This is definitely worth the watch….Lawrence O’Donnell, a liberal commentator, says Mormonism is “demented, Scientology-like” and is rooted in racism. Pat Buchanan defends Mormonism by noting that his Christian great grandfather “had slaves.”


  1. Ronan December 10, 2007 at 5:14 pm - Reply

    That was very entertaining.

  2. adam December 10, 2007 at 5:38 pm - Reply

    Wow. I thought I was liberal. This guy is spewing all kinds of stuff. I’ve actually never seen him before, but does he always talk like this? This kind of talk makes Hannity look like the nicest commentator in the country.

    I have no problem with talking about any of our history, but this O’Donnell needs to do some homework. Pro-slavery?

    Entertaining though. : )

    My favorite line: “I think every religion is full of crazy beliefs.”

  3. se7en December 10, 2007 at 7:19 pm - Reply

    This guy is an idiot. Or in the words of the Lord, “Fools mock but they shall mourn,” (Ether 12:26) which is the Lord’s response to those that mock, specifically, the Book of Mormon, but obviously applies here as well.

    If Mormons are racist, then Jesus is, too, racist for not extending his blessings to the Gentiles, and referring to them, colloquially, and according to its translation, dogs. Then several prophets throughout the OT are racist as well for forbidding marriage with the seed of Cain (Ham).

  4. Devin December 10, 2007 at 8:41 pm - Reply

    I don’t know where to start…I found it strange, enlightening, horrifying and thankful that I am not connected with that mess.

    As I have tried to analyse why I became disillusioned with our faith I have to admit that its strong connection with the United States gave me pause. As a child I hoped that Canada would be annexed by the States so that we would be part of the “Promised Land.” During George W. Bush’s initial election I hoped he would be elected given the Church’s strong leanings toward the Republican Party. However, I quickly leaned that Republican policy didn’t come close to what I knew was good and decent. I hoped Bush would be defeated three years ago. And now I hope that a Democrat will be elected.

    What does this have to do with the McLaughlin Group on Mitt Romney? My perception of Americans largely reflects the attitudes presented by Lawrence O’Donnell. Voices such as his are heard loud and clear throughout the world giving the impression that America is full of angry, hateful people who can easily see the problems around them but are unwilling to look at the problems within.

    If there is a Divine, then the United State was truly led by that divinity when establishing its constitution and mandated separation of Church and State. This example of Government changed the world, but I am led to wonder if they have stagnated in this vision of freedom and respect for human rights. I don’t have the answer, but it is my impression.

    However, I am hopeful that amid the loud, angry voice, there were those who could separate their personal prejudices and recognize that every organization has a history. How can anyone give a balanced opinion without an honest understanding of why they believe what they believe?

  5. Anna December 10, 2007 at 10:55 pm - Reply

    McLaughlin’s choice of company in this debate question is inappropriate. Romney is rightly describing himself as a Christian to Americans who are not fully informed about Mormonism, although unlike JFK who chose to detract his Catholic beliefs to gain the office, Romney claims that Christian religiosity is necessary for freedom in this country. There is no evidence that Romney has anything to do with alleged ‘racism’ in his faith’s past, as O’Donnell claims. He is also intelligent enough to know that he will not be elected by an Evangelical Christian base, and must appeal to an economically conservative electorate instead. In the 1960’s people were afraid to elect JFK because they feared the Vatican’s influence in the executive office, but interestingly like JFK, Romney is leading in the poles.
    As a Massachusetts resident for the entirety of Romney’s governorship, I will comment honestly that I believe Romney ran for the Governor of Massachusetts, and is now running for the Presidency for himself only. In Massachusetts from 2002 to 2006, we saw a record number of skilled workers aged 25-55 leave Mass for jobs elsewhere; privatization of gas an electric utilities skyrocketed to over 300% of costs prior to privatization, sub-prime mortgages are foreclosing many homes in the greater Boston area, and billions of dollars of debt plague the state for mis-management of state-wide public transportation funds. While Mitt Romney has been a successful businessman elsewhere, in Massachusetts, there is a wide consensus that the state deteriorated during his reign. This is evident in Romney’s various insults of Massachusetts in the early Republican debates, because he had very little on which to stand for this home state’s success in previous years. I would openly welcome a Mormon president of the United States, but not Mitt Romney.

  6. Geoff J December 10, 2007 at 11:27 pm - Reply

    What a tool that guy comes off as.

    If guy wants to froth at the mouth in his overt bigotry he should at least try to get your facts straight. His totally off base comments about Joseph Smith and the Mormons being all for slavery show how ignorant he really is about the subject. Mormonism denying blacks the priesthood for so long is always good fodder for critics but when the screw up the facts like this fool does it just makes them look silly.

  7. jordanandmeg December 11, 2007 at 1:28 am - Reply

    dude….that guy…..

  8. fox_goku December 11, 2007 at 4:40 am - Reply

    It is pretty easy to fling epithets, but I am pretty sure that God would stand behind these words:

    Book of Mormon (1830, p. 109) — 2 Nephi26:33
    “…and he [the Lord] denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembered the heathen, and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

    If racism exists, it is NOT scriptural.

    At the time of Jesus, the Jews hated Samaritans, and yet Jesus drank from the cup of the Samaritan woman at the well. It was a little lesson easily forgotten.

    By the way, I live in Iowa and anti-Mormon rhetoric is at a feverish pitch. It is hard to see how Romney can overcome it. These are sad times, at least for me.

  9. Chris Williams December 11, 2007 at 7:53 am - Reply

    You know you’re crazy when…

    Pat Buchanan looks sane and reasonable by comparison.

  10. Randy B. December 11, 2007 at 9:01 am - Reply

    This is *exactly* why I am so glad that Romney is running for President. O’Donnell is a nut job, but the fact is that his views are actually held by a not insubstantial number of people. Forcing these issues to the front and out in the open is the only way to get past it.

  11. Aaron Brown December 11, 2007 at 3:28 pm - Reply

    Yeah, O’Donnell gets Joseph Smith wrong on slavery, which may make him a tool. But as for the much of the rest of what he said …. well, let’s just say that I have a dream, that one day someone will ask Mitt Romney publicly what he thinks about the Priesthood ban, the role of Blacks in the Preexistence, and various other elements of theological racism in Mormon history. And in that dream, Romney will answer, and will disavow all of it in the strongest possible terms, and in so doing will force open a conversation in the Church that will allow us to confront the beast and slay it.

    But I know my dream is a pipe dream.

    Aaron B

  12. […] (I’ve been thinking about this question for a long time, but I finally thought I’d pose it here after seeing this). […]

  13. John Hamer December 11, 2007 at 6:51 pm - Reply

    The person in the room with the liberal perspective was Eleanor Clift. Lawrence O’Donnell was misinformed by the kind of over the top rhetoric that also characterized Christopher Hitchens’ essay on this topic.

    Joseph Smith was not a rapist. Statutory rape did not exist in 1843-44. Fourteen and fifteen year old brides married with the consent of their parents were of marriagable age. It may well have been considered low class or questionable in polite society, but it wasn’t considered rape. Likewise, Joseph Smith was no more a supporter of slavery than almost anyone else at the time. Brigham Young is the LDS leader who was inarguably an outspoken racist, even when judged against the comparitively poor standards of his day.

    That said, Mormonism generally has been theologically a racist religion and, while the LDS church has done a good job changing practice and rhetoric since the late 1970s, it has still never apologized and admitted its theological errors for the errors they were.

  14. andrew December 11, 2007 at 9:47 pm - Reply

    I saw this, and was deeply saddened. If you’ll forgive me for hawking my own blog, I have posted a response

  15. a random John December 11, 2007 at 11:36 pm - Reply

    Here is another copy of the clip.

    I didn’t think the speech was great, but O’Donnell has a serious problem. I wish we had had stronger denunciations of the folk doctrines earlier but this is just insane.

  16. Tytus December 12, 2007 at 12:17 am - Reply

    You know, Romney has publicly talked about the priesthood ban, and has said he opposed it as was glad to see it go.

    See for yourself:

    His progressive attitude suggests that he’s willing to dismiss the warts of the past while at the same time honor his heritage.

  17. Mayan Elephant December 12, 2007 at 9:01 am - Reply


    great distinction between smith and young. i agree that brigham young doesnt get enough credit for his journaled discourses of hate and ignorance.

    i find it crazy nuts insanely ironic that romney, in his attempt to be like jack, could get away with mentioning MLK and young in the same speech. young did some pretty cool stuff, and was one helluva leader and developer. but, and its a big but, he was knucklehead bigot.

  18. Equality December 12, 2007 at 10:03 am - Reply


    Thanks for the link. I was not aware that Romney had opposed the priesthood ban. What form did his protest take? Did he send letters to the First Presidency seeking a change in the policy? If so, I think he should release them. Did he organize other Latter-day Saints to protest the racist policy? Did he refuse to serve a mission, and instead go serve in Vietnam, as a means of putting his beliefs into action? Did he encourage his stake president and bishop to ordain black men in defiance of the ban? Did he ever write a letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune or Deseret News expressing his “opposition” to the ban? What, pray tell, did Mr. Romney DO that one might consider evidence in support of his assertion that he opposed the ban?

  19. Wes December 12, 2007 at 12:29 pm - Reply

    Finally someone willing to take a stand publicly about the church’s beliefs without the standard whitewash! Way to go!

  20. Mayan Elephant December 12, 2007 at 12:30 pm - Reply


    silly man. romney sustained the prophet by the same sign. but, he didn’t sustain him by the same sign when the prophets and apostles were acting as men and not prophets. the continuation of the priesthood ban was clearly done by men as men and not men as prophets. donchya know?

  21. Bigot of the Week - All Beliefs December 12, 2007 at 7:32 pm - Reply

    […] of the Week Honestly, I don’t know what to say. Mormon Stories Podcast The McLaughlin Group on Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” … __________________ 2007 Mountain West Conference Champions Next Game: #21 BYU (9-2) at San […]

  22. […] secrets (he must have run this essay by a well-informed LDS friend or two — unlike w/ his inaccuracy-laden tirade on the McLaughlin group). For […]

Leave A Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.