LivingHistory: Mormonism’s ‘9/11 mosque moment’ came in 1903

[Like]

I saw this and thought some here would enjoy reading this:

Living History: Mormonism’s ‘9/11 mosque moment’ came in 1903

Before a proposed mosque in Manhattan focused the nation’s attention on “terroristic” tendencies of everyday Muslims, Mormons faced the same scrutiny.

The Mormon “9/11 Mosque” moment happened more than 100 years earlier. In 1903, the Utah Legislature elected LDS Apostle Reed Smoot as U.S. senator from Utah (this was before the 17th Amendment, which provided for election to the Senate by popular vote). The vote in the Legislature broke along party lines: 46 for Republican Smoot, 16 for his Democratic rival.

The nation nearly had kittens.

Pent-up suspicion and venom against Mormons erupted in furious broadsides by Christian ministers, politicians and self-appointed committees of public and moral safety. About 3,100 petitions arrived in Washington demanding that Congress not seat the Mormon from Utah.

Historian Kathleen Flake noted, “What remains of these public petitions fills 11 feet of shelf space, the largest such collection in the National Archives.”

The Senate, led by that body’s most upright Protestants, blocked Smoot from taking his seat. A committee headed by Sen. Julius Caesar Burrows of Michigan was appointed to look into the charges against him. Allegations of Smoot’s being a polygamist were false, but the real problem was his apostleship.

With its long history of recalcitrance, obstruction and outright disobedience to the United States government over polygamy, the LDS Church’s loyalty was doubted by patriotic Americans. Over the years public opinion had been formed by anti-Mormon exposés such as, “An Exposition; The Doctrines, Rites and Ceremonies of Latter Day Saints, or Mormons, Exposed; showing from their Own Books, &c., That They are, without Exception, the Most Depraved, Immoral, Blasphemous, and Ridiculous Sect that Ever Polluted this Earth.” Allowing one of the leaders of that same sect into the Senate would be like inviting a viper into the very bosom of American democracy.

Today, when a Mormon stands a good chance of being the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 (Mitt Romney), and another Mormon is the most popular thing on the airwaves since Father Coughlin exposed Franklin D. Roosevelt as a communist (Glenn Beck), it’s easy to forget that Mormonism was held in such bad odor. It was worse than bad.
There were dozens of popular novels like Orvilla S. Belisle’s Mormonism Unveiled, which depicted Mormons as deluded cranks and lawless murderers, thieves and adulterers. Plenty of lurid passages on harems and promiscuity were thrown in for a little color. Even Arthur Conan Doyle’s very first Sherlock Holmes story, “A Study in Scarlet,” depicts the Mormon hierarchy as depraved despots.

It was hard to get the Mormon side of the argument when nobody particularly cared to hear it. The mayor of New York banned Mormon missionaries from preaching in his city. In the South, Mormon elders were regularly tarred and feathered.

Upon becoming church president, Joseph F. Smith despaired: “We’ve got a problem. There are good people on this earth who think they’re doing God a service to kill us.”

The Reed Smoot hearings was the 1974 Watergate/Clinton impeachment/Blagojevich trial, all rolled into one. According to Flake, “spectators lined the halls, waiting for limited seats in the committee room, and filled the galleries to hear floor debates. For those who could not see for themselves, journalists and cartoonists depicted each day’s admission and outrage. At the height of the hearing, some senators were receiving a thousand letters a day from angry constituents.”

The hearings lasted four years. In the end, the committee recommended against giving Smoot his seat. He was seated anyway on a vote of the full Senate, which pivoted on party and political considerations rather than Smoot’s Mormon-ness.

Imagine his upright opponents’ pleasant surprise when Smoot turned out to be every bit as bigoted as themselves. In time he became one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate; a proud high point being a 1930 debate in which he forcefully argued for the government to ban books.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50144 ... m.html.csp

[singyourwayhome]

It is not the same. The Salt Lake Tribune is also not known for kind portrayals of LDS.
The only thing the two stories have in common is religion and protest. One is about trying to reject a representative of Utah and the Mormons, the other is about rejecting a particular building in a particular place. The outcry isn't over letting the Muslims have a presence in our country, it's about the PLACE for their building, as well as some of the things the Imam has said about its symbolism. I don't know of anyone who is banning a mosque from being built- they just don't want it THERE. About any other place is fine.

