians’… and claiming there are oh just so many of ‘them’ that they need to be controlled… by Mormons… reads as nothing God-like. Rather it reads like a greedy grasping magnate who wants to dominate rather than lift all others… the time period doesnt matter it seems.

However in 1808 Congress banned importation of slaves and the North where Mormons lived had moved against slave holding even as Young was making his statements about slave keeping by dint of God’s modeled behavior with Adam and Eve.

Joe Biden’s remarks about some in power wanting to metaphorically put black people back in chains, that is, look down on them, enslave them by not giving opportunity, parity, might have been closer truth in terms of long roots to the past of Brigham Young, than even Biden realized.

Brigham Young appears to have been most prominently responsible “for revoking the priesthood and temple blessings from black members of the LDS Church, who had been treated equally in this respect under Joseph Smith’s presidency.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110) After settling in Utah in 1848, Brigham Young announced a priesthood ban which prohibited all men of black African descent from holding the priesthood. In connection, Mormons of African descent could not participate in Mormon temple rites such as the Endowment or “sealing.” These racist restrictions remained in place until 1978 [34 years ago,] when the policy was rescinded by President of the Church Spencer W. Kimball.” wikipedia on Brigham Young’s life

The rescinding of the Mormons’ racist policy and exclusion to worship with parity for African Americans, did not come after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which proclaimed across the last there would be no quarter given to discrimination against others by race, et al.

The recision of the racist Mormon policy came belatedly, about thirteen years after the Civil Rights Act had already been in effect.

DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Managing Editor of TMV, and Columnist
Leave a replyComments (64)
  1. HART WILLIAMS, Guest Voice Columnist August 25, 2012 at 6:05 am

    Pretty amazing stuff, Doc. I remember when the protests were going on during WAC football games, and the extreme discomfort of the LDS in attendance at them.

  2. DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Managing Editor of TMV, and Columnist August 25, 2012 at 6:49 am

    thanks Hart. I hope you’ll write about it for us. First witness is rare nowadays, yet it’s a strong way to tell history to those who were not born in those times and often dont yet know the stories.

  3. DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist August 25, 2012 at 8:02 am

    Astounding! A lot of sick stuff — and a lot of [sic’s]

  4. The_Ohioan August 25, 2012 at 8:05 am

    I doubt that Biden is so bigoted that his remark was a slur on his opponent’s religion; I certainly hope not. Biden, a Catholic, should be the last person to disparage another’s religion, given his church’s past. I assumed he was talking about financial chains, which is the only kind that would make sense given the context of the speech.

  5. ShannonLeee August 25, 2012 at 8:40 am

    As I have said before… My home town Kansas City has a large Mormon population and I have seen a lot of bigotry from that community…more anti-gay than anti-minority. I still would not paint all Mormons with that brush. There was enough ignorance to go around in Young’s time, ours too.

  6. rudi August 25, 2012 at 9:24 am

    George Romney spoke out against the Mormon institutional bigotry. GR also worked with the civil rights movement. His son is a spineless pandering idiot…

  7. adelinesdad August 25, 2012 at 9:24 am

    My view, as a Mormon but not speaking for all Mormons, is that the president of the church, who we consider to be a prophet, has special authority to speak the will of God for the church. However, they are also people, subject to the same prejudices and imperfections as people and vulnerable to be influenced by the culture of the time. Brigham Young said some strange and plainly offensive things and unfortunately set some policy that lasted for too long, due to the church’s tendency to defer to precedent, the effects of which on the diversity of the adherents (in the US, that is) unfortunately still linger today.

    But to use this to lend some legitimacy to what Biden said I think is wrong-headed. I realize you are taking some artistic license there, but such is the kindling of bigotry and whisper campaigns.

  8. DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist August 25, 2012 at 9:40 am


    Although my first reaction was to say “WOW!” to Young’s very bigoted comments made more than one hundred years ago,I do understand that the Mormon Church and religion have evolved since then.

    Your statement that “the president of the [Mormon]church, who we consider to be a prophet, has special authority to speak the will of God for the church. However, they are also people, subject to the same prejudices and imperfections as people and vulnerable to be influenced by the culture of the time,” begs the question: If the president (of the Mormon Church) has special authority to speak the will of God, how does one know he is doing so or just being subject to the same prejudices and imperfections as people? I do not believe that the will of God has changed over the last one hundred years or so.

    AD, I am not trying to be argumentative, just inquisitive.


  9. DaGoat August 25, 2012 at 9:59 am


    But to use this to lend some legitimacy to what Biden said I think is wrong-headed. I realize you are taking some artistic license there, but such is the kindling of bigotry and whisper campaigns.

    I agree. Anti-Mormon ugliness has been rearing it’s head fairly frequently here at TMV, and this just serves to stoke those flames.

  10. DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist August 25, 2012 at 10:34 am

    Hi AD,

    I don’t know if you were planning to address my question, but — on second thought — never mind, because my question and confusion is more than just about your statement and more than just about the Mormon religion.

    Let me explain.

    First, I am not an atheist, I do believe that there is a God, a Supreme Being.

    My perplexity and confusion is, first, that I don’t understand how the prophets and leaders of the various religions who proclaim that they have special authority to speak the will of God, can relay such unbelievably different messages to their followers — all from the same God.

    Second, since God is eternal, timeless, I don’t understand how his message — as relayed (perhaps interpreted) by these prophets, etc. — can change so drastically from millennium to millennium, from century to century, even from decade to decade.


    Confused, but willing to listen

  11. dduck August 25, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Biden was speaking about Wall Street, not about slaves, not racist, but perhaps since he probably enjoys Greek tragedies, he was referring to Prometheus.

    Personally, and being an atheist, I don’t give a rat’s tail what Young, the Pope and any other “religious’ person said 150 years ago. Unless, of course, it is something wise and intelligent by today’s secular standards.

  12. The_Ohioan August 25, 2012 at 11:33 am


    “Anti-Mormon ugliness has been rearing it’s head fairly frequently here at TMV…”

    The only other anti-Mormon remarks here that I’ve seen is from a fly-by troll that was chastened by z. Maybe you can point out those other frequent instances by regulars?

  13. SteveK August 25, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    The only other anti-Mormon remarks here that I’ve seen is from a fly-by troll that was chastened by z. Maybe you can point out those other frequent instances by regulars?

    Thanks The_Ohioan… You are absolutely correct.

    The regulars here might from time to time pick on one another more than we ought to but I’m impressed at how belief systems (religions) and/or lack thereof are seldom, if ever, attacked.

  14. DaGoat August 25, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    TO, I don’t want to breach the commenting guidelines by calling out individuals, but there have been articles to the effect “This has nothing to do with Romney being a Mormon, but most of the Mormons I’ve known are bigoted jerks” with several comments in the same vein. There have also been a few negative articles relating to Mormon history, again with the disclaimer they have nothing to do with a presidential candidate being a Mormon. When the Mormon opposition to gay marriage is discussed Mormons are generally criticized as bigots.

    There is an anti-Mormon subcurrent here at times. I don’t belong to any organized religion, if that matters.

  15. ShannonLeee August 25, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    well, “main stream” Christians or Muslims or Jews that hate gay people are bigots too. obviously.

  16. ShannonLeee August 25, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    furthermore, I must admit to being a bigot too. I have no tolerance for bigots, in particular the gay bashing neo-nazi Mormons that I worked with, but again, I have also met nice Mormons so…

  17. SteveK August 25, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    DaGoat said: I don’t want to breach the commenting guidelines by calling out individuals, but there have been articles to the effect “This has nothing to do with Romney being a Mormon, but most of the Mormons I’ve known are bigoted jerks

    I think making broad, unsupported accusations against TMV commenters is more of a breach in comment policy than linking to comments or threads that might prove the point you think you have.
    Your negative implication can’t be disproved so your comment sounds like nothing more than a right-wing talking point.

  18. adelinesdad August 25, 2012 at 1:25 pm


    Your question is a good one and I’d like to try to answer it, but don’t have time at the moment to do it justice. I’ll try tonight.

  19. ordinarysparrow August 25, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    Concerning whether is it appropriate to write on this topic?

    Clearly remember the lively posts and discussions concerning, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his influence on President Obama….George W. Bush’s conversion experience with his theological to Southern Baptist and Fundamentalist prayer breakfast which held very similar historical views as the above, as well as the frequent slant against Fundamentalism and Catholicism on related dynamics. So cannot see this only happens to Mormons.

    What i took from reading the above historical perspective is not the relevance of content concerning racism, hopefully that has evolved or at least our society has evolved to the place where overt racism is not shown or rather owned politically. Yet the tone and texture of Romney’s issues and those he aligns with are an energetic match exhibiting similar match to the historical roots, elitism, arrogance, and walking on the backs (African American, Native American, poor immigrants) of those that raise one such as Romney up. But then i have a tendency to see the policies of the current GOP with a strange and dark political accepted roots of the past, when it comes to women, children, race, and ‘rankism’ and classism…

  20. dduck August 25, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    I understand that Biden has/had some affiliation with the Catholic Church.
    I wonder if someone would dust off some of the Pope’s comments, dictates and opinions from 1850.

    I’m sure Biden and most Catholics would find some areas of disagreement.
    So why is anything Young said relevant to this campaign except to the degree that Mitt agrees with all or part of Young’s comments. Does he? Bring on the citations.

    Is it to embarrass Mitt, to put him in the same philosophical boat or guilt by religious affiliation. (All’s fair in politics, that I can accept; phony moral indignation, I can’t.)

    And, I won’t even dare to bring up Rev. Wright, such non equivalence, some will holler.

  21. DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist August 25, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    I look forward to it, AD, and I do say that sincerely.

  22. DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Managing Editor of TMV, and Columnist August 25, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    @ if one follows the catholic church, and I am a catholic, we wouldnt have to go back to the last century to quote hierarchy’s brutal pronouncements or exclusions of others’ hearts and souls. Last year. This year. Ten years ago. 20,30,40, 50. And more. Same with the patriarchs and the other ‘annointed’ who claim infallibility of one sort or another.

    My point in this article was to place “the metaphor” as I referred to it, of ‘in chains’ in a perspective. I mentioned in the first para the negative reaction of the RR campaign to B’s phrase, and wondered what Mormonism had to say about chains and slavery. Makes me laugh in a way, last election when I wrote positive pieces about MR’s Mormonism, got it from all sides. Cant win for losin’ as we say. Onward.

    Also and apologize, for this may be ‘off topic’ for the topic is about the idea of ‘chains’ in times past re BY and ‘chains’ in present re JB… but/and I’d mention too, that writer-journos at any news website online in our time dont just write because they might have a new burgeoning, or exploratory or entrenched ‘opinion-interest’ in a topic, only. There are some writers that is true who can be depended on to pound the same nail fifty times and with rancor or peace or any point in between. But there are far more pro writers who look over the landscape of news and write to balance out what isnt looked into re larger media world, or to hopefully create thoughtfulness in self and in others, or to find historical fact and review it, holding it above the waterline… and/and/and. There are as many reasons journos write re what and why as commenter’s reasons for commenting, for they are writers too. In order to really know for each writer, each article, the intention and hope behind it… that’d be a long conversation with each writer, assuming all have insight into self and how we all row through the overculture along with our beliefs both examined and not yet examined.

    Just my .02. To each his own. To each her own.

  23. dduck August 25, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    dr. e., I can dig a metaphor (Jack and Jill went up a hill, we know what he metaphor).

    How about the gods put Prometheus in chains (regulations) because he gave fire (repeal of Glass-Steagal) to mankind (Wall Street).

  24. DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Managing Editor of TMV, and Columnist August 25, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    wasnt quite done with my comment, but… that was good dduck, I’ve often mentioned to you that your quick humor is amazing. Prometheus… hmmm….. that gives me an idea… for there’s far more to the Prometheus story about why and how all tangles came about… stay tuned. lol. If you like Greek mythos, you might google back to a story I did years ago at TMV when I first came on, about Daedelus and Ikaros.

  25. davidpsummers August 25, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    I’m sorry, I don’t think Biden intended to be racist by trying to paint all Mormons as racist is wrong, whether it is done directly or simply be “exploring” how racist Mormon roots are at a key moment. (Like if an article, a month after 9/11, explored how the Muslim religion is terrorist at its roots).

  26. adelinesdad August 25, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Dorian, I was trying to look up some counsel I’ve read on the topic, but I’m struggling to find what I’m looking for. In any case, it’s probably best if I just give it to you in my own words anyway.

    “If the president (of the Mormon Church) has special authority to speak the will of God, how does one know he is doing so or just being subject to the same prejudices and imperfections as people?”

    As much as the church emphasizes the importance of following the prophet, it also emphasizes the importance of personal revelation. James 1:5 is one of the most familiar scriptures to Mormons since it was the scripture that inspired Joseph Smith to pray to ask which church he should join, which led to the First Vision which, as the name implies, set in motion what eventually led to the establishment of the church. While our experience should not be expected to be as dramatic, we believe that we can receive personal revelation as taught by that scripture and others. As you said, the mind of God doesn’t change, then shouldn’t we expect James 1:5 to apply to us as much as it did in James’ time? For that matter, why should we not expect God not to call prophets just like he did before? But, I’ll come back to the question of God’s consistency later.

    Therefore, we are encouraged to seek out answers for ourselves regarding what is true, through reason and prayer, and we are specifically counseled to apply this to things we hear the prophet say also. We are not to blindly obey. We are to find out for ourselves if it is true.

    What do we do if our seeking leads us in a different direction on a certain matter? That is a tricky question. The metaphor that I’ve heard used is to “put in in the shelf” which means that we do not accept it but we also do not let it hold us back from accepting other things. Ultimately, our obligation is to find out what is true for ourselves and to act accordingly.

    I’ll give you an example: I don’t have a big problem with gay marriage. Personally I’m more of a libertarian on the issue and would prefer that the government divorce itself entirely from the concept of marriage. I’m not comfortable with the degree to which my church got involved in the matter. I don’t agree with some of the reasons the church put forth on why it was necessary to do so. But I don’t let my discomfort and disagreement weaken my faith on other matters. Maybe in the end I’ll find out I was wrong, or maybe not. But my obligation is to seek the truth and act accordingly.

    I imagine some will view that as a cop-out, and that what I should really do is protest. Just ignoring the issue seems weak. My thoughts on that matter are somewhat complex and I’m not confident I can express it well enough, so I’ll just say that it has to do with the fact that I think individualism is glorified in the world these days sometimes at the expense of community. Community is undervalued, which is a shame. The church encourages community, which I see a lot of value in. But strong communities sometimes requires sacrifice for the common good. Contention is counterproductive to community. I’ll leave it at that.

    I’ll try to return to your question of the consistency of God later. I think I’ve put enough on the table for now.

  27. DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist August 25, 2012 at 5:55 pm


    I appreciate the time, effort and courtesy to address my question.

    Your views are interesting, especially as they apply to the Mormon Church/Religion and I do look forward to your next comments.

    Thanks again,

  28. EEllis August 26, 2012 at 1:28 am

    Maybe you can point out those other frequent instances by regulars?

    When you have articles with the phrase “magic underwear”, which I believe I remember 2 and who knows if there were more, the idea that one needs to point out possible bigotry seems a bit much. I don’t here anyone making comments about “magic hats” for Jews or “magic necklaces” for Catholics so I think it’s safe to say there are some that at the least find Mormons a easy target where they need not be worried that anyone cares if they act bigoted.

    Not a Mormon myself but my best friends family is and their Bishop is Black. When looking for excuses for bigotry people will always find it.

  29. dduck August 26, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    EE, true, we humans sometimes pick on the weakest people and religions, because it is easy (less pushback). There is a little bully in all of us.

  30. SteveK August 26, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    The_Ohioan addressed EEllis’s “examples” up thread…

    The only other anti-Mormon remarks here that I’ve seen is from a fly-by troll that was chastened by z. Maybe you can point out those other frequent instances by regulars?

    … And he was correct.

    Nice try EEllis… thanks dduck.

  31. dduck August 26, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    SK, I still have no idea why we are talking about what an old Mormon said. Who cares. I care what Obama says, not Wright, I care what Ryan says, not an old Pope, and I care what Romney says, not Young.
    This is just smoke and invites criticism of a religion which should not taint a candidate but it could.

  32. EEllis August 26, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    The_Ohioan addressed EEllis’s “examples” up thread…
    And he was correct.
    Nice try EEllis… thanks dduck.

    That’s absurd. Like I said the articles used the words “magic underwear” in reference to Mormons sacred garments. That’s just plain making fun of someones religion, otherwise known as bigotry. That someone says they don’t remember it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and by the way The Ohioan never addressed my examples because one of the Authors is still a contributor so obviously not “fly by night”

  33. EEllis August 26, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    Mitt himself obvious has his underwear — special or otherwise — in a knot

    Real classy Mitt, but nobody ever asked Obama about his magic underwear, or all hell would break loose.

    Now these just happened but there have been others. No one remembers the back and forth with Shuan and Althouse about his comments? (seemingly gone after the update) Comments by Hart Williams? Give me a break, all you have to do is look.

  34. SteveK August 26, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Well EEllis as The_Ohioan said the only times he (I too for that matter) remember seeing the term used here at TMV was by YOU in this thread and some fly-by-night dude trying to scam his Mormon cartoons… His comments were deleted by TMV monitors and, as he hasn’t posted lately, he probably was banned.

    You’re constantly playing the “blame the liberal” game but you NEVER post links to backup anything you say.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that you do this because you don’t have any facts and you’re just making this ‘stuff’ up.

    Use the TMV ‘site search’ on the home page… You won’t find what you’re claiming because it doesn’t exist.

  35. EEllis August 26, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    I just posted two recent comments by authors on TMV but didn’t post names so as not to call them out. That isn’t “backup” Did you try the search function? The first quote by Janet Shaw comes right up. http://themoderatevoice.com/153526/mitt-romneys-income-tax-return-problem-i-love-the-smell-of-republican-panic-in-the-morning/ nyou’ll find Shauns post right there. Now again what was I lying about?

  36. dduck August 26, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Wait a minute isn’t SM exempt (especially with his entertaining headlines). He once said (and I am paraphrasing) that he is a has a special journalist license, or a badge, I can’t remember. (I read a lot of fiction, so it doesn’t bother me that much.)

  37. EEllis August 26, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    Hey disregard SM as you wish, but saying I’m making up his comments crosses a line. I realize many have different opinions but when I post facts I am very careful they are right.

  38. SteveK August 26, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    EEllis wrote: Like I said the articles used the words “magic underwear” in reference to Mormons sacred garments.

    Well, EE – I searched the TMV ‘site search’ for “magic underwear” and there was nothing there… Then I searched for just “underwear” and it came up with 52 hits. Out of those 52 only 2 were in reference to Mormon undergarments… The one you quoted and another comment from four years ago.

    In the thread you linked to The_Ohioan was the only one to say “magic underwear” and he said it being critical of it’s use (a veiled reference) in the article.

    So the truth of the matter is, according to TMV site search AND this thread, is that ONLY you and The_Ohioan (and me in my quotes) have used the term “Magic Underwear” on TMV and it’s use has both times been critical of the 2 veiled reference to said garments posted on TMV.

    Also – your comments in this thread seem to imply that TMV has an epidemic of people, lefties of course, as you imply it’s being used here against Mitt Romney… ALL THE TIME.

  39. DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist August 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm


    I did the same search and came up with identical results.

    And, as a matter of fact, The-Ohioan used the term “magical underwear” –as you say — critical of a passage that did not even include “magical underwear”

    Good work.

  40. DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist August 26, 2012 at 6:08 pm


    The problem now is that this thread is now brimming with “magical underwear” :)

  41. dduck August 26, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    You Make My Pants Want TO Dance- Dr. Hook

  42. DaGoat August 26, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    This was the one you were talking about dduck:


  43. SteveK August 26, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    It’s more like “Freaking at the Freaker’s Ball” around here today dduck.

    Good for you knowing (liking?) the good doctor.

  44. EEllis August 26, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    I gave 2 quotes and referenced more. Unfortunatly some, like shaun’s exchange with Althouse, don’t seem to have survived the format change.

  45. DaGoat August 26, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    Re my above link, the ninth comment was another one I had in mind.

  46. dduck August 26, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    SK, he is actually one of Mrs. Duck’s favorites along with Harry Nillson (put de lime in de coconut), I am more into jazz, or when I am reading intellectual stuff (horror fiction), Brahms (just joking).

  47. EEllis August 26, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    Look I didn’t make a claim to the frequincy of postings on Mormon underwear or who did so just that more than one author commented on said underwear. Your search turned up one case and I linked to another. If you look back my comment was in reference to how such things didn’t occur here. Well that was wrong. And no they are not a part of every post on Romney, but that wasn’t a point I was trying to make. I was just saying if it is that easy to find mocking comments by authors the claim that there is zero anti-mormonism, which is what the ohioan claimed, is pretty thin.

  48. SteveK August 26, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Thanks Dorian – The line between actual words, inferences and/or innuendos can blur at times but it seems we all think we can read intent better than the other guy and I think that’s the problem here. :)

  49. The_Ohioan August 26, 2012 at 7:31 pm


    I hardly think one article, which you linked to (or even a second article impossible for me to find without a link) is evidence that “Anti-Mormon ugliness has been rearing it’s head fairly frequently here at TMV”. If you are going to defend/accuse “fairly frequently” in an effort to disparage this website, or liberals, you will have to come up with a little more proof.

    I’ve been offended by some names people call my God with derision and some follies attributed to my mainstream religion, when they really mean overboard evangelicals, but I simply consider the sources to be either uneducated about the subject, or indiscriminating in their efforts to place blame about one thing or another; but I really don’t see a lot of it here. If it pops up, it’s up to everyone to call it out as some of us have been doing.

    Dr. E.’s attempt to conflate current political talk of enslavement (racial or financial) with previous attempts of actual enslavement may have been offputting to some of us. The redemption of the Mormon church which has mitigated past wrongheaded actions should always be emphasized in such discussions. Many religions have had wrongheaded leaders and actions in their past. Some have not yet redeemed themselves in the world’s eyes, some are newer at it, and some are just not really religions at all.

    Race, religion, and politics are topics I and my friends in Ohio – on the Mason-Dixon line – try to stay away from; with good reason.

  50. The_Ohioan August 26, 2012 at 7:41 pm


    Second link is now available. Everyone can make their own decision about all these articles and comments and about how this website is or is not an anti-Mormon site. Personally, if I thought it was, I wouldn’t be here. We all need redemption all the time and that’s the truth.

