LDS Freedom Forum

I saw a thread on Facebook where one poster was saying we shouldn’t honor MLK jr with a national holiday because he was an adulterer. What say you?

Idk, let that poster cast the first stone then

At the very least, it’s a holiday many people get off of work. Why get rid of a holiday?

A city in my state celebrated the holiday by getting together (Native American tribe and other citizens) and marching down the street. I thought that was a decent thing to do.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 3:11 pm At the very least, it’s a holiday many people get off of work. Why get rid of a holiday?

A city in my state celebrated the holiday by getting together (Native American tribe and other citizens) and marching down the street. I thought that was a decent thing to do.

The question isn’t about whether to git rid of a holiday. We could change it to someone else. Like Chuck Norris. (Kidding about that, haha)

Full article here - https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... -adulation

Martin Luther King Doesn’t Deserve Adulation
Written by John F. McManus

Earlier this month, a flood of reminders about the death of Martin Luther King 50 years ago arrived, as all elements of the mass media told Americans about the anniversary of a gunman killing this paragon of virtue and bravery on April 4, 1968. The reports insisted that King was the nation’s most eminent apostle of nonviolence, a heroic advocate of peace in our nation’s racially turbulent era, and an exponent of all virtues. The truth is that King was a highly flawed individual whose actual strategy for change wasn’t peace. The strategy he relied on consisted mainly of a process he had learned from known communists, whose indisputable goal was the destruction of our nation.

Mrs. Julia Brown, who went undercover for the FBI for more than nine years as a member of the Communist Party in Cleveland, Ohio, gives a testament to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s connection to the Communist Party:

I learned many surprising things while I served in the Communist Party for the FBI. Communist leaders told us about the demonstrations that would be started, the protest marches, the demands that would be made for massive federal intervention.

… Wherever we went and whatever we did, we were to promote race consciousness and resentment, because the Communists know that the technique of divide and conquer really works.

We were also told to promote Martin Luther King, to unite Negroes and whites behind him, and to turn him into some sort of national hero.

Because there were individuals who didn’t want their community disturbed by parades, demonstrations, and confrontations, they were easy to provoke, and King's people did provoke them. As history has shown, King’s on-the-scene allies — often nonresidents of the targeted area — would frequently gather local individuals and provoke fistfights, head cracking, and other forms of violent behavior. In numerous instances, the King-led team supplied trained agitators to stir up the mayhem. (This, of course, does not excuse any violent behavior — whether provoked by MLK's recruits or caused by genuine racists.) The goal of the manufactured turmoil was federal legislation imposing increasing amounts of government control over the entire nation.

With the help of dishonest media reporters who failed to report King’s strategy, new laws enhancing federal power were indeed enacted. King’s effectiveness in building socialistic government won him plaudits from left-wing politicians and lazy or complicit media stalwarts.

Soon, however, to stave off trouble, courageous black Americans began to arrive in targeted cities prior to the marches and demonstrations planned by King. They would explain King's strategy to blacks and whites so well that the sought-after violence never materialized. Several communities in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia benefited greatly after the King strategy had been explained and the planned confrontations were called off. Julia Brown, Leonard Patterson, Lolabelle Holmes, and other patriotic black Americans told worried residents of the King-targeted regions — both black and white — what to expect and how to avoid violent protests that would ruin their communities and harm their residents. Their extremely effective warnings led to the cancellation of King’s plans in many areas.

King was no pacifist, rather he had received training from communist leaders at the subversive Highlander Folk School in Tennessee to sow discord. He accepted funding from several communist leaders and organizations, and no less a government official than Attorney General Robert Kennedy directed the FBI to create wiretaps and other forms of surveillance over King and his fellow agitators. Therefore, the federal government knew that King was being used by known and secret communists. But a 1977 court order sealed all that evidence of treachery in the National Archives.

When King's plan to create civil rights riots was no longer working, he turned his attention to the Vietnam War, accusing our nation’s forces of wantonly killing “a million South Vietnamese civilians, mostly children.” He likened the efforts of America’s men in arms to what Hitler’s forces had done to innocent people before and during World War II. One made-up charge after another, no matter how ghastly, came out of the mouth of this supposed man of peace and honor.

He seemed dishonest to the core: Researchers of the early King years showed that he had earned his degree from Boston University via widespread plagiarism, and some who have examined his career have indicated that, far from being a man of God, he was a consistent philanderer who should have been scorned, not awarded an angelic reputation.

The truth about this man and his career will eventually be known. Even without unsealing the documents, enough is known about King to conclude that those who established a national holiday to honor him should themselves be scorned. Martin Luther King, an enemy of freedom and a seriously flawed individual, should never be lauded by anyone who understands the importance of truth.

Full article here - https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... berrations

Monday, 06 November 2017
Declassified FBI Paper Reveals Martin Luther King’s “Sexual Aberrations”
Written by Warren Mass

As we noted in a related article, among the files related to the JFK assassination that were recently released was an FBI research paper dated March 12, 1968, with the subject line: “Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Current Analysis.” The paper was written just a month before the controversial civil rights activist was shot and killed on April 4, 1968. King’s convicted killer, James Earl Ray, pled guilty to his murder, received a life sentence, and died in prison of natural causes 29 years later.

The 20-page paper, which was classified as “secret,” was reviewed by the FBI/JFK Task Force in 1994, which denied the release of its contents.

Much of the FBI paper dealt with what it termed the “strong communist influence” on King and the organization he was instrumental in founding, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). After documenting multiple instances of King having accepted the help of men who had been identified as communists, the paper also addressed the SCLC’s finances, before moving on to more sensitive matters.

The report concluded with a section on King’s personal conduct. This part of the document was replete with accounts of drunken orgies and other behavior unbecoming to an ordained minister being conducted at workshops King organized. The report’s reference for funding for these workshops was also interesting. It stated:

With the funds he had received from the Ford Foundation, King held the first of two workshops in Miami, Florida, in February, 1968, to train Negro ministers in urban leadership. One Negro minister in attendance later expressed his disgust with the behind-the-scene drinking, fornication, and homosexuality that went on at the conference. Several Negro and white prostitutes were brought in from the Miami area. An all-night sex orgy was held with these prostitutes and some of the delegates in attendance.

One room had a large table in it which was filled with whiskey. The two Negro prostitutes were paid $50.00 to put on a sex show for the entertainment of the guests. A variety of sex acts deviating from the normal were observed.

We cannot help but notice the striking change in general moral sensibilities that has taken place in our society since 1968 — when the above words were written — and today. In today’s world of LGBT “rights,” we wonder if any report written by a government agency would use language such as “sex acts deviating from the normal,” when an official definition of “normal” is for all practical purposes nonexistent.

The report continued, noting under the subhead, “Previous Sexual Experiences”:

This activity is not new to King and his associates. As early as January, 1964, King engaged in another, two-day, drunken sex orgy in Washington, D.C. Many of those present engaged in sexual acts, natural as well as unnatural, for the entertainment of onlookers. When one of the females shied away from engaging in an unnatural act, King and other of the males present discussed how she was to be taught and initiated in this respect.

Throughout the ensuing years and until this date King has continued to carry on his sexual aberrations secretly while holding himself out to public view as a moral leader of religious conviction.

After detailing an account of King’s affairs with several women, the report continued:

As can be seen from the above, it is a fact that King not only regularly indulges in adulterous acts, but enjoys the abnormal by engaging in group sexual orgies.

It is well to keep in mind that the preceding excerpts came not from a scandal-filled supermarket tabloid but a research report written for the FBI.

If this single, recently released FBI file contains so much information that is contrary to the commonly held perception of King, one wonders what might be found in the bulk of the FBI files on King that a judge has ordered sealed until the year 2027.

Full article here - https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... ot-reality

Friday, 15 January 2016
Martin Luther King Day Based on MLK's Image, Not Reality
Written by Steve Byas

Former New Hampshire Governor Meldrim Thompson wrote a letter to President Ronald Reagan in the fall of 1983, urging the president to veto any bill creating a national holiday for civil rights figure Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reagan’s response highlights the problem of anyone expressing any opposition to a King holiday then — and even more so today:

On the national holiday you mentioned, I have the reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality. Indeed to them, the perception is reality. [Emphasis added.]

The image and perception of King is of a man who opposed affirmative action, believing in equality of opportunity, and not government quotas. And all through non-violence.

Near the end of his life, King became more open about his radical philosophy. At the 10th anniversary convention of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, he called for the “restructuring of the whole of American society.” He told the attendees that the millions of poor people in America should raise “questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy.”

Other less positive aspects of his life also should be better known.

For one, although known as a Baptist preacher, King had expressed doubts about fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith. Once during Sunday School when he was only 13 years old, he challenged the bodily resurrection of Jesus. He later conceded that the Bible also included “many profound truths”; however, later he was attracted to the “social gospel” propounded by Walter Rauschenbusch, which stresses good works and social causes instead of Christian doctrines such as individual salvation.

King obtained his Ph.D. in 1955 from Boston University. His dissertation, “A Comparison of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman,” has since been judged to have been partially plagiarized. Following an academic inquiry conducted in 1991, university officials declined to revoke King’s doctoral degree, instead simply adding an attachment to his dissertation in the university library which noted the problems associated with it.

King's advocacy for peaceful change was well and good, but his economic views were certainly left-wing. He kept these beliefs largely quiet until near the end of his life in 1968, but he had supported democratic socialism for several years, and he called for government redistribution of wealth. “A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth,” King asserted. He told Coretta Scott (later to be his wife) in a 1952 letter that he was “much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic.” He later said that America should move toward a “better distribution of wealth.”

But with his assassination on April 4, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee, where he had gone to show support for the city’s sanitation workers (mostly black) during a strike, it became politically problematic to oppose the creation of a national holiday for King.

Escaped convict James Earl Ray, a white man, was charged with the murder, and he eventually confessed to the crime. But Ray later recanted this confession, and like the 1963 John F. Kennedy assassination and the attempted assassination of Alabama Governor George Wallace in 1972, doubts continue to this day as to just what is the full story of the King assassination.

In 1971, St. Louis, Missouri established King’s birthday as a holiday, followed by several other cities and states. Pressure grew for Congress to create a national holiday, with insinuations that any opposition to a King holiday was “racist.” At a news conference in 1983, President Reagan was asked whether he would sign the bill creating a federal holiday to honor King. His response was that he would, because “the symbolism of that day is important enough.” He added that he did not fault “the sincerity” of those who wanted FBI files on King released first, which would help answer the concerns that King was a communist, or at least associated with communists.

When asked if he agreed with the accusations some had made that King was a communist sympathizer, Reagan responded, “We’ll know in about 35 years, won’t we?” — referencing the time when he thought the files on King would be released.

Actually, it was in 1977 that the FBI surveillance files on Martin Luther King, Jr. were sealed — for 50 years. So in 2027 we should know what is in those documents concerning King's alleged associations with communists, although it is doubtful that the complete files will ever be released.

However, it is clear that the creation of a federal holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. was to satisfy political pressure and maintain an image — one not completely accurate. However, that image is so set in the minds of the American public that no politician today would dare repeat any damning facts about him.

But even former chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Julian Bond said in 2010 that the person whom Americans celebrate on the third Monday of January is not the real Martin Luther King, Jr., but an “anesthetized” version of the man.

Bond, who was a student of King's, told an Internet news program the day after MLK Day in 2010,

We’ve transformed him into kind of a cut-leaf figure, someone who had a dream and spoke those magnificent words, but we don’t remember the King who was a critic of capitalism.

Bond added that King favored a “modified form of socialism” for the United States.

This was not the first time that the left-wing Bond had challenged the modern image of King. In the April 3, 1993 Seattle Times, he said about King, “We have stripped his life of controversy." According to Bond, King said, “There must be a better distribution of wealth.... We can’t have a system where some of the people live in superfluous, inordinate wealth while others live in abject, deadening poverty.”

In a 1965 interview with Playboy magazine, King was asked if he felt it fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for blacks, or any other minority group. King was unequivocal:

I do. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages — potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America’s wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation.

It is not that Bond disapproved of King’s radicalism and support for wealth redistribution — but because so few Americans knew the whole truth about King — that he said, “It may be that ... one reason he is so celebrated today [is] because we celebrate a different kind of man than really existed.” (Emphasis added.)

That adultery claim is false. It was created by the CIA to falsify him. His own wife continually stated that Martin was faithful to her.


Ps. This sort of thing sounds similar to what happened to Joseph!

Full article here - https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/ ... -king-myth

Monday, 04 January 1999
Honoring the King Myth
Written by John F. McManus

Communist Connections

Since, as Reagan candidly observed, the perception of King had become the reality, it makes sense to go back and look at the stark reality of the man J. Edgar Hoover once dubbed "the most notorious liar in the country." During the Kennedy administration, King’s connections with Communists were well known to both JFK and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. In fact, Bobby Kennedy — with his liberal credentials overflowing — directed the FBI to institute surveillance of King, including wiretaps of telephone calls. While much of the information gathered by the FBI remains sealed by court order until 2027, some of it has come to light.

On December 8, 1975, for instance, the Washington Post pinpointed New York attorney Stanley Levinson as the "important secret member of the Communist Party" who was discovered by the FBI to have been King’s mentor, financier, and confidante for 12 years. The Levinson relationship began during King’s meteoric rise to national prominence. In her memoirs, King’s widow described Levinson’s contributions to her husband’s work as "indispensable." Levinson even wrote speeches for King.

In 1957, perhaps stimulated by Levinson, King attended and taught at a training school in Tennessee where he was photographed with Communists Carl and Anne Braden, Abner Berry, and Aubrey Williams.

In 1960, King hired one Hunter Pitts O’Dell to his staff. When O’Dell’s position as a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party was revealed in 1961, King supposedly fired him. But it turned out that rather than discharging this key Red, he had transferred and promoted O’Dell to a higher post within King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. When O’Dell was again exposed, King went through the same routine of announcing his dismissal. But a check by United Press International found him still employed by King’s organization.

But not everyone was appalled by King’s inflammatory rhetoric. Writing in the Communist Party’s Political Affairs, Party public relations chief Arnold Johnson enthusiastically quoted King as describing the United States as the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." The Communist press had earlier extolled King’s violence-producing marches and demonstrations, events that customarily led to property damage and loss of life in black neighborhoods.

In October 1988, J.A. Parker of the Washington-based Lincoln Institute, an organization of black conservatives, refused to buy into the phony image of King and pointed to evidence showing that King had been "under communist discipline." Parker insisted that the "King holiday is an insult to all Americans — black or white." And he launched a drive to have Congress repeal it. A Congress representing truth and the interests of all Americans would do exactly that.

Any reason to have a holiday is a good one.

ori wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 3:19 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 3:11 pm At the very least, it’s a holiday many people get off of work. Why get rid of a holiday?

A city in my state celebrated the holiday by getting together (Native American tribe and other citizens) and marching down the street. I thought that was a decent thing to do.

The question isn’t about whether to git rid of a holiday. We could change it to someone else. Like Chuck Norris. (Kidding about that, haha)

I see it more insulting to change the day to something else than to merely get rid of it all together. His ideas can still be applicable. If we get rid of it we would “possibly” be removing a barrier of civil behavior and all heck would break loose...who knows. I don’t think we should get rid of it.

EmmaLee wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 3:33 pm Full article here - https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... -adulation

Martin Luther King Doesn’t Deserve Adulation
Written by John F. McManus

Earlier this month, a flood of reminders about the death of Martin Luther King 50 years ago arrived, as all elements of the mass media told Americans about the anniversary of a gunman killing this paragon of virtue and bravery on April 4, 1968. The reports insisted that King was the nation’s most eminent apostle of nonviolence, a heroic advocate of peace in our nation’s racially turbulent era, and an exponent of all virtues. The truth is that King was a highly flawed individual whose actual strategy for change wasn’t peace. The strategy he relied on consisted mainly of a process he had learned from known communists, whose indisputable goal was the destruction of our nation.

Mrs. Julia Brown, who went undercover for the FBI for more than nine years as a member of the Communist Party in Cleveland, Ohio, gives a testament to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s connection to the Communist Party:

I learned many surprising things while I served in the Communist Party for the FBI. Communist leaders told us about the demonstrations that would be started, the protest marches, the demands that would be made for massive federal intervention.

… Wherever we went and whatever we did, we were to promote race consciousness and resentment, because the Communists know that the technique of divide and conquer really works.

We were also told to promote Martin Luther King, to unite Negroes and whites behind him, and to turn him into some sort of national hero.

Because there were individuals who didn’t want their community disturbed by parades, demonstrations, and confrontations, they were easy to provoke, and King's people did provoke them. As history has shown, King’s on-the-scene allies — often nonresidents of the targeted area — would frequently gather local individuals and provoke fistfights, head cracking, and other forms of violent behavior. In numerous instances, the King-led team supplied trained agitators to stir up the mayhem. (This, of course, does not excuse any violent behavior — whether provoked by MLK's recruits or caused by genuine racists.) The goal of the manufactured turmoil was federal legislation imposing increasing amounts of government control over the entire nation.

With the help of dishonest media reporters who failed to report King’s strategy, new laws enhancing federal power were indeed enacted. King’s effectiveness in building socialistic government won him plaudits from left-wing politicians and lazy or complicit media stalwarts.

Soon, however, to stave off trouble, courageous black Americans began to arrive in targeted cities prior to the marches and demonstrations planned by King. They would explain King's strategy to blacks and whites so well that the sought-after violence never materialized. Several communities in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia benefited greatly after the King strategy had been explained and the planned confrontations were called off. Julia Brown, Leonard Patterson, Lolabelle Holmes, and other patriotic black Americans told worried residents of the King-targeted regions — both black and white — what to expect and how to avoid violent protests that would ruin their communities and harm their residents. Their extremely effective warnings led to the cancellation of King’s plans in many areas.

King was no pacifist, rather he had received training from communist leaders at the subversive Highlander Folk School in Tennessee to sow discord. He accepted funding from several communist leaders and organizations, and no less a government official than Attorney General Robert Kennedy directed the FBI to create wiretaps and other forms of surveillance over King and his fellow agitators. Therefore, the federal government knew that King was being used by known and secret communists. But a 1977 court order sealed all that evidence of treachery in the National Archives.

When King's plan to create civil rights riots was no longer working, he turned his attention to the Vietnam War, accusing our nation’s forces of wantonly killing “a million South Vietnamese civilians, mostly children.” He likened the efforts of America’s men in arms to what Hitler’s forces had done to innocent people before and during World War II. One made-up charge after another, no matter how ghastly, came out of the mouth of this supposed man of peace and honor.

He seemed dishonest to the core: Researchers of the early King years showed that he had earned his degree from Boston University via widespread plagiarism, and some who have examined his career have indicated that, far from being a man of God, he was a consistent philanderer who should have been scorned, not awarded an angelic reputation.

The truth about this man and his career will eventually be known. Even without unsealing the documents, enough is known about King to conclude that those who established a national holiday to honor him should themselves be scorned. Martin Luther King, an enemy of freedom and a seriously flawed individual, should never be lauded by anyone who understands the importance of truth.

This, if true, explains why I’ve often had uneasy feelings about MLK, jr’s activities

Ralph David Abernathy did acknowledge in his 1989 autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down, that Martin Luther King engaged in extramarital affairs.

MLK was a communist and he wanted slavery reparations. He denied the divinity of Jesus. He was basically a race baiter just like Jesse Jackson.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 6:33 pm

ori wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 3:19 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 3:11 pm At the very least, it’s a holiday many people get off of work. Why get rid of a holiday?

A city in my state celebrated the holiday by getting together (Native American tribe and other citizens) and marching down the street. I thought that was a decent thing to do.

The question isn’t about whether to git rid of a holiday. We could change it to someone else. Like Chuck Norris. (Kidding about that, haha)

I see it more insulting to change the day to something else than to merely get rid of it all together. His ideas can still be applicable. If we get rid of it we would “possibly” be removing a barrier of civil behavior and all heck would break loose...who knows. I don’t think we should get rid of it.

Well the holiday could be changed to "racial equality day" or "I have a dream" day. It can be about the ideas and not the man. Also, "all heck would break loose" is not necessarily a reason not to change something. It can be a valid reason, but not necessarily in all cases. Would it be valid to keep gay marriage because getting rid of it would cause "all heck" to break loose?

The lionizing of MLK is among the most blatantly hypocritical things our woke culture does these days.

Woke culture teaches us we shouldn't honor people like Thomas Jefferson because he owned slaves and allegedly fathered illegitimate children with slave Sally Hemings. He did own slaves but there is almost zero evidence for the latter yet it's taught as fact in academia.

Michael King (MLK's real name), was proven to be a serial adulterer, plagiarist (supposedly a cardinal sin among academics), and communist. Yet these facts are swept under the rug and he continues to be a patron saint amongst modern SJWs.

Malcom X was a much more authentic civil rights leader. I don't agree with everything he said or did but he was legitimate, MLK on the other hand was a liar and con man.

[email protected] wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 11:43 pm The lionizing of MLK is among the most blatantly hypocritical things our woke culture does these days.

Woke culture teaches us we shouldn't honor people like Thomas Jefferson because he owned slaves and allegedly fathered illegitimate children with slave Sally Hemings. He did own slaves but there is almost zero evidence for the latter yet it's taught as fact in academia.

Michael King (MLK's real name), was proven to be a serial adulterer, plagiarist (supposedly a cardinal sin among academics), and communist. Yet these facts are swept under the rug and he continues to be a patron saint amongst modern SJWs.

Malcom X was a much more authentic civil rights leader. I don't agree with everything he said or did but he was legitimate, MLK on the other hand was a liar and con man.

You have some excellent points here sir!!

I’m all for racial equality. I even love to quote King, “judged not by the color of my skin but by the content of my character”. (Ok maybe it’s misquoted but that’s the gist. )

I love the idea of that quote. I really do. I still apply it today. When some racist posts about how whites are oppressors, I refer to the above quote... Stop judging me because I’m white. Judge me be my character, not by my skin color.

But I admit I don’t really like King. So I’m not a fan of the holiday that honors him.