Discussing Racism in LDS History: A Compassionate Approach

Recently, I received a message regarding a heated discussion over at Glen E. Chatfield’s blog, specifically on his recent post titled Some Quick Thoughts About LDS Racism. The conversation highlights familiar critiques of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) concerning race and the historical statements of its early leaders, such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor. Glen's post sparked debate, as he shared selective quotes and commentary, portraying them as definitive proof of irredeemable racism within the church's teachings.

The message I received pointed out Glen’s approach, which some have characterized as dismissive, overly combative, and even toxic in its rhetoric. It seems that attempts to engage thoughtfully with Glen are often met with accusations of trolling or being part of a so-called "cult," rather than fostering meaningful discussion. Moreover, his repeated refusal to consider historical or cultural context, coupled with inflammatory language, reflects a troubling pattern in these types of exchanges.

In this response, I aim to address several aspects of this ongoing dialogue from a thoughtful and mindful Latter-day Saint Christian perspective. I’ll provide context regarding the historical critiques of the church, insights into Glen’s methods and tone, and a discussion on how we can approach such topics constructively and with Christlike compassion. It’s my hope that this response will encourage not only a deeper understanding of the issues but also a spirit of civility and mutual respect, which should guide any dialogue among those who profess to follow Jesus Christ.

The following comments, which appear to have been submitted by an anonymous commentator, were reportedly denied publication by Glen E. Chatfield. In the interest of transparency, I am choosing to publish the individual’s full comment here. However, it is important to note that due to Blogger's limitations on the length of comments, the original message seems to have been divided into multiple separate comments. Below is the complete content as submitted:

Thank you for sharing your perspective, Glenn. Discussions about historical and doctrinal critiques are undoubtedly complex and often elicit strong emotions. I appreciate your engagement and the resources you’ve provided to support your viewpoint.

However, I’d like to suggest a more balanced approach to this discussion, as Timothy’s article emphasizes the importance of historical context in understanding these issues. While criticisms of early LDS leaders and their views on race are valid and deserve examination, the article provides a broader lens by situating these views within 19th-century American society—a time when racial biases were pervasive across many institutions, including Christianity at large.

Timothy’s article is not intended to dismiss or justify troubling aspects of the past but rather to invite readers to consider the social, cultural, and religious norms of the time. This approach helps to foster a more nuanced understanding of how these leaders navigated a complex and imperfect world. While it’s crucial to hold historical figures accountable, understanding their context allows for a fairer critique and deeper insight into their actions and beliefs.

Lastly, I encourage us all to approach these discussions with respect and openness. Strong language and personal accusations can detract from the thoughtful exchange of ideas and diminish opportunities for meaningful dialogue. Let’s strive for a tone that fosters understanding, even when we disagree.

Thank you again for engaging in this important conversation. I look forward to further discussions that allow us all to grow in understanding and compassion.

"For you to know anything about someone's response means you were either the troll or working with the troll."

I found Timothy's website through a link on his X/Twitter account, where he referenced your post. Your assumption that I’m a troll or collaborating with one is baseless and dismissive, undermining any productive discussion. Ironically, this mirrors the ad hominem attacks you’ve criticized.

---

"The context of LDS racism had nothing to do with the culture, and any Mormon articles saying otherwise are lies."

This claim ignores the thoughtful points Timothy raised. His article highlights how racism in early LDS teachings was shaped by broader 19th-century societal norms, a fact also evident in mainstream Christian theology of the time. Instead of dismissing these arguments as lies, do you have substantive evidence to refute them?

---

"Joseph Smith started the racism, and he supposedly was a prophet of God and got his teachings from God."

This statement disregards the systemic racism entrenched in 19th-century Christian teachings long before Joseph Smith. Timothy’s article addresses this context in detail. How do you reconcile your claim with the broader historical realities he outlines?

---

Your Provided Resources

Your resources seem aimed at reinforcing a specific narrative rather than engaging thoughtfully with differing perspectives. Timothy’s article takes a more balanced approach, providing historical and theological context. If you disagree with his points, where specifically do you find fault?

---

"Black skin was given as a mark… how come their skin is still black?"

