Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

1st Pres. and NAACP


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

I worry a little about black members who seem to need an apology about something that really does not affect them  in our time now.  If an apology is given about such a thing are members going to demand and expect apologies for other things that they do not agree with in the future?  What does that do for the confidence members need to have in our church leaders?
Also we don't know for sure what was going on in the minds of the leaders back then. Perhaps they thought it was inspired of God to do what they did at the time or maybe they thought it was simply the prudent thing to do for the survival of the church in a nation where racism was pervasive and accepted. 

Part of the problem is that there is residual racism in the Church in areas which seem quite small or insignificant.  In Sunday School, for example, instructors will sometimes claim that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says when an important Israelite marries an non-Israelite.  An example is the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis, Egypt, who marries Joseph.  She bears Ephraim & Manasseh.  The denial that she is really Egyptian, and a pagan, is problematic and might have far-reaching implications.  What do we do about great leaders such as Moses and Abraham marry outside their ethnic groups?  What do we do when it becomes obvious that the Davidic royal line (including Jesus) includes non-Israelites?  What does God think?

However, I don't hear Black members demanding an apology of any kind.  They understand only too well the foibles of their former masters.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree that clarity would be really awesome. I'm beginning to wonder how much clarity clarity would provide. 

For example, if there were to be a blanket apology and condemnation/repudiation of the ban, that still wouldn't solve the "dueling prophets" problem. And what if the 2018 apology/condemnation were later apologized for and condemned? 

That's why I don't feel an apology/condemnation really solves or clarifies anything. I think it's clearly better to just leave things as they are (including the past and past statements) --- unless God is inquired of through the keys of seership and an answer is received. I don't believe that particular question has been or is being asked by the key-holders, and without revelation on the matter, any moves such as apology or condemnation would only be for PR or perceived damage control purposes. That, I think, does more harm than good.

Am I the only one here who didn't think it was real when it came out? I realize that "jumping the gun" might have been a product of wishful thinking, but still. It really doesn't seem like something that would have happened (although I was nervous about a "joint statement" with the NAACP on the eve of the "Be One" broadcast, I still expected it to be bland and generic boilerplate, and said so).

I think it goes without saying that no member of the church expects any clarification/condemnation/apology to come without revelation on the matter.  Clarification void of revelation would give no more clarity than the current essays have.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

First, I don't know that most black members want an apology.

I agree. I see this much more from white members who are embarrassed than I do from black members. 

I think they want unequivocal evidence that says that they are not inferior to white members in any way, shape, or form.

I don't think this is really an issue any more. It has been 40 years, for one thing, and it has long been taught that all are alike --- and many of our wards and stakes see black members in important roles. 

Second, the Priesthood ban definitely still affects black members today.  Just listen to them share their experiences with racism or micro-aggression in the church.  There are still racist members of the church (temple attending members).

I wonder if, by the definition of some, merely believing that the ban was God's will constitutes "being a racist member." That would come as a big surprise to my black students and the ten black members of my ward (plus two investigators). That is, they would not categorize me and others as racist at all, even though we may believe differently from those who believe the ban was not God's will. To me, racism is manifested in racist actions and words. And by words, I don't mean believing that the ban wasn't wrong. I mean saying racist things. 

They still have to deal with lessons on the priesthood ban and their kids still have to grow up dealing with all of that.

When? The Church very conspicuously and overtly avoids lessons on this, and there aren't very many at all. There is the one lesson in the D&C gospel doctrine manual that includes it as one of many examples of modern-day revelation, but it isn't an emphasis or showcase of that lesson. The Spencer W. Kimball manual didn't have a lesson dedicated to it, although it very well could have. I don't think this is a big lesson emphasis or topic of discussion in church meetings at all. 

Third, it's very hard for black members (any members) to get closure on the priesthood ban (whether it was of God or not) when there are some members who still feel the ban was justified because blacks were less righteous than they were in the pre-existence, for example. 

Again, everyone being in lock-step on the approved thinking on this is required to give everyone "closure?" "You have to mean it, Potter!" --- Bellatrix Lestrange

Just imagine if the tables were turned and you had to raise your children in a church where blacks (

who were the majority of the church's members) had taught for decades that your children were less valiant in the pre-existence than their kids were, and where there were still members in good standing who believed that today.

