Time To Revisit

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the suggestions- I don't want to cut them off, but I will contact Marvin- maybe he is following the thread maybe not I am not sure. I just want to give it a bump more than anything, and tomorrow is a busy day for me.

Any day or time better than others?

[mfbukowski]

I think it would be great to give Mr. Perkins his own thread to share his thoughts and explanations. If he is only willing to do a conference call would he be open to other African American groups participating?

That's a great idea, but I am not sure he has the time to follow up on it. He can respond here of course if he wants to.

What other group did you have in mind? LDS I presume?

[Xander]

We saw when Prof. Randy Bott made very articulate historical statements get refuted by Church spokespersons.

The Church refuted Bott's statements? I must have missed the memo.

CFR?

[Pahoran]

Mr/Ms Pahoran,

I think it may be a matter of experience and/or perspective that separates our views. I grew up in a very racially integrated culture from grade school through law school. I live and work in a community that is extremely integrated here in Atlanta. I did not grow up in an all white church or live in a state where the African American community is less 1% of the population.

I grew up in New Zealand, a country that had full racial integration while the US had Jim Crow laws. I've never seen an "all white church" and can only imagine what one would look like. I have had non-white bishops and stake presidents, I received my patriarchal blessing from a Maori patriarch, and my wife and children are non-white.

So I agree that there may be differences in experience and/or perspective between us. Inter alia, I have no sense of "white guilt."

The fact that I'm not a BIC member is actually a blessing for me on being able to look at many issues facing the Church and being free from cultural bias.

I'm also not a BIC member. But the notion that anyone is (or even could be) "free from cultural bias" is naive, self-congratulatory nonsense.

Right or wrong, I don't prescribe to the historical persecution complex that I often see many members here in Atlanta use as their first line of defense before thinking through issues.

"Persecution complex" is a dismissive buzzword and is empty of meaning.

But if we are to expand and extend our message of the gospel to an ever more educated population who have access to, perhaps, much more of our church history to many of those who grew up within the Church, I believe we need to start coming to grips with issues and history that are limiting our growth and message. And I believe that has to start with a perspective that may well have to come from a view, an experience, and a perspective that is originated from outside of the Utah culture.

No disrespect intended to anyone. Just being honest.

I'm about as far outside Utah culture as anyone could be. And I'm not offended by your attempt to patronise me; I'm amused by it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Oliverio]

I grew up in New Zealand, a country that had full racial integration while the US had Jim Crow laws. I've never seen an "all white church" and can only imagine what one would look like. I have had non-white bishops and stake presidents, I received my patriarchal blessing from a Maori patriarch, and my wife and children are non-white.

So I agree that there may be differences in experience and/or perspective between us. Inter alia, I have no sense of "white guilt."

I'm also not a BIC member. But the notion that anyone is (or even could be) "free from cultural bias" is naive, self-congratulatory nonsense.

"Persecution complex" is a dismissive buzzword and is empty of meaning.

I'm about as far outside Utah culture as anyone could be. And I'm not offended by your attempt to patronise me; I'm amused by it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Mr/Ms Pahoran

Had no idea you lived in New Zealand. Wife and I have been there twice - love it! Lots to do and great outdoors for those like us!

But have to admit - never saw a predominant African American population there. If memory serves me right on my studies of the country, natives came from a Polynesian culture. And I have no doubt you have many in that country who are readily available for the questions for the missionaries knew very little. Just tough getting objective coverage to answers to those questions I suspect!

Do you believe the Maoris are defendants of those precluded from the priesthood ban during the ban? If not, do you believe you have ever engaged w a meaningful part of your population who have any understanding or knowledge of this ban when in place.

You see it's not your animosity to my issues I want to confront. But rather your knowledge and experience of having to confront the issue with those whose ancestors were deprived with no formal explanation from our Church today. I have to do it on a regular basis living in a black community.

I trust/hope if you can release yourself from the cultural persecution complex - we can have a meaningful dialogue.

There won't be any meaningful dialogue if you insult each other. Knock it off.

[Calm]

Mr/Ms Pahoran

my wife and children are non-white

[volgadon]

Wonderfully inattentive for a lawyer.

[Calm]

I thought so too, volga.

I trust/hope if you can release yourself from the cultural persecution complex - we can have a meaningful dialogue.

You should know that one of the first rules of "meaningful dialogue" is to not talk down to your counterpart.

Seriously, I would suggest some reconsideration of your approach if you think this is the way to produce confidence that you intend to actually listen to what the other is saying as opposed to lecturing him.

Edited April 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

Wonderfully inattentive for a lawyer.

Putting the blinders on and saying that an apology from the church is the only option for the church seems to require an ability to ignore things - or at least, to be very selective in what you pay attention to.

