Is This Blog Anti-Mormon?

Answer: NO!  


Recently this blog was accused of being anti-Mormon, so I thought I'd clear that garbage up right now. I shouldn't have to defend this, but I will anyway because we all know the accusation is going to arise.  As Hugh Nibley once put it, "True knowledge never shuts the door on more knowledge, but zeal often does."


First, I am an active, return missionary, recommend carrying Latter-Day Saint.  I'm sealed, love my family, I attend my meetings, home teach, and I serve in various callings.


Secondly, the information I have shared on this blog has been exclusively from LDS sources (well, except for the article from the Salt Lake Tribune... the author was probably LDS considering it was the SLT, but there is no way of knowing).  I have NOT relied upon any anti-Mormon sources for any of the information shared on this blog.  The information shared about Cleon Skousen for instance, comes from Cleon Skousen.  The information shared about Ezra Taft Benson, comes from Ezra Taft Benson.  Quotes from other leaders about Ezra Taft Benson come from Gregory Prince's book, "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism".  Gregory Prince is an LDS scholar who writes about LDS history.  He is, quite literally, a gentleman and a scholar.


The purpose of this blog is to acknowledge that Ezra Taft Benson was both a religious man and a political man.  It is to acknowledge that his political views still carry much weight within the LDS community, and it is to point out that while he was a great Prophet... his politics were crazy.  Another purpose of this blog is to point out that other Church leaders agreed on that last point.  Lastly, the purpose of this blog is show that doctrine is one thing, personal opinions are another, and it doesn't matter who you are or what position you hold, when you speak on things that are not doctrinal... your opinions are up for debate and discussion.  


I quote Elder Dallin H. Oaks: 


"When churches or church leaders choose to enter the public sector to engage in debate on a matter of public policy, they should be admitted to the debate and they should expect to participate in it on the same basis as all other participants. In other words, if churches or church leaders choose to oppose or favor a particular piece of legislation, their opinions should be received on the same basis as the opinions offered by other knowledgeable organizations or persons, and they should be considered on their merits. By the same token, churches and church leaders should expect the same broad latitude of discussion of their views that conventionally applies to everyone else’s participation in public policy debates."


So, Ezra Taft Benson's personal political opinions are up for a "broad latitude of discussion".


Game on.

This blog does not endorse it.