On September 11th, a group of individuals united by their faith brutally killed a large number of innocent people. Years later, other members of the religion to which these murderers belonged attempted to build a religious center nearby. Politicians did not protest, the media did not hype the construction of the building to manufacture controversy, and the nation remained largely ignorant of the religious edifice. If this sounds at odds with what America has witnessed in the past few days, that’s because it is.
The aforementioned scenario refers not to the wrongly-named “Ground Zero Mosque”, but to a couple of chapels outside of Cedar City, Utah, belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The September 11th mentioned above was in 1857, when 50 to 60 armed members of the local militia, who were also Mormons, attacked and killed around 120 emigrants heading to California by wagon. Today, there stands within just a few miles of that scene two LDS chapels housing five separate congregations.
Perhaps another example is in order. On August 6, 1945, the United States government extinguished the lives of over 70,000 Japanese, and injured at least the same number, through the use of the newly-engineered atomic bomb. Hiroshima was extraordinarily scarred, the lives of thousands of innocent individuals snuffed out in seconds. Today, however, the United States government operates three ammunition depots within the Hiroshima Prefecture, and a military base less than two dozen miles away.
The above examples are offered in an attempt to rebut, through indirect reference to the golden rule, the public outcry that has saturated America’s airwaves in the past few days. Mormons, especially—we who have been collectively targeted by mob rule and coercive government action—should keenly understand and sympathize with those of other faiths who are placed in a similar situation.
But we generally don’t. Why not?
Fundamentally, the issue of the proposed Islamic community center boils down to property rights. Either individuals are free to purchase and use their own property as they see fit (provided they do no harm to others), or they’re not. Opponents of the project superficially acknowledge this argument, but qualify it with a litany of conditions: they should be sensitive to the families of the 9/11 victims; they have their property rights and freedom of religion, but should exercise them elsewhere; their selected location is too close to “ground zero”; and the construction of this mosque will be seen as a victory for Islam right in the very location where some of its adherents forced America to its knees.
Yawn.
These qualifiers are simply subtle demonstrations that the person using them in no way respects property rights, nor the freedom of religion. Worse still, members of the LDS Church who espouse such intellectually hollow rhetoric place themselves (perhaps unknowingly) in an awkward situation divorced from their own history. We, too, have been castigated in the public square for the actions of others who claim our religion as their own. We believe that man will punished for his own sins, but want to tie the sins of others to an entire religion in an attempt to deny them their pursuit of happiness. We claim “the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may,” and yet, we don’t.
Some have expressed concerns about the impact of allowing an advocate for Sharia law to have such a strong foothold in New York City, and the potential political implications such a large community center would have. Again, though, this fear (or any of its derivations) reeks with hypocrisy when vocalized by Latter-day Saints. One of the primary rallying cries for the anti-Mormon mobs was in regards to the significant political power the Mormons wielded through their unified votes, and the mixture of religion and politics in the theo-democratic institutions with which Joseph Smith experimented. The Prophet was mayor of his city, commanded a powerful militia, spearheaded institutions that combined religious and political power into one, and even sought out the highest political office in the United States government! Any one of these actions alone would have fed sufficient controversy to the opposing mob, but their combination ultimately proved fatal for the man who restored the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Earth. We Mormons of all people, then, should immediately, sincerely, and vocally reject any sort of similar uproar targeted at others.
If we Mormons have learned anything from our history, it’s that a group of individuals whipped into a fanatic frenzy based on hearsay, emotional appeals, and populist rhetoric can quickly transform into a mob bent on alienation, persecution, and even destruction. Having been subjected to an extermination order, forceful ejections from property, pillage, plunder, and a deprivation of every comfort imaginable, our Latter-day Saint ancestors would surely be appalled at the degree to which many of their posterity are exhibiting some of the same characteristics in reference to those of another faith.
We who have historically suffered such persecution should be among the most ardent defenders of individual liberty, private property, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. We should be passing this latest litmus test with flying colors, boldly standing up for the oppressed minority now targeted by mob mentality, expressing sympathy and support—not necessarily for this specific project in its specific location, but for the right its organizers have to pursue it, and the freedom that should accompany such a right.
That we have collectively failed in this regard is a stain on our much-revered, Moroni-inspired Title of Liberty, and a lost opportunity to prove that we have learned from our past. Where once we were the victims of the mob, now we are part of it.











Thank you for articulating this view so powerfully and succinctly, Connor.
Along with Ron Paul’s recent comments on the news concerning the Mosque controversy, your article highlights the hidden racism and conspiracy to rouse emotions to support a warfare mentality. It shocks me to hear the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter, stoke the flames of hate, not understanding (or perhaps they do!) the conflagration they seek to ignite would result in a battle to the death with one of the largest populated faith in the world–All for the sake of ratings!
I’d love ask those that are against the Mosque these questions;
1. What about the Muslims who died int he two towers on 9/11? Would they not already desecrated the spot by their dying there? Do their deaths count as well
2. Should Muslims be forbidden to visit the Ground Zero area, as that would be considered
“rubbing it in our face? Perhaps we should backtrack and forbid Japanese tourists from visiting the USS Arizona memorial in Hawaii. Same thing, is it not?
3. What would say to all the Muslim service men and women on our armed forces? That their service does not include fighting for their rights to worship as well?
Isn’t there an old saying, just because you *can* do something, doesn’t mean you should? I guess there’s no accounting for bad taste.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what they build on ground-zero. Its funny that both sides seem to want an inflammatory incident – and that makes me curious. All the lights and thunder about this mosque, is that just a diversion from something more important?
Thank You Connor
It scares me to see members of our faith so blindly buying into the rhetoric of the functioning Hegelian dialectic operating in our media today. Divided We Fall…………………..
Am I the only one that finds the comparison of extermination orders, forceful evictions, pillage and plunder with the peaceful protest against the proposed ground zero mosque ridiculous?
Aren’t you forgetting about freedom of speech? Of course, you’re free to argue that the many Mormons who are opposed to the mosque shouldn’t exercise that freedom in this case, just as opponents believe and argue that the owners of the property shouldn’t exercise their right to build.
I can recognize valid points in your argument, even if I don’t agree, without claiming your supporting censorship and restrictions of freedom of speech. Perhaps you recognize that opposing the mosque does not equate to restricting freedom of religion or anti-muslim mobs.
“I can recognize valid points in your argument, even if I don’t agree, without claiming your supporting censorship and restrictions of freedom of speech. Perhaps you recognize that opposing the mosque does not equate to restricting freedom of religion or anti-muslim mobs.”
Denton, people are entitled to criticize, and it’s my right to criticize their criticisms. But it’s a different vibe all together when commercially paid and promoted radio pundits keep fanning the flames to promote ratings to keep ratings high for commercial exposure. It no longer becomes news, or even “editorial opinion” but yellow journalism, the same wrap-the -flag around oneself rhetoric that led to a unnecessary war with Cuba, which led to occupying the Philippines under false pretensions to expand the US Empire. The radio pundits are neither fair or balanced, (More like “unbalanced”) who brook no opposite views without shouting down dissenters with accusations of being knee jerk liberal progressives or traitors. I’m sure Gobbels would be impressed with the repetition of the Mosque issue conducted by commercial radio stations that distracts the citizens from the more serious infringements on their personal liberties by their own government.