Oh how racism haunts Mormonism

You remember the whole Brandon Davies basketball debacle a few weeks ago? You know, the situation where a black BYU basketball player was suspended for having sex with his girlfriend? Yeah, so, it turns out someone did a little digging and found out that:Of the 70 athletes suspended from BYU since 1993, 54 of them (80%) were minorities; 41 (60%) were black men.

Is this because black men are more likely to violate the honor code? The authors say, “No.” They note that lots of people violate the honor code at BYU, and since almost everyone at BYU is white (.6% black, but 23% of athletes at BYU are minorities), that means most of the violations are by white students. The difference is: The many white students who do violate the honor code are more likely to get away with it.

You should really read the original article – it’s pretty stunning how clear the case is against the religion when it comes to the administration at BYU having a double standard for black athletes.

As I read it, there are two take home messages from this article:

  1. If you are a black athlete and BYU comes knocking, turn them down flat. Not only will the recruiters lie to you about BYU being like every other school out there, but you have pretty good odds of being suspended from the university for, well, being a normal young adult.
  2. The Mormon Church really has not moved beyond its racist past. Exhibit #1 – the statistics above. Exhibit #2, this picture:

the Quorum of the Twelve = 100% old white guys

This just reinforces in my mind that LDS, Inc. is a “hate church.” They hate gays and, while they may not “hate” blacks, they certainly mistreat them.

Oh, Mormonism, why can’t you seem to move into the 21st Century with the rest of the world?


I'm a college professor and, well, a professional X-Mormon. Thus, ProfXM. I love my Mormon family, but have issues with LDS Inc. And I'm not afraid to tell LDS Inc. what I really think... anonymously, of course!

You may also like...

77 Responses

  1. truthlover says:

    The article also discusses how it’s not “just” a race issue, it’s also an LDS/non-LDS issue. They bring this up in their discussion. I’m not sure how easy it is to separate the two, but they don’t do so in that site. It might be more of an LDS/non-LDS issue, though apparently it is both that and race.

    It seems likely from the statistics that a larger percentage of black people at BYU are athletes than white people. It also seems possible/likely that athletes are less likely to be LDS than non-athletes there.

    I don’t think it’s a simple race issue, since it seems possible that there’s also religious bias there too. I’d guess it’s a combination.

    It does appear that BYU has honor code issues. Since the “repentance process” is not strictly defined, it doesn’t appear the honor code is rigidly enforced either. If you’re not LDS and don’t go through that “repentance process” you are probably more rigidly dealt with than someone who goes to the bishop or whatever and cries about it or something. This is because people usually want “justice” and “mercy” is held only for those they think might be “sorry.”

    BYU should change the way it handles/advertises the honor code, especially to people who aren’t LDS. They need to make sure people understand that it’s not just academic integrity, but a whole lot more. Of course, I believe they should understand what I just said since it would help them understand what they will see there.

  2. Seth R. says:

    The reason the Quorum of the Twelve is white is probably nothing more sinister than the fact that most of the established multi-generational leadership in the LDS Church is white. The non-white population of the LDS Church simply doesn’t have as deep a leadership pool. The only non-white place the LDS Church has been successful enough for long enough to produce a statistically significant non-white leadership pool is probably Latin America.

    And it’s a pretty darn small group to be making statistical inferences from. Besides, I’d rather the most qualified person for the job was being appointed. I don’t want someone appointed in there just for his looks.

    Ditto on TL’s remarks about the racial makeup, and behavior patterns of athletes in general at BYU.

  3. Alan says:

    Besides, Id rather the most qualified person for the job was being appointed. I dont want someone appointed in there just for his looks.

    Does being “qualified” include speaking English?

    I tend to think of the Mormon enterprise as white. Whiteness has to do with history (the Mormon pioneers: Manifest Destiny/the American Constitution versus indigenous cultures), the leadership, the language, kinship structures (the Mormon “family” points to a white American, middle-class family), etc.

    Correlation is about making sure locals don’t take go their own way with the faith, and make it their own. Making sure the company doesn’t fragment. Correlating whiteness.

    Of course there are non-white wards, local practices, etc. But I just want to point out that whiteness is more than skin color.

  4. Nick says:

    Bottom line, Jimmer could have been caught smoking weed, drinking coffee, and hiring a prostitute and wouldn’t have been suspended from a single game.

    There is a deep history of double-standards, and that’s not going to change. That is religion.

  5. profxm says:

    truthlover – Sure, it’s not “simply” a race issue. But – IT IS A RACE ISSUE! Whether it is wholly a race issue or just partly a race issue doesn’t change that it is a RACE ISSUE. Arguing the “extent” to which the institution is racist is liking arguing how much of a hand you should cut off if someone steals something – 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4. The point is – BYU is a racist institution. That is a problem. Whether BYU is 100% racist or 25% racist is missing the point – BYU is a racist institution that mistreats blacks.

    Do they also mistreat non-Mormons? Sure. Take home lesson: If you’re black and not a Mormon, run from BYU recruiters!

  6. profxm says:

    Seth… Yes, the Quorum of the Twelve is probably white because of nepotism AND where the religion was established, but I don’t think you’re “multi-generational leadership” argument really holds. There are NO Hispanics in the Quorum of the Twelve, yet the Church has been established in Latin America – solidly established – for over 50 years in most countries (in Mexico for over 100 years) and almost half of the membership is located in Latin America.

    Since there are no Latinos among the elite leadership, we have just a couple of conclusions we can draw. Using your logic, LDS leadership believes that Latin Americans are “not qualified” for leadership positions. Using my logic, the church leadership is discriminatory and gives preference to men from the US who are white (and have genealogical connections to past leaders). Hmmm… Neither option paints the church in a nice light.

  7. Seth R. says:

    I’m not exactly gung-ho to defend BYU here. I never liked the way the Honor Code was implemented, and also have a few reservations about there being an enforced Honor Code at all (secret tip – if you have to “enforce” an “honor code” it isn’t an “honor” code anymore).

    Furthermore, I think this is just a matter of BYU running smack dad into the middle of the inherent dysfunctionality of the college football and basketball systems.

    College football thrives off basically preying on low income African Americans who buy into the utter pipe-dream of actually making it to the NBA or NFL someday. Predominantly African American, predominantly male, and rife with poor students and troubled backgrounds. A great many of them are in no way qualified to be in college at all – but the administration looks the other way because of the athletic scholarship and how it helps the money-making football or basketball program.

    The academically struggling athletes have a lot of special accommodations made for them – at least at BYU (and it may be just as bad or worse at other colleges). I used to do custodial for the old Smith Field House back in the 1990s. And on the second level, they had a special study room for certain athletes at BYU. A lot of the football team apparently got special treatment. They got easy high-school level classes disguised as college courses, where almost the entire class was athletes. The hope was to coddle them through a couple years – long enough to play for the team basically. Struggling football players were assigned private tutors from high-performing students. One of my roomates did this job actually – and he reported that a lot of the football guys were barely literate (he thought it was a miracle they graduated from high school – let alone qualified to enter a top 80 private university).

    But the administration looks the other way in favor of the money making machine of big-ticket college sports.

    I spent my afternoons in the Smith Field House doing custodial, and it seemed apparent that the BYU football team was simply on an entirely different planet than the rest of the campus. A certain chunk of them (whom I’m sure gave the rest of them a bad name in my eyes) were rude, obnoxious, entitled, and their locker room was a complete disaster – probably the filthiest spot on campus (and I did a lot of custodial all over campus).

    But this isn’t just my experiences, this has all been documented in Sports Illustrated before – how the college football system attracts black kids from the ghetto with promises of the NFL, tosses them into a system in which they absolutely do not belong, and then chucks them aside when they’ve overstayed their welcome on campus and didn’t get that astronomically small shot at the NFL.

    The BYU problems noted here strike me as precisely the kind of fish-out-of-water situation that seems to plague high-level commercialized college sports.

    Personally, I’m one of those people who feel the truly Christian integrity-move for BYU would be to abolish the football and basketball programs entirely – or boot them down to club level – and take us back to the days of true amateur sports.

    But that’s just me.

  8. kuri says:

    The whole honor code system is rotten. Take zealots who are thoroughly convinced they’re doing the Lord’s work, put them in a system that doesn’t value due process or appeal, give them great power over vulnerable people’s futures, throw in acceptance of anonymous accusations, throw out concepts like the right to confront accusers and the right not to self-incriminate, and you have a guaranteed recipe for unfairness. Throw race into that mix and it’s completely unsurprising that you get results that strongly suggest racial bias.

  9. Buffy says:

    “Oh, Mormonism, why cant you seem to move into the 21st Century with the rest of the world?”

    Because like most RRRW churches they think clinging to the Dark Ages is something noble.

  10. Parker says:

    When I was a student at BYU about a half a century ago the Honor Code meant the professor would deliver the exam and leave the room. Students were on their honor not to cheat. Anything else fell within the ecclesiastical realm. Confessionals were between the student and the bishop, just as they would be in any ward. I suspect in many cases so called Honor Code violations are still dealt with by the bishop and they never are brought to the Honor Code Office. But in the case of most African American athletes, they are non-members and do not have a Bishop who might protect them from the strong arm of the HC protect our image office.

  11. Alex says:

    “This just reinforces in my mind that LDS, Inc. is a hate church. They hate gays and, while they may not hate blacks, they certainly mistreat them.

    Oh, Mormonism, why cant you seem to move into the 21st Century with the rest of the world?”

    I don’t think that LDS, Inc. hates gays (Elder Packer and Elder Oaks comments notwithstanding). I think that Elder Holland loves gays, I feel that President Hinckley loved gays. Even Elder Packer doesn’t hate gays. That doesn’t mean they aren’t homophobic.

    Any church that says that we have to protect the family by denying marriage to gays and lesbians is, by definition, homophobic.

    Are they racist? Hmmm. I would say that yes, they are racist. That doesn’t mean they hate african-americans or other groups, but Mormons tend to be unwilling or unable to view things outside the confines of their own culture or experience. Ironic, because they go on missions and it’s a worldwide church. I even think the leadership of the church is better than most of it’s members in this area. It’s the same thing with gays. They aren’t as homophobic as the guy who bore his testimony in the byu student ward to “thank God that the church protects us from the gays” but that doesn’t mean they aren’t homophobic.

    On a different note,
    Does Mormonism need to move into the 21st Century? They certainly moved out of the 19th. But I sometimes feel they are stuck somewhere mid 20th century.

  12. Seth R. says:

    “Homophobia” is one of those stupidly unhelpful words – like “cult” or “anit-Mormon” that really don’t have any useful societal meaning and are really just meant as insults.

    I tend to tune out whenever someone is using them.

  13. Alan says:

    Is “racism” a stupidly unhelpful word for you?

  14. Chino Blanco says:

    Or how about “apostasy”? That one always left me hoping for a quick change of subject. I mean, talk about rude…

  15. Ms. Jack says:

    There was a black couple who joined my church last year. They attended the same new members class with me wherein they got to talk a little bit about their backgrounds and what they were looking for in a church. They had their hearts set on finding a church with a true multi-ethnic vision, a church that wanted to realize racial integration. There are pros and cons to racial integration in a church setting, btw, but that was what this couple wanted.

    They had looked around quite a bit, and of course, most denominational congregations were very eager to have them. Virtually no one openly claimed to be against racial integration or a multi-ethnic vision. The pastors of these other organizations affirmed that this was something their denomination wanted.

    The response from this couple was, “Show us your leaders.” They wanted to know who the leaders of the denomination were. And with that they always walked away, because the leaders of the denomination were always severely lacking in diversity—i.e. they were all white people.

    Plenty of people tried to explain that the denomination simply had no qualified minority leaders that it could use, but this couple never considered that to be a very valid excuse. They felt that a denomination in this situation should simply train the requisite minority leaders, because the fastest way to promote diversity in a denomination is to diversify the leadership.

    I think that the LDS church is especially without excuse, because it claims that its leaders are apostles like unto the biblical ones. And what were the biblical apostles? Fishermen, tax collectors, a Pharisee, etc. What kind of “qualifications” were those? What mattered for the biblical apostles was that they were called by God and had a willingness to be used by him, and when they responded, God empowered them with what they needed to do the rest. “With human beings this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” ~ Mt. 19:26

    So are the Latin American, Asian and African LDS churches lacking in people willing to be raised up and used by God? Somehow I find that hard to believe.

    BTW, I already commented on this issue over at MormonDiscussions.com a few weeks ago, and was going to link to the thread there, but the site seems to be down right now, so I’ll comment later with those links.

  16. profxm says:

    Homophobia – irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals (Merriam-Webster; Seth’s lack of acceptance of the term notwithstanding)

    If love is one end of a spectrum and hate is the other (indifference is the middle), and those two emotions play at least some role in how people treat others, then, if someone regularly mistreats someone, is that a reflection of love or hate?