This comment comes across as dismissive rather than an attempt to understand the complexities Timothy discusses. His article addresses the evolution of LDS teachings on race. Do you have any substantive counterpoints to his explanation?

---

"I can bury you with evidence that LDS racism had nothing to do with culture…"

Timothy argues convincingly that early LDS teachings on race reflected 19th-century societal biases. Instead of dismissing his position, can you provide evidence to counter his historical and theological analysis?

---

Final Thoughts

Timothy’s response is far more thoughtful and contextual, addressing the nuances of history and theology. In contrast, your comments rely on dismissiveness rather than substantive rebuttal. Do you have evidence or well-reasoned points to engage with his article meaningfully? Without such engagement, your stance risks appearing biased and reactionary.

The anonymous person provided this final comment - uncertain it will do any good or be received in good spirits by Glen E. Chatfield:

Glen, I appreciate the time and effort you put into sharing your perspective. However, I must express my concern regarding the apparent lack of openness to engaging with differing viewpoints, particularly on sensitive and important topics like 19th-century culture, slavery, and racism. These issues require us to approach discussions with grace, humility, and a willingness to listen and learn—qualities that are foundational to a Christ-like attitude.

As Christians, we are called to emulate Christ's compassion and understanding, even when faced with challenging conversations. Avoiding dialogue or dismissing alternative perspectives can come across as closed-minded and counterproductive, especially when addressing complex historical and social issues that still resonate today.

I recently reached out to Timothy regarding his commentary, and I was encouraged by his openness to dialogue and his willingness to publicly acknowledge and correct any errors he may have made. This humility is a commendable example of how we can approach these discussions with integrity and sincerity. He even extended an invitation for you to engage with his recent post on the subject.

I encourage you to consider participating in this dialogue. It’s an opportunity to explore a compassionate and constructive exchange of ideas while embodying the principles of grace and truth that Christ taught. If we find that we are in error—whether in understanding or approach—it is both honorable and Christ-like to acknowledge and correct those missteps.

I hope this message can be received in the spirit it is intended: not as an attack, but as an appeal for greater understanding, reflection, and unity in our efforts to navigate these important discussions. Together, through mutual respect and humility, we can foster a meaningful dialogue that aligns with our shared Christian values.

In faith and hope,

This type of exchange is familiar territory for me. It reflects a common dynamic often encountered by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) in conversations with Christian apologists on the internet. These interactions frequently involve attempts to challenge or discredit LDS beliefs, scriptures, or testimonies, often under the guise of fostering theological debate or "correcting" perceived errors.

For many Latter-day Saints, these exchanges feel like an intentional effort to undermine deeply personal faith experiences, such as their testimony of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, or the Restoration of the Gospel. The tone and approach in these dialogues can vary—ranging from respectful inquiry to outright dismissal or ridicule of LDS teachings.

Such experiences are not isolated to digital platforms but reflect a broader historical and cultural tension between traditional Christian denominations and the unique doctrines of the LDS faith. For faithful members of the Church, these exchanges often serve as opportunities to reaffirm their faith through study, prayer, and a reliance on their spiritual witness. They also highlight the ongoing challenge of interfaith dialogue: finding ways to engage in meaningful, respectful conversations without compromising one's beliefs or invalidating the faith of others.

To approach this sensitive and complex issue from a Latter-day Saint Christian perspective, I’ll offer insights aimed at fostering mutual respect, understanding, and constructive dialogue while also addressing the specific behaviors and dynamics in question. This response will explore the importance of historical context, the pitfalls of dismissive rhetoric, the responsibilities of those engaging in apologetics, and the overarching Christian call to emulate Christlike behavior in all interactions.

1. The Importance of Historical Context

Understanding the past requires acknowledging the norms, beliefs, and societal pressures of the time. Leaders like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor lived in 19th-century America—a period steeped in widespread racial prejudice across political, social, and religious institutions. While this does not excuse troubling statements or policies, it does provide a necessary backdrop to assess them accurately.

Critics often isolate remarks or policies without acknowledging that such views were common in other Christian denominations, civic institutions, and legal frameworks of the era. For instance:

• Segregation and the denial of civil rights were legally and socially enforced.
• Many prominent religious leaders outside the LDS Church held and taught racial beliefs similar to those critiqued within Mormonism.