As far as Senator Smoot being 'bigoted' and banning books, here's some that I found about him, included in a list of the Top Ten Banned Books...

"In 1930, Senator Bronson Cutting proposed an amendment to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was then being debated, ending the practice of having U.S. Customs censor allegedly obscene books imported to U.S. shores. Senator Reed Smoot vigorously opposed such an amendment, threatening to publicly read indecent passages of imported books in front of the Senate. Although he never followed through, he included Lady Chatterley's Lover as an example of an obscene book that must not reach domestic audiences, declaring "I've not taken ten minutes on Lady Chatterley's Lover, outside of looking at its opening pages. It is most damnable! It is written by a man with a diseased mind and a soul so black that he would obscure even the darkness of hell!" -Wikipedia.org
Read more: http://www.bukisa.com/articles/286625_t ... z0xSHqoKNC
and: "Regarding the meaning of "smoot", there was a U.S. Senator from Utah named Reed Owen Smoot (1862-1941), who is best known for a strongly protectionist tariff, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930; and for a fight against pornography, which led to the classic headline in many newspapers, "Smoot Smites Smut". "
Sounds like the Trib changing "stands up for decency" to "bigoted"...

[pritchet1]

No, it is a rejection of a political/religious Sharia law system (Islam intended to destroy all infidels) from being implemented wholesale in the US.

LDS are considered in the pack of infidels, so we are also in their sights for destruction, if we do not "convert".

Remember the Ori;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ori_(Stargate)

[Like]

I thought 9/11 was an inside job?

[Hyrcanus]

It is not the same. The Salt Lake Tribune is also not known for kind portrayals of LDS.
The only thing the two stories have in common is religion and protest. One is about trying to reject a representative of Utah and the Mormons, the other is about rejecting a particular building in a particular place. The outcry isn't over letting the Muslims have a presence in our country, it's about the PLACE for their building, as well as some of the things the Imam has said about its symbolism. I don't know of anyone who is banning a mosque from being built- they just don't want it THERE. About any other place is fine.

As far as Senator Smoot being 'bigoted' and banning books, here's some that I found about him, included in a list of the Top Ten Banned Books...

"In 1930, Senator Bronson Cutting proposed an amendment to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was then being debated, ending the practice of having U.S. Customs censor allegedly obscene books imported to U.S. shores. Senator Reed Smoot vigorously opposed such an amendment, threatening to publicly read indecent passages of imported books in front of the Senate. Although he never followed through, he included Lady Chatterley's Lover as an example of an obscene book that must not reach domestic audiences, declaring "I've not taken ten minutes on Lady Chatterley's Lover, outside of looking at its opening pages. It is most damnable! It is written by a man with a diseased mind and a soul so black that he would obscure even the darkness of hell!" -Wikipedia.org
Read more: http://www.bukisa.com/articles/286625_t ... z0xSHqoKNC
and: "Regarding the meaning of "smoot", there was a U.S. Senator from Utah named Reed Owen Smoot (1862-1941), who is best known for a strongly protectionist tariff, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930; and for a fight against pornography, which led to the classic headline in many newspapers, "Smoot Smites Smut". "
Sounds like the Trib changing "stands up for decency" to "bigoted"...

Why should the government get any say in what a religion buys and builds wherever they please? It is amazing the liberty we will give up when they're persecuting a cause that isn't ours.

[pritchet1]

.

[singyourwayhome]

Why should the government get any say in what a religion buys and builds wherever they please? It is amazing the liberty we will give up when they're persecuting a cause that isn't ours.

I don't think the government should have a say in this, except for their LOCAL government, which is (should be) more directly influenced by the will of the people.

[Hyrcanus]

Why should the government get any say in what a religion buys and builds wherever they please? It is amazing the liberty we will give up when they're persecuting a cause that isn't ours.

I don't think the government should have a say in this, except for their LOCAL government, which is (should be) more directly influenced by the will of the people.

Influenced by the will of the people to persecute a religion the people dislike? Federal, State or Local, I think the government needs to stay out.

[singyourwayhome]

Local government involvement just because they're the ones issuing building permits.

How is this persecution? It's simply saying no to a location, not to a religion or group. Nobody's kicking the Muslims out of the city or nation, or killing them. That's FAR different from what happened with the Mormons....

[pritchet1]

NYC already has 100 mosques.

[Mosby]

Smokescreen.

This whole issue is silly. For anyone who claims to be an American and is freaking out about a "Mosque" (it's actually a community center) TWO BLOCKS away from the "sacred ground" -(or a monument to the mother of all false flags) is insane. Either you believe in the right(s) of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and private property- or you don't.

For Christian/LDS folks, it's downright disgusting.

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

anyone here recognize this?

[Hyrcanus]

Local government involvement just because they're the ones issuing building permits.

How is this persecution? It's simply saying no to a location, not to a religion or group. Nobody's kicking the Muslims out of the city or nation, or killing them. That's FAR different from what happened with the Mormons....

It is persecution of a religion because they are objecting to the building entirely because it is a mosque. They bought the land and have the funds to build the structure, they should have just as much right to build a place of worship there as our church does. Just because they aren't being driven out or killed doesn't make the persecution acceptable. It also doesn't matter how many mosques are already in the city, do we want NYC to tell us that because we already have 100 chapels in the area, we've reached our limit?

This is ridiculous, we should be ashamed of ourselves that this is getting the national press over much more important issues.

[pritchet1]

.

[Hyrcanus]

In this case it is a "Victory Mosque", just like the ones on Jerusalem's temple mount and in Cordoba Spain.

Islam is not a religious entity, it is a totalitarian government cult organization, dedicated to your destruction as an infidel, if you do not convert. And if you get baptized into the church from Islam (Apostolic permission granted by a General Authority), you have to live as a secret Latter-day Saint or you will be put to death as a mercy killing by your Muslim relatives, if discovered. And they will not be punished for killing you. It is a religion of hate, dedicated to the author of lies (Taqiyya), not of love.

http://americangrandjury.org/the-fox-ne ... e#comments

It has no place in this country and is antithetical to the US Constitution and freedom. You cannot be a good muslim and believe in Freedom.

(And one wonders why the current POTUS hasn't become a target for a mercy killing, as a so-called converted Muslim to Christianity.)

People said almost exactly the same things about us 120 years ago. Not all of Islam is that extreme, and I think you know that.

For as much flak as we get for being inappropriately labeled a cult, I find it hopelessly ironic that you're calling Islam a cult in order to justify the government putting its boot heel on the freedom of religion and property rights.

[InfoWarrior82]

The question is: Do they have the RIGHT to build it? vs. Should they build it?

Answer: Yes, they do have the RIGHT to build it. On the other hand, it's in bad taste. It's quite obvious that those in charge of building the mosque have every intention of sticking a finger in the eye of the US. Also, the Imam should be investigated. He is absolutely shady.

[pritchet1]

.

[KalelIsbell]

In this case it is a "Victory Mosque", just like the ones on Jerusalem's temple mount and in Cordoba Spain.

Islam is not a religious entity, it is a totalitarian government cult organization, dedicated to your destruction as an infidel, if you do not convert. And if you get baptized into the church from Islam (Apostolic permission granted by a General Authority), you have to live as a secret Latter-day Saint or you will be put to death as a mercy killing by your Muslim relatives, if discovered. And they will not be punished for killing you. It is a religion of hate, dedicated to the author of lies (Taqiyya), not of love.

http://americangrandjury.org/the-fox-ne ... e#comments

It has no place in this country and is antithetical to the US Constitution and freedom. You cannot be a good muslim and believe in Freedom.