    Ergo, if people are discriminating against homosexuals, is that not a reflection of hatred?

    Likewise, if people are discriminating against blacks, is that not a reflection of hatred?

    Just because LDS Inc. says they love homosexuals doesn’t mean they really do. I tend to prefer to rely on actions over words. LDS Inc. discriminates against homosexuals and blacks. They can say they “love” these two groups all they want, but their actions are drowning out their empty rhetoric.

  17. profxm says:

    Oh, and Ms. Jack, good illustration.

  18. Seth R. says:

    profxm, that would be more credible if the gay movement didn’t indiscriminately toss that word around to describe anyone who disagrees with the particulars of their political and social agenda.

  19. kuri says:

    Is there anyone now opposed to gay rights to whom the word “homophobia” does not legitimately apply?

  20. Seth R. says:

    That’s total spin Kuri.

    Of course one side wants to frame this as just an inoffensive quest for “rights.”

    That isn’t at all how the other side sees it. Nor do I buy it. This isn’t just about getting rights. It’s always been about getting far more than that.

  21. kuri says:

    I’ll rephrase the question. Is there anyone now opposed to gay equality to whom the word homophobia does not legitimately apply?

  22. Daniel says:

    ‘Gay agenda’ is a stupidly unhelpful term. I tend to tune out when someone talks about gay people having a social or political agenda because it means they’ve imagined up all kinds of boogeymen to frighten themselves over, and can’t think in a reasonable way.

  23. Seth R. says:

    That’s not really good enough either Kuri. The law does not try to treat people equally in most instances. Different people with different situations get different treatment all the time. Look at the tax code and who qualifies for what deductions to see an easy example. But we don’t generally call people “anti-equality” for claiming that people with more kids should get a higher deduction than those with less or none.

    Daniel, what else would you call the political movement pushing the aims of gays?

  24. Daniel says:

    There are some social and political changes that gay people would like to see.

    There are also some social and political changes that — say — black people would like to see.

    Would you make reference to the ‘black agenda’?

  25. Seth R. says:

    If it only has reference to the “black” racial designation, wouldn’t that just make sense?

  26. Alan says:

    Its always been about getting far more than that.

    What do you mean by “far”? The main bellwether on the national stage is marriage, and I don’t really see how this is special treatment or going far, because the basic aim is to live in a society where homosexuality is considered on par with heterosexuality AKA equality. I suspect, Seth, that you don’t consider homosexuality as on par with heterosexuality, which I think fits the category “homophobic.”

    If the “gay agenda” were saying, “Let’s raise children to be definitively gay,” then that, I think, would be going too far.

  27. Seth R. says:

    Why would considering homosexuality not on par (whatever that means) with heterosexuality automatically be homophobic?

    I’m not scared of gays. I find a lot of their activists to be obnoxious, and emotionally manipulative people (which tends to generally piss me off coming from anyone). But that’s about it.

  28. Parker says:

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

    Or, I might add, decide they don’t mean anything.

  29. Seth R. says:

    Cry me a river Parker.

    The ones redefining the terms here are the gays, not me.

    Homophobe means irrational fear of homosexuals.

    Period. Full stop. The end.

    And I don’t care what some sympathetic academic chose to put in a dictionary.

    Everyone in America knows what a phobia is. It’s an irrational fear. Everyone in America knows what homosexuality is.

    Put the two words together, and everyone knows what it means – an irrational fear of gay people.

  30. Alan says:

    Why would considering homosexuality not on par (whatever that means) with heterosexuality automatically be homophobic?

    Is it the term that bothers you because of the “phobic” part? How about heterosexist, then?

    You’ve mentioned before that you like the “male-female” combo of Mormonism. As the faith currently stands, it is heterosexist/homophobic. It basically asserts that “male-male” or “female-female” combos are lesser than “male-female” ones.

    Perhaps connecting it to race would be instructive. If I were to say, “Black man, I respect you, appeciate and tolerate you, but you are still lesser than I am,” wouldn’t this obviously be racist?

  31. kuri says:


    Your arguments are, frankly, stupid quibbles. You know very well that by “equality” I mean “social equality,” not “tax code equality.” And you should know that words are defined by their usage, not by their roots. The whole “Homophobia means irrational fear of gays” thing is just dumb.

  32. wayne says:

    #20 Seth, honestly, if it isn’t about getting rights, but about something else…what is this “something else” you are talking about?

    Also, I always found it interesting that the GA was made up of upper middle class white men. When there are plenty of spiritually qualified individuals who do not make as much money. Call me a classist….

  33. Alan says:

    Everyone in America knows what a phobia is. Its an irrational fear.

    Admittedly, “homophobia” has taken on a life behind the 1980s fear of the “gay plague.” But I’m sure you’ve heard the word “xenophobic” before. It has do with prejudices that develop in relation to strangers or foreigners.

    I would argue that even in their strict medical usages, phobias aren’t just about fear. If someone is agoraphobic, for instance, this can manifest in a number of other behaviors, including anxiety, anger, distress, short-temperedness, stubbornness, embarrassment, all due to a kind of irrationality. I think the manifestation of fear is not as important to the meaning of “phobia” as the manifestation of irrationality, since phobic people have a lot of ways they cope with internal stimuli to appear normal and unphobic.

    Judge Walker did consider those who are against gay marriage due to reasons of faith (or spite or whatever) to be basing their feelings on “irrationality.” What do you make of that?

  34. Seth R. says:

    Actually, words ARE defined by their roots – when everyone who uses the word derives their understanding of the word from those pure roots.

    Yes, words can take on a loaded life of their own over time. “Racism” for instance started out much more innocuously meaning anyone who used race as a defining basis for judging a system. Over time, the word was loaded with additional negativity till it became much more than that.

    “Homophobia” hasn’t been around even a fraction of the time long enough for that to happen – except among opportunists who want to use the word as a convenient club to ridicule their opponents.

    And Alan, why on earth would anyone care what Judge Walker has to say about this?

    Wayne – have you ever seen Thomas S. Monson’s house? Or Spencer Kimball’s? Or Gordon B. Hinckley’s?

    Well I have. Their all smaller houses than mine – and I guarantee you (mythical stereotypes about lawyers aside) – I’m not making that much per year.

  35. kuri says:

    Actually, words ARE defined by their roots when everyone who uses the word derives their understanding of the word from those pure roots.

    Then “homophobia” must mean “fear of sameness.” Since it doesn’t, your argument is simply inane.

    Homophobia hasnt been around even a fraction of the time long enough for that to happen except among opportunists who want to use the word as a convenient club to ridicule their opponents.

    You’re arguing that a word doesn’t mean what people use it to mean because you don’t want it to mean that. Good luck convincing anyone you’re right about that.

    As for the “convenient” part, it’s pretty clear who’s using a silly semantic argument to avoid addressing anything substantive.

  36. Daniel says:

    The Argument from Etymology isn’t going to cut it, Seth. Oxford has the word ‘homophobia’ in print from 1969. That’s 40 years. A lot can happen in that time. How long do you think it should take for a word to change?

    And I echo Wayne’s question: what is the “far more” that gay people want, Seth?

  37. Seth R. says:

    The “far more” that the movement wants is moral approval and acceptance from society. Not just rights – an endorsement.

  38. kuri says:

    Is there anyone now opposed to that to whom the word homophobia does not legitimately apply?

  39. Seth R. says:

    Only if you think that people who consider homosexual sex to be morally wrong are both irrational, and afraid.

    And it does no good to accuse me of playing semantic games. You guys started the semantics with your opportunistic (and frankly borderline-bullying) use of the word “homophobe” – while trying to hide behind some hyper-technical definition of the word that practically no one in the United States uses.

  40. Daniel says:

    They want our approval? Those gay bastards! Will they stop at nothing.

    First, they came for our symbolism.

    Look, I really doubt that any gay people — or their friends — really care if you personally endorse their lifestyle. You can hold back your approval, and we won’t care. You’ll just seem like a douche.

    The essence of these complaints, as I see it, is that conservatives want to engage in douchy behaviour, without anybody else being allowed to say what a douche they are. That’s why they get so mad about terms like ‘homophobic’ or ‘bigotry’.

    They just want the freedom of speech without the consequences.

  41. Seth R. says:


    Conservatives don’t exactly have a corner on the jackass market Daniel. As a quick trip to the comments section on the Huffington Post will quickly demonstrate.

  42. kuri says:

    What Daniel said.

  43. wayne says:

    @34 Seth- I know I have a chip on my shoulder about classism in The LDS church. I could just as easily have grown up seeing my fathers joblessness as the problem and not what people in the community thought of him. But I did not. Just because I have certain delusions does not mean that inequality does not exist.
    As for the house thing it is all relative…my house in Oakland was smaller and in a worse neighborhood than my uncles house in Salt Lake…but my house was worth 200,000 more than his.

    And, Race started out being a loaded concept and is now obsolete in the academic field that came up with it. Granted, prejudice existed before the word was coined, it’s just that anthropology backed it up with an easy word and theories.

    Also, fights for social equity usually are started by groups that already have some. Civil rights could not have happened before the civil war. Voting rights for women, mostly fought for by middle and upper class educated women. Same sex attraction is no longer considered a mental disorder. More and more people see it as normal. As for equal rights, its a matter of when not if.

  44. profxm says:

    Apparently bankruptcy law is da’ bomb. Seth’s got himself quite the digs considering the condominium complex Thomas Monson calls home is worth more than $8 million and individual units are in the $280,000+ range:

    Unless he no longer lives on the top floor of 40 N State St., which is where past leaders of the church have called home.

    Then there’s Boyd Packer’s palatial mansion coming in at a whopping $1.4 million:

    Looks like life is rough for him… 🙁

  45. aerin says:

    To go back to the original post, something does seem rotten in Denmark. Granted, athletes knew or probably signed forms when they entered BYU about probation and the honor code. But were they aware of these statistics? Or past mormon history surrounding race (which we’ve discussed here before).

    I would like to think Jimmer (I think I know who that is) would also be suspended, but the truth is, I don’t know.

    As far as salaries and house sizes go, the US president has a modest salary (compared to some NCAA coaches). And the white house is actually smaller than one would think. I was able to tour it many years ago and was struck by the size (compared to some of the buildings/palaces I saw in Europe, like the hermitage). But house size and salary are not the entire story. There are a ton of perks to being US president, the least of which is you get to retire after your term (at least most choose to). Perhaps I’m comparing apples to oranges, but if the quorum of the twelve lives so modestly, in such a self sacrificing way, without being on the boards of major corporations and getting all sorts of “off the record” perks – I would think they would publish that info so everyone could see what good and faithful stewards they were being.

    PS. Ms. Jack you bring up a great point, that goes equally for women in leadership positions.

  46. profxm says:

    Just for fun I thought I’d search for some of the others…

    Dallin Oaks has a nice $550,000+ home:

    Jeffrey Holland’s condo is $385,000:

    Quentin Cook’s got a half million dollar beauty:

    D. Todd Christofferson got shorted with a $460,900 dollar home:

    Perhaps Thomas Monson isn’t living in that condo complex, as he also owns a $426,700 home:

    No luck on the others.

    Apparently there are some perks to being an apostle… Like we should be surprised.

    I have to admit I’m a little taken aback by Packer’s million dollar estate though. That seems a bit over the top for the rest of the pack.

  47. Seth R. says:


    I assume you’re factoring in the fact that Packer has lived on his two acres of land for over 50 years now, right?

    It wasn’t that extravagant for when he bought it. He simply happens to have been the passive beneficiary of accrued land value. That’s probably true for anyone who has an even modest sized house in certain neighborhoods of Salt Lake City.

  48. profxm says:

    Seth… He lives on a piece of land valued at $1.4 million! I don’t really care if his great grandfather bought it 150 years ago for some raccoon knuckles. That’s a cool chunk of change!

    The tax bill alone each year ($15,000) is more than what about 1/5 of Americans make yearly (see the US Statistical Abstract here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0701.pdf). That’s just the tax bill.

    The dude’s got money.

  49. wayne says:

    My larger point is not that they are GA’s because their income or how much their house costs. The point they are where they because they are well connected and not because of their spiritual depth. There are plenty of Mormons who may have just as much spiritual depth or who are just as qualified who are not as well connected.
    I know that this is not the reality that Mormons live in.
    I also happen to completely reject the idea of a God. So, maybe I am a little biased. P.s. my little house in a sketchy Oakland neighborhood sold for over 500,000. I also paid way more property taxes than my neighbors and friends who had homes valued over 1 million. rrr.

  50. wayne says:

    ….curse you typos!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.