  51. DaGoat August 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    Here’s another thread comment, you can google it for more info

    Not all mormon men all gay bashers… but in my personal life, the only gay bashers I have ever met where all mormon. (sp)

  52. DaGoat August 26, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    Not sure what to make of this one, the headline is:

    EYEpopper: Mormon Romney’s Veep Ryan is Catholic & Deep Admirer of Ayn Rand. Here’s Ayn Rand on Abortion…


    The article is about the conflict between Catholicism and Ayn Rand’s philosophy, so I’m not sure where “Mormon Romney” fits in.

  53. dduck August 26, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    Ohio, there should be room at the Inn/TMV for all agreers, dissenters and insulters, as long as it is not personally directed at other TMVers. Call atheists idiots dolts and anything worse and I have no problem. Same with the political area. Too much agreeing leads to a nation of lemmings. Bring it on.
    Sorry if that sounded like a lecture, but I sorta miss the old wild west days around here.

  54. DaGoat August 26, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    TO I didn’t say TMV was an anti-Mormon site, I just said anti-Mormon ugliness had been showing up. Actually going back through the comments today I was struck by how most people are very careful not to say things that could be construed as anti-Mormon. Still, I think my comment was accurate and I don’t see what purpose bringing up Brigham Young’s racism serves. Obviously it’s going to be viewed in the context of the current campaign.

  55. EEllis August 26, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    Ohio please do not attribute stuff to me that I didn’t say. You said you never saw any sign of any anti mormon statments and that I mentioned that I had and showed that it was by contributors not comentors. I more than proved my point and don’t feel any need to try and prove some other point that I never mentioned.

  56. davidpsummers August 26, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    I don’t know that I would say that anti-Mormon ugliness has been “frequent”. I know that it is sad that it has been here. The example I remember best from the past was the one that help promote the canard that Mormon were baptizing people form different religions posthumously (while ignoring or refusing to understand the view that these baptisms aren’t forced on the soul).

  57. The_Ohioan August 26, 2012 at 11:24 pm


    I haven’t been here that long and wouldn’t want to participate in “Wild West” commentary, though it would be fun to read. :-) Luckily trolls are quickly eliminated here. I would like people to be more specific when charges are made, however. Apparently the word “frequent” has multiple meanings and some of them elude me.


    I agree with you that any discussion of Romney’s religion, or anyone else’s religion, other than how it would affect public policy should be discouraged. My only cavil with your original comment was with how frequently it was being introduced on this site. Comments about current Mormon church actions, as with any other church’s actions that affect public policy are perfectly valid, however, whether for or against a particular church. The fact that the Mormon church, among many others, contributes heavily to anti-same-sex marriage efforts, for instance, is true and does affect public policy and should be commented on.


    What can I say? You took umbrage with my statement that the only anti-Mormon statements I’d seen were by a fly-by troll who had been chastened by z and questioned how frequently that had occurred. You proved that that particular phrase “magic underwear” has only occurred in my response while castigating an author about what I considered a shameful reference in his article. I misunderstood when you included my question of frequency in your first comment. I thought you were trying to prove how frequently such articles and comments show up here which was the original complaint.

    As far as attributing stuff, I never said there were zero comments. I never said I saw no sign of any anti mormon statements. I said the only anti-Mormon statements I’d seen were made by a fly-by troll who had been chastened by z and questioned how frequently it occurred; the attribution game is difficult to play well since all our comments are right there to see.

  58. adelinesdad August 27, 2012 at 12:13 am


    I’ll have to pass on the follow-up comment that I suggested I’d give. Given the direction this thread has taken, I hope you’ll understand that I don’t feel this is the right forum to get deeply into such a deep theological topic. Not that I’m offended by the discussion going on, it’s just not the right context.

    Regarding whether or not anti-Mormon sentiment has been frequent on TMV, I’ll decline to comment since I’m obviously not a neutral observer. I guess I’m still here, so that says something, although I don’t take offense easily.

    But with regards to anti-Mormon sentiment in general, and in particular the “magic underwear” thing. I’ve been doing some thinking on what it says about our culture that we are so fascinated by it. Mormons point out that we are not the only ones who hold certain clothing to have special meaning, although most of the time it’s visible clothing and sometimes only ceremonial. But, I recently came across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kacchera

    I do have to wonder if those belittling and poking fun at Mormons for this practice would also do it to Sikhs (on the other hand, aren’t they already?). I think probably not, which begs the question: why? My theory: Sikhism is viewed as perhaps an exotic religion. Much like you might look at a strange artifact in a museum, you would not make fun of its strangeness, but rather appreciate the cultural difference. But, Mormons are far too “normal” to have such unusual customs, it seems. They are supposed to participate in the “sillification” of our culture, where no object can be sacred, private, or even particularly meaningful, and especially not underwear, for goodness sake. I know that’s true because the ads I see tell me underwear is only for being silly or sexy, and thus it must be so.

  59. SteveK August 27, 2012 at 12:21 am

    Very, very well said The_Ohioan.

    In re-reading ALL the comments in this thread it becomes apparent that the intent of the commenters you’ve replied to isn’t eliminating anti-Mormon comments at TMV, the lack of such comments in any quantity has already been shown.

    They are simply trying to make evil something that doesn’t exist. Pretending that we ‘lefties’ are wrong is a major platform in their out to lunch wing-nut agenda… All their other ‘planks’ are currently being laughed at and/or ridiculed by the majority of Americans.

    Q.E.D. There are several regular commenters here of the Mormon faith but those who have commented in this thread dropped out early on. Why? Maybe it’s because this whole attack on a non-existent problem is simply flapdoodle invented by the “I’m not a Mormon BUT” bunch and they see it.

    Welcome back and good timing adelinesdad. A question: Do you feel that TMV is infiltrated with commenters ridiculing your “magic underwear” or that it’s a Moderate Voice?

  60. adelinesdad August 27, 2012 at 12:27 am

    To clarify, I don’t mean to suggest Sikhs and other “exotic” religions don’t face severe prejudice, but my point is that prejudice is condemned by those who profess tolerance, while Mormonism, and in particular some of its more unusual practices, are viewed by some as unworthy of such respect.

  61. adelinesdad August 27, 2012 at 12:39 am


    Like I said, I’ll pass on being the official referee.:)

    But, it’s a little ironic that we’re having this debate in the comment section of this post which many have agreed does cross the line. But I recognize that the argument has more to do with the trend or lack thereof. I’m giving Dr. E a bit of leeway here because I’ve sensed from previous writings that there is usually more than meets the eye in some of her writing, and I respect the fact that she recognizes, as I do, that truth is complex and sometimes concise, linear arguments don’t suffice. However, regardless of her intent, I stand by my statement that this sort of thing “is the kindling of bigotry and whisper campaigns.”

  62. EEllis August 27, 2012 at 5:40 am

    You proved that that particular phrase “magic underwear” has only occurred in my response while castigating an author about what I considered a shameful reference in his article.

    I’m a bit dumbfounded that you and SK keep misrepresenting facts. You said you never saw any sign of bigotry, paraphrasing of course, I said there was and showed examples. of which you and your statments were never a part of.

    Mitt himself obvious has his underwear — special or otherwise — in a knot

    Real classy Mitt, but nobody ever asked Obama about his magic underwear, or all hell would break loose.

    These were comments recently in articles posted on this site. So unless you think using the word “special” instead of magic makes all the difference I don’t get your attitude.

  63. dduck August 27, 2012 at 9:15 am

    Pandora’s Box ain’t just a music web site.

  64. DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist August 27, 2012 at 9:56 am

    No problem, AD, and thanks for your earlier comment. I plan to write a little post on this subject — perhaps “casting a wider net” — a I would really like to hear the opinions of those who are more knowledgeable of religion, faith, theology, etc. than poor ole me.