(And one wonders why the current POTUS hasn't become a target for a mercy killing, as a so-called converted Muslim to Christianity.)

People said almost exactly the same things about us 120 years ago. Not all of Islam is that extreme, and I think you know that.

For as much flak as we get for being inappropriately labeled a cult, I find it hopelessly ironic that you're calling Islam a cult in order to justify the government putting its boot heel on the freedom of religion and property rights.

i dont remember the Mormon church, or any mormon cutting off the heads of the people that they did not agree with????

[singyourwayhome]

Pritchet, there are many sects within Islam. Have you read any of the Koran? Those who really live by it are taught to be kind and merciful. Only some of the groups pervert its teachings badly.

I don't have any say in if they build the mosque or not, and I don't feel jipped about that, either. I'm just responding to the questions brought up, but it's not up to me. Or you, unless you live in NYC. It is ridiculous that this has become a national issue, because I believe it should be taken care of locally.

The question is: Do they have the RIGHT to build it? vs. Should they build it?

Answer: Yes, they do have the RIGHT to build it. On the other hand, it's in bad taste. It's quite obvious that those in charge of building the mosque have every intention of sticking a finger in the eye of the US. Also, the Imam should be investigated. He is absolutely shady.

Well said.

[pritchet1]

Listen to the Qur'an online - http://www.listen2quran.com/ (Can someone do something like that online for LDS Scriptures?)

The Qur'an Explorer - http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/

And here - http://quran.com/

Hadith as Qu'ran supplements - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

[Hyrcanus]

i dont remember the Mormon church, or any mormon cutting off the heads of the people that they did not agree with????

We've had our own history of people on the fringes of our beliefs doing some really awful things. At the height of our persecution, we had the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Many moderate Muslims think of the Taliban and other Muslim extremists in much the same way we think of John D Lee and his cohorts.

Reading through the Smoot hearings will give you some insight into the sort of things people thought about us outside of Utah. Suffice it to say that I don't think our present day opinion of Muslims differed much from the average opinion of us in the 1900's. We basically fought a small war against the US government in definance of their laws.

Do I agree with everything the Quaran says? Certainly not. Do I think they need the truth of the Gospel in their lives? Absolutely. Do I think that we have the right to tell them what they can build on their own land? No. Freedom of Religion has to cut both ways, we can't only invoke it when it suits our puposes and seek to supress it when it doesn't.

[pritchet1]

.

[Hyrcanus]

I don't see us (LDS) doing as the Spaniards did in Central America, by destroying temples and building churches on their foundations or by building our own temples over existing synagogues or other Christian edifices as "Victory" monuments as symbols of conquest.

That is what this facility being proposed as the new Mosque is - a symbol of conquest.

First: they haven't conquered anything. Second, even if they had, they have the right to build what they please on their land. I'm willing to defend their right to do so, so the right is still around when we need it.

[Like]

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

anyone here recognize this?

This is radical. I love it and wish other more LDS folks did also. Beside 9/11 was a inside job and this uproar is a smokescreen. Mosby thanks for your post!

[SmallFarm]

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

anyone here recognize this?

This is radical. I love it and wish other more LDS folks did also. Beside 9/11 was a inside job and this uproar is a smokescreen. Mosby thanks for your post!

More than a smokescreen. A political trap that so many so-called "conservatives" are falling into.

[Mosby]

Mazal, Smallfarm thanks for your post's - I was begining to wonder if anyone actually read my post.

I just figured that most of the Islamophobes skipped it because of their inability to reconcile their irrational fear/hatred of Islam with the Gospel of Jesus Christ- or the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and it's leaders.

I guess that Joseph Smith just forget to put the Muslims into this statement of faith (I have bolded one very important part that I neglected to note in my first post)

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

I guess the same goes for President Hinckley when he famous said the following in general conference a few years back:

"WE HAVE NO QUARREL WITH THE MUSLIM PEOPLE"

I guess he didn't get the memo on just how dangerous Islam truly is

Honestly, we as a nation are turning into Nazis - and only a few can see it