By ignoring this context, critiques risk misrepresenting not only LDS history but also the societal challenges faced by those trying to navigate complex theological and social questions. The LDS Church has openly acknowledged past issues related to race, as seen in its 2013 essay, Race and the Priesthood, which denounces racism and emphasizes equality as a gospel principle.

2. Challenges in Apologetics: Toxic Behavior and Dismissive Rhetoric

Engaging in apologetics requires humility, charity, and a commitment to truth. Unfortunately, Glen E. Chatfield’s exchanges, as highlighted in this discussion, demonstrate several troubling tendencies:

• Dismissiveness: By labeling dissenting voices as "trolls" or refusing to engage further, he shuts down meaningful dialogue. This prevents the opportunity to correct misunderstandings or build bridges.
• Toxic Apologetics: The tone and approach—using loaded language like "cult" and "indefensible"—escalate conflict rather than fostering thoughtful discussion. This style often prioritizes winning an argument over sharing truth or understanding.
• Ad Hominem Attacks: Attacking the character of those who disagree rather than addressing their arguments undermines the credibility of any position. Such behavior contradicts the scriptural admonition to “contend no more against the Holy Ghost, but… receive it, and take upon you the name of Christ” (3 Nephi 27:27).

Constructive apologetics requires a recognition that those who disagree are still children of God. Effective engagement seeks to educate and uplift, not belittle or demean.

3. Nuance in Addressing LDS Leadership and Race

It is crucial to understand that church leaders, despite their prophetic callings, are human and subject to the limitations of their time. In LDS theology, prophets are not considered infallible—a principle that applies to all religious traditions. The Apostle Paul himself acknowledged his human imperfections (see Romans 7:15-20).

The LDS Church’s evolution on race mirrors broader societal changes. For example:

• The priesthood restriction, while deeply painful and divisive, must be understood within a context of evolving church policy and understanding. The 1978 revelation lifting this restriction marked a significant shift, emphasizing the inclusive message of the gospel.
• Modern LDS teachings stress that all individuals are children of God, with President Russell M. Nelson and other leaders speaking out against racism and urging love and unity.

This evolution underscores the principle of ongoing revelation—an acknowledgment that God’s work with humanity continues and that His servants grow in their understanding.

4. Narcissistic Tendencies in Polemical Discussions

Glen E. Chatfield’s interactions exhibit traits often associated with narcissistic behavior in contentious discourse:

• Refusal to Acknowledge Valid Criticism: By dismissing responses outright, he demonstrates an unwillingness to engage with alternate perspectives, even when presented respectfully.
• Projection of Absolute Certainty: His insistence that critics are “refusing to accept facts” ignores the possibility that his interpretation may be flawed or incomplete.
• Emotional Escalation: The use of inflammatory language suggests an attempt to dominate the conversation rather than seek mutual understanding.

Such behaviors can harm productive dialogue and alienate individuals genuinely seeking truth.

5. A Christlike Approach to Discourse

As Christians, we are called to emulate the Savior’s example in our interactions, especially when discussing sensitive topics. Christ taught us to:

• Love Our Enemies: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you” (Matthew 5:44). This includes engaging respectfully with those who challenge our beliefs.
• Seek Understanding: The Savior often asked questions to invite self-reflection and understanding, rather than resorting to condemnation.
• Speak the Truth in Love: Paul reminded the Ephesians to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), balancing honesty with compassion.

Dialogue grounded in these principles can transform contention into understanding and enmity into respect.

Conclusion: A Call to Constructive Engagement

Addressing critiques of LDS history, doctrine, or leadership requires a balance of humility, historical awareness, and Christlike love. While the issues surrounding race and the early church are complex, they should be approached with a spirit of seeking truth rather than proving others wrong.

Glen E. Chatfield’s approach, as evidenced in this exchange, undermines the Christian principles of charity and humility. By engaging dismissively and resorting to toxic rhetoric, he misses opportunities to foster meaningful dialogue. As followers of Christ, we should strive to rise above such tendencies, seeking instead to build bridges of understanding and faith.

In the end, our goal should not be to “win” arguments but to lead others closer to the Savior. As the Book of Mormon teaches, “When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God” (Mosiah 2:17). Let our conversations reflect this divine mandate.