Even if you think you wouldn't be bothered anymore by it, surely you can see that it's not unreasonable for others to still be sensitive about the issue.

I have imagined this, and I agree, it would be very tough. No doubt about it. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it goes without saying that no member of the church expects any clarification/condemnation/apology to come without revelation on the matter.  Clarification void of revelation would give no more clarity than the current essays have.  

There are many, though, who don't care if it is revelatory or not, just so long as the apology/condemnation comes. Many who really want this badly don't really believe in revelation, anyway. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

First, I don't know that most black members want an apology.  I think they want unequivocal evidence that says that they are not inferior to white members in any way, shape, or form. 

Second, the Priesthood ban definitely still affects black members today.  Just listen to them share their experiences with racism or micro-aggression in the church.  There are still racist members of the church (temple attending members).  They still have to deal with lessons on the priesthood ban and their kids still have to grow up dealing with all of that.

Third, it's very hard for black members (any members) to get closure on the priesthood ban (whether it was of God or not) when there are some members who still feel the ban was justified because blacks were less righteous than they were in the pre-existence, for example.  

Just imagine if the tables were turned and you had to raise your children in a church where blacks (who were the majority of the church's members) had taught for decades that your children were less valiant in the pre-existence than their kids were, and where there were still members in good standing who believed that today.

Even if you think you wouldn't be bothered anymore by it, surely you can see that it's not unreasonable for others to still be sensitive about the issue.

I think our church leaders today have given them that evidence that they are not inferior in the statements they have made recently. I think members should feel confident in that fact and try to ignore the few lingering racist members that still exist today.
It's not easy but necessary in order for them to flourish and grow in their testimonies of the gospel and confidence in today's church leaders. I don't know what more our church leaders today can say about this issue, not having lived back at the time this was done and not being able to read the minds of those past church leaders.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

First, I don't know that most black members want an apology.  I think they want unequivocal evidence that says that they are not inferior to white members in any way, shape, or form. 

Second, the Priesthood ban definitely still affects black members today.  Just listen to them share their experiences with racism or micro-aggression in the church.  There are still racist members of the church (temple attending members).  They still have to deal with lessons on the priesthood ban and their kids still have to grow up dealing with all of that.

Third, it's very hard for black members (any members) to get closure on the priesthood ban (whether it was of God or not) when there are some members who still feel the ban was justified because blacks were less righteous than they were in the pre-existence, for example.  

Just imagine if the tables were turned and you had to raise your children in a church where blacks (who were the majority of the church's members) had taught for decades that your children were less valiant in the pre-existence than their kids were, and where there were still members in good standing who believed that today.

Even if you think you wouldn't be bothered anymore by it, surely you can see that it's not unreasonable for others to still be sensitive about the issue.

You are right on the money..it is hard to just put away and forget.  Black members may not really want an apology...but they deserve one.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, rongo said:

1-I don't think this is really an issue any more. It has been 40 years, for one thing, and it has long been taught that all are alike --- and many of our wards and stakes see black members in important roles. 

2-I wonder if, by the definition of some, merely believing that the ban was God's will constitutes "being a racist member." That would come as a big surprise to my black students and the ten black members of my ward (plus two investigators). That is, they would not categorize me and others as racist at all, even though we may believe differently from those who believe the ban was not God's will. To me, racism is manifested in racist actions and words. And by words, I don't mean believing that the ban wasn't wrong. I mean saying racist things. 

3-When? The Church very conspicuously and overtly avoids lessons on this, and there aren't very many at all. There is the one lesson in the D&C gospel doctrine manual that includes it as one of many examples of modern-day revelation, but it isn't an emphasis or showcase of that lesson. The Spencer W. Kimball manual didn't have a lesson dedicated to it, although it very well could have. I don't think this is a big lesson emphasis or topic of discussion in church meetings at all. 

4-Again, everyone being in lock-step on the approved thinking on this is required to give everyone "closure?" "You have to mean it, Potter!" --- Bellatrix Lestrange

I'm being lazy and don't want to break up your quote so i'm going to use corresponding numbered statements.

1-if it wasn't an issue anymore, the NAACP press release (and other statements of condemnation from our leaders over the pulpit) wouldn't be necessary.

2-I don't think so.  I'm talking about members having shared examples of overt racism by other members.  For example, Tamu Smith (a member in her 40s) was called the N word in the SLC temple (she said it was the first time she had ever been called that name).

Randy Bott, a BYU professor, taught in 2012-“I think that [discrimination] is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if [the priesthood] wouldn’t have been a benefit” to blacks? Blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

Alice Faulkner Burch stated that black Mormons “still need support to remain in the church—not for doctrinal reasons but for cultural reasons.  Women are derided about our hair ... referred to in demeaning terms, our children mistreated, and callings withheld.” 

3-Members still bring stuff up in classes. It doesn't have to be emphasized for it to still be an issue.

4-No, everyone knowing God's feelings on the ban would give people closure.  Then people could deal with reality instead of what they 'think' or 'hope' or 'want' to be true.

 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I don't know what more our church leaders today can say about this issue, not having lived back at the time this was done and not being able to read the minds of those past church leaders.

They only thing they could do is to seek revelation on it and then share that revelation on it with members. However, that also depends on God granting such a revelation, and that is not a given.  The murkiness of the beginning of the ban maybe right where God wants us at this time. 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You are right on the money..it is hard to just put away and forget.  Black members may not really want an apology...but they deserve one.

Hmm.  That seems rather . . . paternalistic.

-Smac

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, rongo said:

There are many, though, who don't care if it is revelatory or not, just so long as the apology/condemnation comes. Many who really want this badly don't really believe in revelation, anyway. 

What believing members would want the church to apology/condemn the priesthood ban regardless if that was the will of God or not?  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Perhaps it does.

Caveat lector, then.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gray said:

It's not unseemly to give an undocumented anecdote - all of us do that. Hamba isn't American, and I assume he is well intentioned and sincere. But since you keep pressing the issue, as you should know this is a common issue in America with our complicated history of race. The "I have a black friend" defense has a very poor history here. It's unseemly to use a black friend as a shield for defending something like a ban on black people fully participating in a church. That nuance may not be obvious to someone from another country.  Black people can speak for themselves on this issue.

I think Hamba (who strikes me as being among the brightest of the contributors to this message board) is capable of speaking for himself without your patronizing or condescension about whether his being “from another country” affects his cognitive ability. 

Furthermore, in your headlong rush to political correctness, you may have missed his point, which seems to be (and he can clarify if he chooses) that a U.S.-centric view such as you are displaying here may in fact amount to blinders that hinder one from viewing this issue in a global context. 

Finally, for whatever reason, Hamba’s friend is not here to speak for himself, so we have only Hamba’s word to go on. I submit that it is just as reasonable to assume Hamba’s account accurately reflects the conversations as it is for you to expect us to take your word for it that your friend is upset with “church hierarchy” for not issuing a demanded apology. Some of us might view your thus presuming to weaponize her alleged feelings as a brickbat against the Church as being “unseemly.” 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Gotta watch out for those "rouge" stake presidents. :o 

 

 

My goodness, he did write “rouge.” 

Gotta say I have even less memory of saying the stake president wore rouge than I do of calling him a rogue. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

1-if it wasn't an issue anymore, the NAACP press release (and other statements of condemnation from our leaders over the pulpit) wouldn't be necessary.

That doesn't necessarily follow. The Church does things for perceived PR reasons all the time that arguably aren't needed. Meeting with the NAACP and talking about joint service projects is a nice thing, but it isn't being done because of profound racist acts or anything like that. That makes it sound like it's an anger management class being given in a sentencing hearing or something. 

I think it had much more to do with the 40th anniversary celebration and the broadcast on June 1st.

2-I don't think so.  I'm talking about members having shared examples of overt racism by other members.  For example, Tamu Smith (a member in her 40s) was called the N word in the SLC temple (she said it was the first time she had ever been called that name).

I remember that quote! It's in an interview in the "Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons" video. 

Randy Bott, a BYU professor, taught in 2012-

“I think that [discrimination] is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if [the priesthood] wouldn’t have been a benefit” to blacks? Blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

Alice Faulkner Burch stated that black Mormons “still need support to remain in the church—not for doctrinal reasons but for cultural reasons.  Women are derided about our hair ... referred to in demeaning terms, our children mistreated, and callings withheld.”

It is always possible to anecdote mine using what B.H. Roberts called the "orchard approach:" you ignore the acres of healthy, luscious fruit and pick up a few wind-blasted, mildewed pieces off the ground, and hold those up as representing the fruit of the orchard. 

Do any of us see these happening in their wards (women being derided for their hair, being called the N word, etc.)? Or are they outliers that will still happen, occasionally even if verbal racism is made an excommunicable offense? In my experience, most members are actually too sensitive about not being racist, and go out of their way not to be (sometimes awkwardly so). Being perceived as racist is very much on most members' minds, and they usually do everything they can to not give credence to this.

3-Members still bring stuff up in classes. It doesn't have to be emphasized for it to still be an issue.

Very true. Are we ever going to be 100% free of that? And what's to stop a member from bringing up decades down the road (assuming hypothetically a future full repudiation/condemnation and apology) that there was a ban, then it was eliminated in 1978, then it was apologized for and condemned in 2022, etc.? All of our history and statements are fair game in lessons, and the evolution of this issue within Mormonism (no matter which direction this goes) could certainly be mentioned and be pertinent in a lesson. Is there a way to stop that?

And is that the primary rationale for apologizing/condemning? (I know you're not saying it is --- I think you would say God's will would be the only valid reason --- but I think it is for many: the hope that we can stamp out once and for all any uncorrelated comments or questions in lessons. I would say that's a fool's errand).

4-No, everyone knowing God's feelings on the ban would give people closure.  Then people could deal with reality instead of what they 'think' or 'hope' or 'want' to be true.

One of the exciting parts (and painful, and stressful) about modern Mormonism is that we're on the cusp of issues like this, or gay marriage/orientation, that make a lot of people on both sides of the issue look long and hard at their own thoughts and motives, and where they stand to the Church. There are going to be "winners" and "losers" on these issues, and the heartache and frustration on the losing side would very easily be identical if the shoe were on the "winning" foot. In some cases,  personal apostasy or inactivity results, in others, continued activity subject to change. But it could very easily be the other way if the Church went the other way. It definitely calls for charity, compassion, and refraining from "end zone dancing." I think the rejoicing, and then the later anger and sick feeling upon learning about the hoax shows how volatile feelings can be with these things. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Gray said:

Since your black friend isn't here to speak for himself, maybe it's best just to speak for yourself?

Ah.  So nor more anecdotes.  

Will that rule be applied to both supporters and opponents of the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My goodness, he did write “rouge.” 

Gotta say I have even less memory of saying the stake president wore rouge than I do of calling him a rogue. 

Unfortunately, people write "rouge" in place of "rogue" all the time.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What believing members would want the church to apology/condemn the priesthood ban regardless if that was the will of God or not?  

People who consider themselves to be believing members, but who are unhappy with the Church's direction.

I think of Orson Scott Card's definition for "liberal Mormon" in Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary:

1. As perceived by a conservative Mormon: A Mormon who wants to pervert the gospel to fit the doctrines of men instead of waiting for the Brethren to receive revelations. Liberals talk about being guided by the Spirit but usually find that the Spirit is telling them to espouse currently fashionable American liberal causes and ideas. 2. As perceived by another liberal Mormon: A Mormon who believes that the Lord won't give you any answers unless you ask him intelligent questions. Liberals believe that a Saint should be sensitive enough to recognize truth and humble enough to accept it whether it comes from the Brethren or Boethius, Newton or Nietzsche.

Such members (and I know some, and some even post here, I would say) would, of course, regard it as truly God's will, if, say, the law of chastity were radically overhauled. Even while believing that the Church and the Brethren are not in sync with God right now with respect to the LoC. And they consider themselves to be believing members. 

I think such people, at heart, don't really care whether it really is God's will or not. They just want the apology and condemnation!

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, rongo said:

That doesn't necessarily follow. The Church does things for perceived PR reasons all the time that arguably aren't needed. Meeting with the NAACP and talking about joint service projects is a nice thing, but it isn't being done because of profound racist acts or anything like that. That makes it sound like it's an anger management class being given in a sentencing hearing or something. 

I think it had much more to do with the 40th anniversary celebration and the broadcast on June 1st.
 

That's your assumption, but it's not a given.

Quote

I remember that quote! It's in an interview in the "Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons" video. 

Yes, Tamu speaks a lot and the story has been shared often.  She is one of the routine speakers for Time Out For Women and has spoken out there about a lot of these issues and the struggles she still feels today to feel accepted by some white members.  I happen to live in a ward with a sister who is friends with her and I heard the story from her, before I heard Tamu share it in other places.

And I don't know that anyone believes that it's possible to stamp out uncorrelated comments in class.  I think that most people would just like an authoritative rebuttal that was not so easily ignored as the essays are for those who don't agree with them.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think such people, at heart, don't really care whether it really is God's will or not. They just want the apology and condemnation!

 

I think that's a pretty uncharitable judgement against those people, but I'm sure they probably have similar feelings about you so it probably all evens out in the wash.  :lol:

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's your assumption, but it's not a given.

Yes, Tamu speaks a lot and the story has been shared often.  She is one of the routine speakers for Time Out For Women and has spoken out there about a lot of these issues and the struggles she still feels today to feel accepted by some white members.  I happen to live in a ward with a sister who is friends with her and I heard the story from her, before I heard Tamu share it in other places.

And I don't know that anyone believes that it's possible to stamp out uncorrelated comments in class.  I think that most people would just like an authoritative rebuttal that was not so easily ignored as the essays are for those who don't agree with them.

If the essays are being ignored, what prevents an authoritative rebuttal from likewise being ignored? 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

That's your assumption, but it's not a given.

It's equally an assumption that meeting with the NAACP is due to a crying need for sensitivity training in the Church. 

And I don't know that anyone believes that it's possible to stamp out uncorrelated comments in class.  I think that most people would just like an authoritative rebuttal that was not so easily ignored as the essays are for those who don't agree with them.

I agree that for the essays to be more effective and authoritative, they would need to be 

1) written by and published by the Brethren themselves (names attached).

2) more prominently referenced and displayed. The value is pretty clearly intended to be primarily their existence themselves, if needed. 

For those who have heard the Brethren talk about topics in the essays, they are not very well-informed or well-equipped on those issues. In some cases, they don't know much about them at all. I wish that our apostles and seventies were personally informed and able to discuss them. I think the outsourcing of them to Brian Hales, Paul Reeve, John Gee, etc. (and then approving them to put on the website) undermines their power and effectiveness. The most effective trump card of all, of course, would be being able to speak authoritatively through revelation on them, but I don't think this has even been inquired about. The current preference is the "revelation by committee and council" approach, which yields carefully-worded and non-committal essays that leave room for interpretation (which isn't always a bad thing).

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So nor more anecdotes.  

Will that rule be applied to both supporters and opponents of the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think Gray is already encountering a bit of cognitive dissonance with this after I brought up his anecdote from another thread. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the essays are being ignored, what prevent an authoritative rebuttal from likewise being ignored? 

Rongo has previously explained all the reasons that we don't have to consider the essays to be authoritative.  And he has argued that the gospel supports the idea that blacks were unrighteous in the pre-existence, regardless of the essay's disavowal of that.  So, it's not that the essays are ignored exactly, but that they are open for interpretation.  That would be much much less likely with unequivocal statements. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that's a pretty uncharitable judgement against those people, but I'm sure they probably have similar feelings about you so it probably all evens out in the wash.  :lol:

Do you really think that there aren't people who consider themselves to be believing members, and who don't really care whether or not it's from God, just as long as there is an apology and condemnation?

---

How do you do the laugh smiley? The board upgrade leaves me with only poor looking black and white options (unless you know the actual characters for the emoticon, like colon paranthesis for a smile).

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...