I'm still intrigued by Brother Perkins' statement that a plan is already in place and that it's working. Evidently an apology is not the absolute requirement that some people make it out to be.

[volgadon]

I'm still intrigued by Brother Perkins' statement that a plan is already in place and that it's working. Evidently an apology is not the absolute requirement that some people make it out to be.

Actions speak louder than words, really.

[Calm]

In so many ways.

[jerryp48]

I lived for years next to an 'all black' southern baptist church in Utah. It seems like there are quite a few of them in the US. Pehaps they don't restrict whites from entering but it just seems like that is far more acceptable and hardly ever pointed out.

I was 9 when the ban was lifted. I don't need to apologize and I don't feel like current church leaders who aren't racist should apologize in behalf of 19th century leaders who may have been. The ban may have been personal but that doesn't mean the Lord didn't sanctioned it until a time when the hearts of His children changed.

[Log]

I wonder if Hugh Nibley was lying when he said the Lord witnessed to him the ban was of divine origin.

t is indeed the Lord's doing. How do I know it? By revelation....

Edited April 23, 2012 by Log

[Pahoran]

Mr/Ms Pahoran

There's no need to use an honorific; I'm quite happy to deal with you as an equal. But if you insist on using one, it's Mr.

Had no idea you lived in New Zealand. Wife and I have been there twice - love it! Lots to do and great outdoors for those like us!

But have to admit - never saw a predominant African American population there.

Well no, you wouldn't, would you?

I wouldn't expect to see "a predominant African American population" anywhere outside America, would you?

But I was actually addressing your remark about an "all white church." In what universe is Maori/Polynesian skin pigmentation generally considered "white?"

If memory serves me right on my studies of the country, natives came from a Polynesian culture. And I have no doubt you have many in that country who are readily available for the questions for the missionaries knew very little. Just tough getting objective coverage to answers to those questions I suspect!

I'm having difficulty parsing that. Would you like to clarify it?

Do you believe the Maoris are defendants of those precluded from the priesthood ban during the ban? If not, do you believe you have ever engaged w a meaningful part of your population who have any understanding or knowledge of this ban when in place.

No, they are not defendants, descendants or (to my knowledge) otherwise concerned. But the subject was of enough interest that in the early 70's it was discussed among LDS high school students.

I was on my mission in Australia when the ban was ended. Years later I met one of the first men to be ordained that Sunday morning. He was of Canadian extraction and living as an active, faithful Latter-day Saint, both shoulders entirely chip-free.

You see it's not your animosity to my issues I want to confront. But rather your knowledge and experience of having to confront the issue with those whose ancestors were deprived with no formal explanation from our Church today. I have to do it on a regular basis living in a black community.

Try this for size: "It's nothing to do with me. It was all over long before I joined the Church (or was even born, as the case may be.) But I've discussed this with people who were members of the Church at the time the ban was ended, and they have told me that something remarkable happened that Sunday morning; something that you'll never see in any other Church. Starting in Auckland, New Zealand, Black Church members began to be ordained that very morning, and the ordinations followed the sunrise around the world, from east to west. Asia, Africa, Europe, North and South America, the ordinations just kept going. When the sun set over Attu Island that night, the Priesthood Ban was history; it had literally been abolished in a day. Would you like to know more about a Church that can receive and accept revelation from God so quickly?"

I trust/hope if you can release yourself from the cultural persecution complex - we can have a meaningful dialogue.

You know, if you really want a "meaningful dialogue," you might try discarding silly thought-terminating cliches like "persecution complex."

Then see if you can release yourself from your white guilt.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

We argue about reconciling Evolution with the gospel when there is no conflict there and then magically ignore reconciling the ban with its removal.

We ignore it because it can't be done.

I would like to see one reasonable argument why God "changed his mind" on this issue. The only thing that even approaches something "reasonable" is the "I don't know" admission- ie: that God did change it but we don't know why. That is certainly not a very good explanation, but at least it doesn't produce some totally contradictory nonsense.

To me, it clearly it was some kind of mistake from the beginning, and later justified through scriptural misinterpretation.

We just have to, in my opinion, face the facts that the US was and still is, to some extent, racist, and so was our church. We're getting dramatically better but as in most areas of life, we are not exactly perfect yet. Yes it's better than it was, but perfect?

No more than we are perfect in any other area.

[Log]

We argue about reconciling Evolution with the gospel when there is no conflict there and then magically ignore reconciling the ban with its removal.

We argue about evolution because, whether you admit it or not, evolution taken on its own terms contradicts key truth claims of the Gospel.

We ignore the ban because there's not enough information either way.

We likewise generally ignore polygamy for the same reason.

The last two are crucially different from the first, and that difference is in what is (not) known about them.

I would like to see one reasonable argument why God "changed his mind" on this issue.

I have a theory, which is perfectly reasonable to me. However, I cannot support it by reference to scriptures nor contemporary documents, so I'll pass. As a hint, I will simply point out that slavery was a live issue at the time of the institution of the ban. I'm not so sanguine about the "

" thesis. Edited April 23, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

"

" thesis.

Now I know why they were one-hit-wonders!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But have to admit - never saw a predominant African American population there. If memory serves me right on my studies of the country, natives came from a Polynesian culture. And I have no doubt you have many in that country who are readily available for the questions for the missionaries knew very little. Just tough getting objective coverage to answers to those questions I suspect!

This is truly hilarious. Of course there are no African Americans in New Zealand. I love the PC talk. It has rotted this (the USA) country so bad. I think what Bob is saying is that there is no real black people living in New Zealand. Bob just keep digging this hole you are in.

You realize that there are more than just African Americans that are black that live in this world.?

[Calm]

This is truly hilarious. Of course there are no African Americans in New Zealand. I love the PC talk. It has rotted this (the USA) country so bad. I think what Bob is saying is that there is no real black people living in New Zealand. Bob just keep digging this hole you are in.

You realize that there are more than just African Americans that are black that live in this world.?

From someone who was talking about culturally imposed blinders, it is rather amusing.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's the same pattern we see with MMM. The church has apologized. There are still many historical facts that are not settled and likely never will be. But because the church as apologized, there is nothing left for the public to demand and so the issue is dying.

Can you quote or cite such an apology given by the Church?

I'm aware of a Church official (namely, Elder Henry B. Eyring when he was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve) expressing regret. But I don't regard that expression as being the same thing as an apology.

I don't accept that a person or group of people can apologize for something for which they are not accountable. Since today's Church or it's leaders are not responsible for what happened in 1857, they have no standing to apologize for it, although they — or anyone, for that matter — can express regret over it.

Moreover, the Church as an institution was not accountable for it even in 1857, since there was never any authorization, official or otherwise, from the Church for the behavior of the massacre's perpetrators.

If you need a definition for apology, here's an adequate one from dictionary.com:

a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another: He demanded an apology from me for calling him a crook.

As you can see, the definition carries the inherent implication that the party doing the apologizing has some personal accountability for the thing that is being apologized for.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Log]

Now I know why they were one-hit-wonders!

What? They had several hits!

[mfbukowski]

OK- update on Marvin Perkins- today I got this email, I am busy tonight but wanted to get this posted- I have done editing on the salutation as usual

I had asked him if he was ok with the conference call becoming a "debate" over the history, and this was his reply:

Monday, April 23, 2012 11:50 AM

Thanks (mfbukowski) Contention is of the devil. When I hear debate, my mind goes to contention. What would be ideal is to have a small group of 10 or less to simply jump on a conference call with their scriptures and have me spend 30 minutes sharing information and scripture that should cause a paradigm shift. At that point, it’s been my experience that their questions would have changed because the positions they came to the call with no longer have a foundation to rest upon. We do these calls all the time, even with our harshest critics. So anyone joining the call will have to do so knowing that they and their viewpoints will be heard and respected and that they commit to do the same. This would be a call to attempt to honor the command to be one, to edify one another.

Let’s move forward. The group can be as small as 2-3, which can then come back and share their individual and collective experiences with the group. We can help 100% of them who have a sincere desire to know. Feel free to post this as well.

And thanks again for your great efforts.

Marvin

Marvin Perkins

Blacks In The Scriptures

www.BlacksintheScriptures.com

"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing"

I plan on setting this up- last call for best days and times- if you have a preference, post it here.

[jwhitlock]

OK- update on Marvin Perkins- today I got this email, I am busy tonight but wanted to get this posted- I have done editing on the salutation as usual

I had asked him if he was ok with the conference call becoming a "debate" over the history, and this was his reply:

I plan on setting this up- last call for best days and times- if you have a preference, post it here.

One Sunday evening might be the best time.

[Buckeye]

Can you quote or cite such an apology given by the Church?

I'm aware of a Church official (namely, Elder Henry B. Eyring when he was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve) expressing regret. But I don't regard that expression as being the same thing as an apology.

I don't accept that a person or group of people can apologize for something for which they are not accountable. Since today's Church or it's leaders are not responsible for what happened in 1857, they have no standing to apologize for it, although they — or anyone, for that matter — can express regret over it.

...

I view the words expressed by then-Elder Eyring as an apology on behalf of the church. Apparently, the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune take the same view:

• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a long-awaited apology Tuesday for the massacre of an immigrant wagon train by local church members 150 years ago in southwestern Utah." (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695209359/LDS-Church-issues-apology-over-Mountain-Meadows.html)
  
• "A Mormon apostle, speaking Tuesday at the 150th anniversary memorial service for victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, apologized for the church's role, expressing "profound regret for the massacre." (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6869005)
  

We'll have to disagree as to whether the leader of an organization can apologize for actions taken by that organization prior to the leader's involvement. In my view, that's entirely appropriate. It's done all the time:

• In 2004, Illinois officials apologized for the expulsion of mormons in the 19th century and for the killing of Joseph Smith. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/national/08APOL.html)
  
• In 2008, the House of Representatives passed a resolution apologizing to African-Americans for slavery and the era of Jim Crow. (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-29/politics/house.slavery_1_african-american-slavery-white-lawmaker?_s=PM:POLITICS)
  
• In 2000, Pope JPII apologized on behalf of the Catholic Church for sins it had committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and native peoples. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion)
  

The church is a "living" organization - at least in the Lord's words. The authority previously possessed by Brigham and others at the time of the massacre was in the possession of President Hinckley and the Twelve at the time Elder Eyring issued the apology. It was therefore appropriate for Elder Eyring, not Brigham, to issue the apology because Elder Eyring, not Brigham, had authority in 2007 to speak for the Church.

It was an apology by the Church. And yes, it was an apology.

[Scott Lloyd]

I view the words expressed by then-Elder Eyring as an apology on behalf of the church. Apparently, the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune take the same view:

I'm well aware of news coverage of this event. I insist that both the Tribune writer and the writer for my own paper, the Deseret News, were wrong to characterize it as such, for the reason I have already articulated. If I had written the story (and, in fact, I was almost sent down to Cedar City that day to cover it) I would not have termed it as an apology and you would not have had a Deseret News story to marshal in your behalf. I note that Elder Eyring himself, as quoted, did not term it an apology. I think the wording he chose is significant.

In fact, as quoted, he said that "responsibility for the massacre lies with the local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows who also held civic and military positions and with members of the church acting under their direction." He did not say that the Church itself, as an institution, bore responsibility. He could easily have done so had that been the message he intended to convey.

We'll have to disagree as to whether the leader of an organization can apologize for actions taken by that organization prior to the leader's involvement.

Yes, we do disagree -- diametrically in fact. And I don't see that you have persuasively rebutted my logic. In this instance, the "organization" itself (the Church of Jesus Christ) did not perpetrate the massacre; errant members of that organization did.

In my view, that's entirely appropriate. It's done all the time:

• In 2004, Illinois officials apologized for the expulsion of mormons in the 19th century and for the killing of Joseph Smith. (http://www.nytimes.c...nal/08APOL.html)
  

I was present at the news conference in Salt Lake City when the Illinois state government officials announced this initiative. As I recall, one of them referenced an issue as to whether it should properly be called an apology as opposed to an expression of regret, as the New York Times story you linked us to makes clear:

An earlier draft of the resolution asked the Mormons for their "pardon and forgiveness," but the language was weakened at the behest of Illinois lawmakers who said they could not ask forgiveness for acts they had not personally committed.

A question I posed at that news conference was whether any of the officials then present had ancestors who were Illinois residents at the time the Prophet was martyred; none did. Implicit in my question, of course, was the logic I have articulated here: One can express regret about events of the past, but one cannot appropriately apologize for something for which one is not personally accountable.

And even if one's ancestors did commit crimes, a descendant is not accountable for the actions of the ancestor. In short, I reject the fallacy of guilt by association.

Incidentally here's a link to the story I wrote at the time. I just reviewed it and noted that in none of the official documents I quoted is the word "apologize" or "apology" used.

• 
  

  • In 2008, the House of Representatives passed a resolution apologizing to African-Americans for slavery and the era of Jim Crow. (http://articles.cnn....?_s=PM:POLITICS)
    
  • In 2000, Pope JPII apologized on behalf of the Catholic Church for sins it had committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and native peoples. (http://www.guardian....licism.religion)
    

My reasoning still applies. Under the definition I have cited it is not properly termed an apology unless the party making the apology assumes accountability.

The church is a "living" organization - at least in the Lord's words. The authority previously possessed by Brigham and others at the time of the massacre was in the possession of President Hinckley and the Twelve at the time Elder Eyring issued the apology. It was therefore appropriate for Elder Eyring, not Brigham, to issue the apology because Elder Eyring, not Brigham, had authority in 2007 to speak for the Church.

The Church as an institution is not accountable for the unauthorized and errant actions of individual members. If you (I assume you are a Church member) were to go out and commit adultery, for example, you yourself would bear the blame, not the Church. The Church could express regret for your action, but the apology would have to come from you.

It was an apology by the Church. And yes, it was an apology.

Your assertion is clear; I just don't think you have persuasively argued it.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd