Mein Kampf and President Kimball on eugenics

I have posted some interesting quotes on racism and eugenics from Adolf Hitler’s infamous book Mein Kampf as well as several various quotes from prominent LDS leaders. This same exercise was done in one of my BYU classes by a leading scholar, not to shake anyone’s testimony, but to make people think about actual views and actual practices that were and are continually being done. This is mainly for you to carry your own logic through and decide truly what you believe and what certain aspects of certain religious beliefs really are saying. Eugenics by the way is the practice of propagating certain people and inhibiting the propagation of others on the basis of race, ability, disability, nationality, education, etc. In a way, birth control is a form of eugenics to some people, because you’re preventing life from its natural course. America heavily practiced eugenics throughout the 20th century, sterilizing over 40,000 mentally disabled individuals. The last eugenics law in practice was revoked, but not until 1978. Aktion T4 was a German initiative that killed thousands of mentally disabled people back in 1941 based on eugenics. I would argue that we ALL practice eugenics in some form or another, since we all have screening and filtering systems for who we date based on whatever reasons. I feel that is our right, but it is a form of Eugenics. When we carry out our logic, we see from history the horrible consequences of Eugenics and what it does for inequality and genocide.

So to re-iterate, I am in no form saying that’s what any organization promotes now, or what anyone’s religion or political affiliation endorses now. I’m only showing you certain quotes that shows what certain people have felt in the past, and allowing you to have a better understanding of what certain people did think before. Is it the same today? I don’t know.

“Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.
The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice.

Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people. North America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples, shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.” Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf

The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. “No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood” (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a “Nation of Priesthood holders”…. Mark E. peterson BYU August 1954

Now let’s talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation….

When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation….

Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them….Mark E. Peterson BYU August 1954

In a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole Negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. (Gen. 4; Moses 5.) The whole house of Israel was chosen as a peculiar people, one set apart from all other nations (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2); and they were forbidden to marry outside their own caste. (Ex. 34:10-17; Deut. 7:1-5.) In effect the Lamanites belonged to one caste and the Nephites to another, and a mark was put upon the Lamanites to keep the Nephites from intermixing with and marrying them. (Alma 3:6-11.) All this is not to say that any race, creed, or caste should be denied any inalienable rights. But it is to say that Deity in his infinite wisdom, to carry out his inscrutable purposes, has a caste system of his own, a system of segregation of races and peoples. The justice of such a system is evident when life is considered in its true eternal perspective. It is only by a knowledge of pre-existence that it can be known why some p
ersons are born in one race or caste and some in another. “However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the lord.” Bruce R. McConkie Mormon Doctrine p 114 (It was taken out later I believe)

I didn’t realize this, but the actual doctrine of our church before was that blacks could not only not hold the priesthood, they didn’t have the full blessings of the gospel i.e. they couldn’t go to the temple or receive the Celestial Kingdom.

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today…. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather….These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.” Spencer W. Kimball Improvement Era1960

“Now, the brethren feel that it is not the wisest thing to cross racial lines in dating and marrying. There is no condemnation. We have had some of our fine young people who have crossed the lines. We hope they will be very happy, but experience of the brethren through a hundred years has proved to us that marriage is a very difficult thing under any circumstances and the difficulty increases in interrace marriages” (Brigham Young University Devotional on 5 January 1965)

“When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage. I mean that they should be brothers, to worship together and to work together and to play together; but we must discourage intermarriage, not because it is sin. I would like to make this very emphatic. A couple has not committed sin if an Indian boy and a white girl are married, or vice versa. It isn’t a transgression like the transgressions of which many are guilty. But it is not expedient. Marriage statistics and our general experience convince us that marriage is not easy. It is difficult when all factors are favorable. The divorces increase constantly, even where the spouses have the same general background of race, religion, finances, education, and otherwise. (58-08)” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.302)

“The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor’s degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages.

When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

If your son thinks he loves this girl, he would not want to inflict upon her loneliness and unhappiness; and if he thinks that his affection for her will solve all her problems, he should do some more mature thinking.

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.”(0/0/59) (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.303)

“There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.
There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.” Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation by Bruce R. McConkie

So, do you feel you practice Eugenics? Do you feel religion promotes Eugenics? Again, please don’t construe the use of these quotes to be in an effort to degrade any leader (with the exception of Adolf Hitler) or religious organization. But most people don’t research or realize the opinions of older church leaders.

Tagged , , , , , ,

17 thoughts on “Mein Kampf and President Kimball on eugenics

  1. blake says:

    Yeesh. This is none too pleasant to think about.Bitchin’ new layout.

  2. D says:

    Its also very important to remember that the leaders of the church are a product of the time and place in which they grew up, just as everyone else. Its quite difficult to judge historical figures by 21st century standards and ideals. It is also important to realize that statements made by church leaders are not always doctrine. (ie, Ezra Taft Benson’s anti communist rhetoric.) Context would also be important to know. It is very important to be well informed, but that includes much more than merely knowing what has been said by certain people.

  3. Magicman says:

    It’s a good point Darren. But we don’t look back at the decisions of the Nazis and people in America researching Eugenics and say, “well, that was okay because everyone was thinking that.” “Well, everyone was racist, so it’s okay.” It’s not okay, it wasn’t right. Thomas Jefferson had slaves. I think that definitely casts a shadow on the statement in our Declaration of Independence, “All men are created equal.” That’s not what our forefathers really believed about all people. Yes, it’s good to know the context, but it still makes them racist. Don’t you think inspired leaders should have a little more foresight sometimes if they’re really inspired? I also think that it is a copout to say that whatever statements history proves to be accurate we call inspired, and whatever comments that end up being quite radical we call opinion of church leaders. That’s a great back door to always use if you say something wrong. Who knows when they’re inspired or when they’re not if we use that reasoning, since everything wrong is their opinion and everything right is inspired. I bring these statements to light because nobody really knows about them. I left the sources so people can read the actual articles published by the church, and the years they were taken so people know the time frame they were in. Of course it was during times of racism. What’s interesting is that keeping the first estate is STILL OUR DOCTRINE! It’s still our doctrine, Darren. So carry out the doctrine to it’s natural conclusion, and you still have to say our church teaches that those who are black or born in Africa are that way because they didn’t keep their first estate as well as us white kids did. So I don’t think these quotes are invalid or opinion, because it’s still taught (however quietly) as our doctrine

  4. Magicman says:

    I will reiterate again my concurrence to your point: that snippets of history can’t be just pulled out and slapped into a report for whatever purpose the author wants. But I feel that the references I have given and my rebuttal to your critique is sufficient to prove my main point: that even church leaders were what today we would refer to as racist, and we see that even doctrine practiced by our church at least at the times these quotes were taken did promote some form of eugenics. I would be happy to hear your counter-argument to this.

  5. Nila says:

    Ben,I am grateful that your mind is always thinking and seeking because it seems to give me endless opportunity to bear testimony.I say again, we as humans do not have the intelligent capacity to comprehend all that God, our Father, comprehends, why He does what He does. We live in a three dimensional world where God’s dimensions are endless. That GREATLY obstructs our view. I look at what you have written and my thoughts go directly to what I have just shared. We cannot see it all, even while it is taking place.You stated, “Don’t you think inspired leaders should have a little more foresight sometimes if they are really inspired?” The answer to this for me is “Do you really believe that they are inspired?” And if you believe that they are, wouldn’t it be more wise to ask Father to help you understand what is being implied to a fuller degree? The fault does not lie with inspired leaders if they are truly inspired, the weakness lies in us and our inability to understand all of the ways of our God.Think of the possibilities. Could it be that our God made all of these so called divisions to test those who may think that the so called punishment is being placed upon another? It is a great test you know. I do believe that every statement that you put forth from church leaders is to test its members more than any other purpose. I have seen members of this religion judge for many different reasons. It almost seems to me that the segregation comes from the minds of individuals more than from God. You are a man and I am a woman. You are Ben and I am Nila. You are in your 20’s and I am in my 50’s. So what can someone draw from all of that INFORMATION? Every conclusion would be their own, and I am most positive that God, our Father, would see it completely different. Could all of these statements of segregation, as you call them, just be information that God put forth to see what we would do with it? Would we forgive everyone as God hascommanded us to? Would we love our neighbor as ourselves? These are two very powerful COMMANDMENTS of our God and can be a very difficult test for each of us, especially considering the information that God may deliver to us through inspired leaders. What will we individually do with it all, that’s all that really matters. Again, will we forgive EVERYONE completely, and remember the information no more? Will we love our neighbor as ourselves? And who is our neighbor?…everyone… If we all truly lived these two principles would there have been such horrendous challenges in interracial marriages as has been spoken of? The challenge did not come from the two who loved each other, but from those looking in. And when it comes to the inspired leaders sharing the words of God with the members in not marrying inter-racially because of the priesthood blessings that would be lost, there is an important thing above all others that should be remembered. Speaking of the couple, have you prayed about this? Do you you KNOW that this is the person that you should marry? Everyone should follow this counsel, at ALL TIMES! And if you know that this IS the person that you should marry, then despite all opposition, you should follow your inspiration. Did God tell Nephi to slay Laban? Again, it all goes back to my beginning statement. We cannot comprehend all that our infinite Father has in store for us. We cannot comprehend the infinite wisdom that was used to compile this mortal test of ours. So what is the first and great commandment? Love God with all your heart. The second is like unto it, love your neighbor as yourself. And forgive everyone and everything. It think that if we hold to these things, we will experience all of the tests of mortality differently. Oh, and remember, our leaders are inspired, and if there is question, the lack lies within us, not them. Seek greater intelligence….

  6. D says:

    A couple things first. The church doesn’t teach that about the first estate. Show me where it does, and I’ll concede that point. Second, it totally would be a cop out if people played the game of accepting all the good and not the bad. The church doesn’t hide from its past, nor should they. I don’t think the Lord spares any of us, including his church leaders from making mistakes. I don’t think it at all a cop out to say that church leaders, along with all human beings, are fallible. Bruce R. McConkie was censured for many of his comments, as have other leaders. They don’t always say the right thing. Sometimes they say things that they believe, but don’t necessarily mesh with doctrines of the church. President Benson had to be told several times to lay off the anti communism, because it became a hobby horse of his. When I say that people are a product of their environment, that doesn’t excuse things they do that are wrong. Not at all. But it can shed light on why they might say something like that. There is also a reason that the church monitors so closely what is released as official statements in venues such as general conference. I don’t know what the Lord’s reasoning is for different races. I don’t know how much of our lives are a result of our obedience, or lack thereof in the pre-mortal life. I think it can be easy for most people to understand that what we do in this life will allow for us to be rewarded or punished after we die, but for some reason it is very difficult to think that our circumstances here might be based on things we did before we came to earth. I feel like when I have all the information someday, it will all make sense.As far as our founding fathers, no they weren’t perfect either. Far from it. Read “An Imperfect God” and see how George Washington wrestled with the slavery issue all his life. Thomas Jefferson was a very enlightened man in many aspects, but he was very much a part of the Virginia Aristocracy, which meant he was rich and had slaves. He also more than likely slept with at least one of them. Ben Franklin was also a notorious womanizer. Do their shortcomings in these areas diminish their contributions to our country? I say not at all. To me that’s like saying Michael Jordan wasn’t a great basketball player because he had affairs while playing, which he did. I celebrate the founders for all of their sacrifice, dedication and humble service, all the while realizing they were flawed individuals who struggled with many personal demons.One more thing. Don’t try and say that Adolf Hitler and the NAZI party were similar to church leaders, the founders, or even people preaching that all races should be separate and only marry each other. While there may be racism in all these groups, don’t even put what Hitler did into the same ballpark. While all might have espoused anti-miscegenation, that is a far cry from genocide. Sorry this is so long, but I have lots of thoughts on the subject.

  7. D says:

    When I say the church doesn’t teach that doctrine, I hope you know I mean they don’t teach specifics about things that you did in the pre-mortal life being the cause of where you are now. The Savior was posed a similar question, when followers wondered which parent sinned, causing the son to me lame. There’s not always a reason, and as I stated before, nobody on this earth is qualified to judge cause and effect on this issue.

  8. Magicman says:

    President Heber J. GrantWe have been placed upon this earth because of our faithfulness in having kept our first estate. The labors that we performed in the sphere that we left before we came here have had a certain effect upon our lives here, and to a certain extent they govern and control the lives that we lead here, just the same as the labors that we do here will control and govern our lives when we pass from this stage of existence.(“Reward of Conscience,” Improvement Era, Feb. 1943, p. 75) TLDP:496Abraham,quoted by Joseph SmithAnd they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. (Abraham learns about the creation of the earth, of pre-earth existence, foreordination and the second estate of man) Abr.3:26 Elder Harold B. LeeThere is no truth more plainly taught in the Gospel than that our condition in the next world will depend upon the kind of lives we live here. “All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28-29) Is it not just as reasonable to suppose that the conditions in which we now live have been determined by the kind of lives we lived in the pre-existent world of spirits? That the apostles understood this principle is indicated by their question to the Master when the man who was blind from his birth was healed of his blindness. “Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” (John 9:2) Now perhaps you will have a partial answer to some of your questions as to why, if God is a just Father, that some of his children are born of an enlightened race and in a time when the Gospel is upon the earth, while others are born of a heathen parentage in a benighted, backward country. . . .The privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valiant, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations. Between the extremes of the “noble and the great” spirits, whom God would make his rulers, and the disobedient and the rebellious who were cast out with Satan, there were obviously many spirits with varying degrees of faithfulness. May we not assume from these teachings that the progress and development we made as spirits have brought privileges and blessings here according to our faithfulness in the spirit world? (Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 164-65) TLDP:497Here is the doctrine. I can go on. How many prophets must I quote that spouse the same “opinion” before anyone acknowledges that this is what prophets and apostles (at least some) believed? If you re-read my post Darren, you’ll see that I in no way related Adolf Hitler to any church leader, and said several times that these quotes were not meant to degrade any church leader. The focus was Eugenics, which I said I feel we all practice to some degree, not genocide. I wanted to point out (as did a BYU professor) that many church leaders had opinions on eugenics and the inequality of race. I also said that Eugenics eventually CAN lead to genocide. History shows us that. Nazi leaders based many of their laws and legislature on American research into eugenics, so that is a historical fact. You are construing what I wrote. I put the two together in the title to get people to comment on my blog and share their opinion (controversy works by the way). But I said Mein Kampf and President Kimball on Eugenics. Not on killing other people and genocide. And to me, that’s not the same thing. Eugenics can lead to the other however. I think it’s safe to say that if prophets and general authorities share their opinions so openly, that it can influence church members. Is it not important to know about these things? You’re right, Im not going to publish all of the general conference articles again, because I assume that people know about all of the good quotes from prophets and apostles. But many people assume there aren’t any bad. Well, here are some of them. I re-iterate, as I said in the post a couple times, these quotes weren’t meant to take away from anything good these people did. Does the fact that Jefferson and Washington have slaves change my opinion of them? Does Michael Jordan being a womanizer change my opinion of him? Of course it does. I still respect and admire them for what they did, but taking into account all aspects of their life presents a different view of the person. I understand context makes a difference.So, I’ve shown you the doctrine of the church on the first estate. You could say this is “opinion” again, but just how many actual prophets have to teach it for it to be doctrine? I understand people aren’t perfect and I don’t expect prophets to be perfect either. But a prophet teaches doctrine. that’s his job. And when he’s spouting off his opinion instead of doctrine in hopes that everyone can just tell the difference, I think that’s pretty risky. When Michael Jordan plays basketball, he’s expected to play the best because that’s what he does. There is a level of expectation. If he wants to play golf and suck that’s fine. But with basketball he’s payed to be good. With prophets, if they have opinions about stuff fine. But they’re talking about race and class as if it were doctrine. And doctrine is their thing. It’s what they’re supposed to do. Do you see the analogy?I’ve also clarified (Again) that I’m not construing any church leader to be like Adolf Hitler. But they, as I believe all of us, share certain opinions about eugenics to varying degrees. I agree that peoples’ actions and work can still be valued in light of their opinions and flaws, but that understanding more about a person’s beliefs and values does influence my opinion of them. It’s understanding the context basically. It’s understanding their background.

  9. Magicman says:

    Thanks for your comments Nila. I can tell you have a strong testimony. For me, it’s very easy to say I don’t understand something because I’m not capable, and that God’s ways are higher than mine. What I do understand is: I believe all are created equal: a just and fair god doesn’t discriminate between race or class: certain things taught by certain church leaders causes a discrepency in this view. I can say well, I just don’t understand, and accept this, which would violate a principle of mine. Or, I can use my reasoning and try to understand more. As far as prayer, I believe prayer only gets you so far, and at least in my experience hasn’t brought me too many answers to my questions other than, “wait and see,” or, “You can’t understand my ways.” I can’t fully agree with that. I like your insight about forgiving others, and maybe these are tests for all of us to see if we will forgive where necessary. But I do feel that a church that promotes continuing revelation, especially living prophets and apostles, should have some degree of responsibility when it comes to teaching doctrine. And to me, that’s what they’re doing. If it’s their opinion or not who is to say? Does it require an official church statement? Is a prophet teaching doctrine not doctrine? Both you and Darren have great insight and great opinions, and I truly appreciate your comments. Sometimes we disagree on things, but I respect both of your arguments.

  10. Magicman says:

    I also must say that I think debating about certain things has a tendency to polarize individuals, since we all want to be right (or win). (Darren, I’m thinking of me and you in this regard:). I will continue to look into what both of you have said.

  11. D says:

    Don’t worry about me being offended. I like debate and don’t take it personally.Let me clarify. I thought I was clear before and I thought there were certain assumptions brought to the table, but I was wrong and probably wasn’t clear. Clearly, the church teaches about keeping the first estate. We both memorized Abraham 3:22-25 on our missions. I didn’t think this was in question, and the way I worded my thoughts on this is confusing, so I’ll put it this way. The church doesn’t say that a poor, homeless man is the way he is because he was wicked in the pre-mortal life. The church doesn’t teach that a rich, white man on wall street is where he is because he was faithful. I was commenting on the specifics of the doctrine. They teach that there are consequences to what we did before we came here. There are many conclusions we can draw from this, and when it comes to race, it is true that we believe that obedience has played a role in skin color. Even the Book of Mormon states that clearly. I think I have a knee jerk reaction when you talk about eugenics, because that term traditionally means improving the human species by discouraging breeding of undesirable members, and encouraging it with others. Only smart people should have kids, and that will weed out dumb people from our society. Don’t let handicapped people have children, and we will be a healthier species. Anti-miscegenation, in your definition, is eugenics. By mine, it isn’t. Nobody in the church is proposing that any race doesn’t have children, just that it is done withing that race, or class, or whatever. Dating being a form of eugenics? Seems like quite the semantical stretch to me. Me wanting to date a beautiful women is in no way saying that ugly people should be wiped off the earth by sterilizing them or not allowing them to have children. As President Kimball said in the statement you posted, “There is no condemnation,” for interracial marriage. But I’ll meet you halfway and concede that you and I have different definitions of eugenics. Is this racist? Yes, by 21st century standards, it is. Let me ask you this. You say that a just and fair God doesn’t discriminate. You’re right. But does a just and fair God judge? I say yes, and by judging his children, it doesn’t make him any less fair and just. Alma 13:4-5 4. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.5. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren.This scripture is talking about things that happened before we came here. Does this sound fair? I think it absolutely does. The definition of discrimination is this: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.This is not the case. The Lord has stated that obedience is rewarded and disobedience is punished. But you say he isn’t allowed to do this? Explain.I will say this. If you don’t believe there was anything before you we came here, then things seem to be pretty unfair, and any differences between people seem to be the work of an unjust God, or perhaps no God at all. That’s a different argument, and one everyone needs to figure out for themselves. I definitely can see where you lean here, and it makes much more sense that you feel the way you do.Now, the opinion vs. doctrine argument. Sometimes I get lazy in debating and have the argument I feel you want to have, instead of the one that is specifically brought up, and that is my bad. I was arguing that even inspired leaders are going to do things that aren’t right, because they are human. But this isn’t the argument you were proposing. Again, my mistake. So I’m just going to leave this argument alone. You’re right. People should always be accountable for what they say. Amen.

  12. Cindroid says:

    i don’t read words that have more than 3 syllables, so…i mean, it looks good but i have a hard time focusing.awesome layout though.

  13. blake says:

    I’m going to do my part for eugenics by not producing. You’re welcome world.

  14. Kate says:

    Anytime you say, at the beginning of a post, that you’re not trying to shake anyone’s testimony… and that we should use our own logic, I stay far away from these posts :)We’ve been learning about modern forms of eugenics in my social problems class, and so far that’s been plenty. Crazy stuff.

  15. Kate says:

    I changed my mind and read it:)Something you don’t mention in your post is exactly what Eugenics is and where it came from. The phrase was coined by the British cousin of Darwin, but the practice BEGAN here in America. There were even angry claims when Hitler began using it in Germany that he had “stolen” the idea from us.Eugenics is basically intervening with heredity to produce certain results. Early eugenics in the U.S. wasn’t about race at that time. It was about the feeble-minded, alcoholics, mentally retarded, etc. It was mostly whites who were in the first institution where they were practicing reproductive sterilization on people.I’m saying all of this (I know you already know it:) to get back to the basics of what Eugenics is so that the idea that leaders of the church would actually want to hinder someone of another ethnicity’s chances of reproducing, can be seen for what it is- and that is preposterous. The people who started eugenics were not concerned with the individual whatsoever. Even if you go from Kimball’s point of view that a black person did something to get the persecution they have, he is still not saying that those people should not reproduce or not have as much success in this life as anyone else. It just might be tougher. But the only reason it is tougher is because of society and the way our nation viewed blacks at that time. Look at blacks in Africa during the same time- they are the exact same color, but in their country they are strong, powerful, beautiful, and respected. No one is suggesting that they did anything wrong in the premortal life to have the lives that they are living. Again with the factor of society- look at the Irish when they first arrived in America. Horrible, disgusting, unjust persecution was placed upon them, and they were white as we are. If everything in this life is based upon our righteousness in the premortal life, then there are a bunch of whites who must not have done so well. God did not make those people persecute the Irish or the Blacks, but He did know which times and places would be most difficult for them and placed them there for a reason… and many had opportunities to rise above and many of them did.For this reason we cannot apply the prophet’s words to all people of a given race. Again, he focuses on the individual and their choices.Regarding race and marriage, it truly is just sound advice to ADVISE that we should marry within our race. Mariah Carey had a horrendous childhood due to the fact that her mother and father were interracial. Many people in her shoes would not recommend repeating her mother’s choice– not because of the unequal nature of the other race, but because of SOCIETY’S view of that race.There is no commandment on this, so therefore the church cannot be “practicing” eugenics when it comes to this. It is common sense that it is “easier” to be straight in our society than gay, and it would also be “easier” to marry someone and raise children with someone who had similar standing in society… Marriage is hard enough as it is, there is no reason (if you can help it) to add additional pressures.As far as the quote about a black person being where he’s at for a reason, the same can be said about any number of white people. However, take a look at Barack Obama’s situation and you will see that a black person now, if you’re looking at it from Kimball’s perspective, must have done alright. It’s about the individual, according to God Himself.In closing, I just want to remind everyone that eugenics is about many other things besides race, and it did not take into account the individual or circumstances. If one was homeless, and orphan, or had a baby out of wedlock, they were seen as feeble-minded and therefore sterilized.Aside from the priesthood and blacks, which does require faith to believe that there was a reason for that, there are no other instances where the church excluded an entire group of people. Rather it is always about the individual.If a church leader is letting people know the reality of the difficulties which face those of the minority here in America, it is simply to prepare them for life in our society. But a Chinese person is not a minority in China, and our church leaders would never insinuate that an individual Chinese person is of less value than an individual white person. And I’m just gonna be honest here, I sort of resent it when you say that “no one really knows about them” with regard to these quotes of church leaders. I knew about them, and again- people can look up any information they want to look up. Thomas Monson would not be afraid to address these quotes. They are just as true for their time as when Brigham was commanding people to do polygamy. The difference is in the commandment, and none of these statements command anyone to do anything, and they were not taking any action on anything that practicing eugenics would take action on. In fact, if his comments had caused people to act out against those of another race, the people who did would definitely be harshly reprimanded by the church. So, to answer your question, no I don’t think the church practices or is on the verge of practicing, or at any time was practicing/promoting eugenics.

  16. Magicman says:

    I appreciate your comments Kate, but I must say some of your responses make me question whether you read my whole article, because I did define Eugenics, and in the conclusion I explained how these quotes could lead to the practice of Eugenics, not that they were saying, “Let’s sterilize people who don’t fit our mold.” Racism, which is what they were definitely promoting here, is a precursor to Eugenics. I would say it is a form of Eugenics in a way, because anytime you are making decisions about how to propagate a species, and that includes using contraception or who you choose as a mate. Anytime you have any filtering system on those decisions, it is a form of Eugenics in my opinion, and that is how I based my blog. And Kate, the suggestion that black people did something wrong in the premortal life is exactly what they are saying. Reread the quotes. Why would black people be barred from receiving temple blessings and getting to the Celestial kingdom, besides not having the priesthood, and why would church leaders say what they said if they didn’t feel this was the case? There is just too much evidence to feel contrary to this. I can definitely see room for your other arguments, but what you said here is just not a feasible conclusion: i.e. that church leaders didn’t feel black people did anything wrong in the premortal existence.They were grouping people based on the color of their skin. IT wasn’t individual. On the whole, white people were looked at as being more faithful (and delightsome) than black people. Kimball talked about this all the time. Again, reread the quotes. It is true that sometimes black people could be born in the church and white people not. Yes this is true. But most church leaders were very clear about color of skin and what it meant. About exluding entire groups of people, reread the quotes. Black people and American indians are both groups that are referenced. The “Dark Africa” is referenced. Adolf Hitler references the Jews in Mein Kampf. Eugenics is very much about race and large groups of people. I never said once that church leaders were promoting sterilization or Eugenics to that extent, but racism surely can lead to Eugenics, and I believe it is the founding reason why Eugenics flourished in America and not Britain with Galton where it originated was because Americans were so racist. You’re right, it can also be about white people too. Germans became concerned with promoting only the Aryans or Nordic people. (America was the same). Slavs and white people of less prestigious breeding could also be grouped as less important. But that’s still racism. In essence, I take racism as being a foundation of Eugenics and base the article on it. I think I do that quite convincingly, and explain what I’m doing. It is true that in the title I say Eugenics, but go on to explain what Eugenics is and what leads to it. In the comments thread I addressed that if something was said or taught over a pulpit by a prophet or Apostle, whether it’s doctrine or not, it is still being taught by very prominent church leaders. I think it is extra important for prophets and apostles to be careful what they say, since it is their job to teach and expound scripture. People can say it was their opinion, but it’s still being presented as important. It’s still very influential to those members of the church who hear it and trust that mouthpiece as teaching true principles. As far as advice to not intermarry, I believe that advice personally. But what I said at the beginning is that we should carry out our logic. By choosing not to marry someone based on race, whether it is sound advice or not, is still choosing to propogate or not propagate a certain stream of species: black and white, asian and indian, white and white, etc. We choose to not have a child based on something. That is a form of selection, and I believe it is, in a way, a form of Eugenics. Like I said, I believe we all make decisions on a mate, and that we all practice Eugenics. The church’s advice on not intermarrying races can be seen as good advice. But, it is also I believe a form of Eugenics, though a very small form. To not practice Eugenics is to not base a decision of reproduction based on whether or not your childern will be either worse off or better off. Here is the definition: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics). Do we not all do that? All I was saying was that the church leaders were promoting racism, which I feel leads to Eugenics, because anytime you believe someone is worse off than you, or less worthy than you, or can’t reach the same status as you (all logical conclusions from these quotes), then you’re less inclined to want their offspring as your own. I really don’t see how anyone can argue with the racist tone of these quotes, opinion or not. There really is no argument in my opinion. But I’m happy you knew about these quotes, because I don’t feel most people do. Everyone in my class (fifty people) were shocked and could not defend the quotes when they were presented in class. I was shocked by how strong the words were.

  17. Kate says:

    Quote: As far as the quote about a black person being where he’s at for a reason, the same can be said about any number of white people. However, take a look at Barack Obama’s situation and you will see that a black person now, if you’re looking at it from Kimball’s perspective, must have done alright. It’s about the individual, according to God Himself. ***I was speaking fully from the place of thinking that there would be an understanding that I DO believe everything the prophets say. I am an active member, so that should go without saying. So he must have his reasons. I was just saying that NOW the blacks do not have any restrictions. This shows that God, who has the whole picture, put those individuals in that time and place for a reason, based on their righteousness in the premortal life. Another quote from my comment: Aside from the priesthood and blacks, which does require faith to believe that there was a reason for that, there are no other instances where the church excluded an entire group of people. Rather it is always about the individual.I was never trying to say that blacks never had a disadvantage. You asked the question of if I think the church leaders promote eugenics, and I think “no.” Please don’t tell me to reread the quotes, I KNOW that blacks could not have the priesthood. I KNOW there was a reason for that. I KNOW that individually the church would require members to treat blacks with fairness and love. I KNOW that that is over and so those individuals, who were put in that time when they could not have the priesthood for a reason, had the life they were meant to have. I KNOW that this life is not the only place to receive the priesthood. Eugenics is about creating a perfect society and weeding out the crap. Acting as if blacks were so discriminated against in the church is kind of like the prop 8 debate right now- no one understands that gays are given ALL the rights of a married couple, they are just not recognized as part of the traditional definition of the term “marriage”. It is not keeping them from anything that a straight person has, lawfully, yet everyone is acting as if Prop 8 is completely taking everything from the gay population in CA. It’s just in the terminology.The blacks could enjoy all of the blessings of the Holy Ghost and membership in the church. If they followed the teachings and lived a worthy life, then in the short few years that it takes for the blacks to have the priesthood, they can have it in heaven. That is the beauty of proxy work. It was a temporal thing that anyone (and I know blacks from the time before the priesthood, and their attitudes about it are far better than any over-zealous white person who wants to take a stand out of white-guilt or whatever) with enough faith could withstand. I can give you the contact info for these men who my dad taught in South Africa and you’ll have a very different perspective. They would scoff at the suggestion of eugenics in the Gospel. I read the quotes. I am sorry for missing the beginning when you define eugenics in your own words. I am not educated enough on the topic to really drive that home in a way you will be willing to understand.Remember, this is my opinion, and you asked for an answer. You will not change my mind, so enough with the condescending “reread the quotes” stuff. I’ve read them all several times in other places as well as here. I just wish you would try to see the angle I’m taking here, as I said, I don’t know enough stuff to argue with you.As a side note, it is not considered “racism” to discriminate against a group of people if it is not to do with race. If they are singling out the feeble-minded whites, it is discrimination toward whites- not racism. Racism is only race.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: