Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TheQuestioner

Darker skin from iniquity?

Recommended Posts

Juliann-I'm so bad, I knew I shouldn't have logged on a day like I'm having! Oh well.

Heh...tell me. I've got a few weeks to waste time here.

I don't think it's very hard to see how similar actions can have different motivations or a combination of motivations when you see leadership in the church specifically stating that they segregate blood so that priesthood lines aren't contaminated! In Neither Black Nor White(my book isn't on me to reference specifically right now but I'll reference it later) it clearly gives quotes about how blood atonement, of not just the two participants but any offspring as well, was the only solution for miscegenation so as not to allow Cain's lineage to gain a holding on the priesthood(EDIT-back in BY's time, thought I should give some reference point in terms of era). Some folks within the church community specifically state the theological reasoning behind certain practices, and that's how you are able to attribute certain interpretations or theology as a motivation.

I'm going to keep saying this because I think this is symptomatic of why we get these threads dedicated to Mormonism as if the rest of the world didn't exist. This rhetoric was all over. It was not "Mormon". These are the same reasons the other religions were using. How they carried it out has some pragmatic differences simply because of differing procedures. From the link above: http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/racism/unsworth.html

When the South in the 1890s institutionalized Jim Crow segregation, it was with churches' complicity.

Share this post


Link to post
However, it should be noted that it is incorrect to say I was "littering," when what I was doing was providing a reference, which you requested.
ave maria,

You may not realize it, but you could have just given the reference. Instead, you copied and pasted a large excerpt from a completely different article, that only contained the quotation in question.

It was relevant for context appropriate to the topic of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not going to respond to your empty noise anymore, Ave Maria.

Share this post


Link to post
However, it should be noted that it is incorrect to say I was "littering," when what I was doing was providing a reference, which you requested.
ave maria,

You may not realize it, but you could have just given the reference. Instead, you copied and pasted a large excerpt from a completely different article, that only contained the quotation in question.

It was relevant for context appropriate to the topic of the thread.

That is fine if you think so. But that implies that you were not simply providing a reference. Rather, you were providing a reference AND quoting material you thought was appropriate to the topic (and hence engaging in the rhetoric juliann was mentioning).

Share this post


Link to post
However, it should be noted that it is incorrect to say I was "littering," when what I was doing was providing a reference, which you requested.
ave maria,

You may not realize it, but you could have just given the reference. Instead, you copied and pasted a large excerpt from a completely different article, that only contained the quotation in question.

It was relevant for context appropriate to the topic of the thread.

That is fine if you think so. But that implies that you were not simply providing a reference. Rather, you were providing a reference AND quoting material you thought was appropriate to the topic (and hence engaging in the rhetoric juliann was mentioning).

That isn't the same thing as littering.

I'd already stated I'd provided a reference, in context.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not going to respond to your empty noise anymore, Ave Maria.

Good. Happily noted.

I've stated from the beginning that you and I can either (1) agree to disagree or (2) agree to be disagreeable, and that I'd prefer the former.

When it appears you'd prefer the latter, it makes it too challenging to engage in civil or productive conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
How do you propose ever freeing the Church from questions  regarding its racist past?  How will we every put that behind us short of an actual apology?

I'm going to ask you one more time and I hope you respond. Apologies have been given by a number of religions. What has it accomplished?

I have already said what I would like to see from the pulpit. You ignored that, too.

If the proper apologies were offered, then on another forum I could respond to critics of the LDS Church. I could point out to them that nothing else could be done and that the Christian thing to do would be to accept the apology and move.

Apologies can be powerful things despite your denial with "proof" for the unprovable. Ignoring the issue helps it remain forever in the wings.

<_<:unsure:

What was it you wanted to see from the pulpit? :P:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Juliann-I really shouldn't be on here-I have so much on my plate today! As a result, I may have to come back to better reference some things I'll throw out.

First off, the MLK quote is one of my most often quoted remarks on religion boards regarding how people need to be able to not externalize racism in America. Another favorite quote is that the original sin of Western Christianity is racism.

I don't think I am one to not put this into context-if I hadn't put it into context, I probably would have left the church awhile back since this very subject has touched me personally and consistently throughout my lifelong time as a Mormon. But context is important to me-it's so much easier to be able to understand why people did what they did at a particular place and time instead of allowing resentment and hatred to boil up. It comes down to simply understanding things outside yourself, and I think I try to do that alot, especially when it comes to looking back in history.

Here's my feeling on where you and I are at-I don't think our thinking is that different actually. I think racism is a very insidious thing within our society-we can't escape it. I like to think I have a good handle on it personally and then someone almost sideswipes me and in my head "stupid (plug in whatever ethnicity)" comes out---even people of the same ethnicity as me! How effectively we've all been instructed to use ethnicity and race as a weapon.

When I see non-Mormons act all horrorified with Mormonism's track record with race, I always think it is an indicator that they may have some problems with being able to look in the mirror so to speak--it's always easier for us humans to, instead of being able to see ourselves in history or in others from the past, we like to someone we don't identify with be the designated "other"-that way, we don't ever let the subject too close for comfort. It's someone else's "problem" so to speak.

NOW, having said this, I think that this applies to Mormon folks alot of the times too. I think we need to be able to look in the mirror so to speak with the past, we need to look inwards and not externalize it. I think being able to put what happened in context with what was going on in the larger culture is important. But I don't think that's the end of discussion either. There is more work for us to do.

I don't think we go to the past to think about how sucky people were-that's futile. But we can look back and see how we can do things better today and in the future and to be instructed. And we can look back to help us look outside of ourselves today-if we see the legacy of black MOrmons for instance, a hard legacy in many ways, we are able to really learn something from them and to be more aware of some of the possible obstacles that our members of color may still face today.

That last part is especially important to me-I'm a brownie but I grew up with white folks. I can assimilate very easy into anglo-American Mormon culture as a result. But I know alot of minority folks who joined the church, but didn't have that same ease of assimilation, and even felt very alienated. I think looking back to the past will give people some better understanding of how others may feel coming into such a different religion and culture. That's so important to me personally

I think maybe that's where I see you maybe putting me in a camp that I don't belong. I want to put things in historical and social context, but I also want to look at Mormonism specifically and see what sort of dynamics hellped to maintain certain practices. I think Mauss' "All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Concepts of RAce and Lineage" speaks to this idea eloquently. I also love his book on Mormonism and assimilation, which speaks to some of these ideas as well. I think you have to do both to get some satisfactory answers and some ideas for solutions.

Eek-I so gotta go......

Share this post


Link to post
I think maybe that's where I see you maybe putting me in a camp that I don't belong. I want to put things in historical and social context, but I also want to look at Mormonism specifically and see what sort of dynamics hellped to maintain certain practices. I think Mauss' "All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Concepts of RAce and Lineage" speaks to this idea eloquently. I also love his book on Mormonism and assimilation, which speaks to some of these ideas as well. I think you have to do both to get some satisfactory answers and some ideas for solutions.

I agree that Armand's book is the best out there (we had him present at the FAIR conference). I think the best weapon we have is us..the members. Nothing from the pulpit shuts down anything faster than one person in GD saying something...and we have some strong statements to back us up, such as Hinckley's call that we have a responsibility to defend against bigotry. We also have an advantage that no other religion has...we can't drive to the next church building to avoid people. I feel like it has only been the last decade when I shed the last vestiges of my prejudices (those I am aware of). I measure it by being able to answer the question, would you mind if your daughter married a [fill in the race] with a heartfelt NO.

We also have to step out of our assumption that America represents the church. One of the newer problems we may be met with is the gulf between Africans and African-Americans. When I was in the church institute in Lyon, African blacks were over-represented. They know almost nothing of America.

And what a pleasure it is to have a discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

And a discussion on THIS subject no less!!!!:P

I just wanted to add that while I'm talking about theology this and that for driving behaviors in a negative sense with the Curse of Cain/Ham/Canaan, I do think other theologies have helped to drive more progressive behaviors within Mormonism too when we look back in our history.

Like when people understand the important roles Lamanites and Jews have in Mormon theology, you do see how these two groups were treated very differently than the "norm" in the larger culture. I got into looking up more about our views of Jews and how those views shaped our perceptions of them when a Jewish friend actually asked me about this(I live in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood as well which makes me interested as well). And I was quite impressed with the progressive thinking with them back in the early beginings of the church regarding the Jews and how really unique their take was for their time and place.

And sure, BY gets slammed alot with his views and attitudes and policies towards blacks. But then you see how his religious ideologies really shaped much more supportive attitudes towards Indian folks, and it's an interesting thing to compare next to how he viewed blacks. And you see similar treatment with the Polynesians later on in time. I guess I didn't express this well enough, but that was what I was getting at-how in Mormonism, racism doesn't necessarily explain all behaviors seen. And the different way different ethnic groups were viewed helps to complicate the picture that much more to me. Thanks for the last post-I appreciated it.

Share this post


Link to post
That line would have been quite compatible with a good chunk of 19th century racism, and much of the culture that Joseph Smith grew up around.

jux, even the abolitionists would be considered racist today. You say:

They had begun denouncing slavery as an immoral practice, and suggested that all races were equal under God, thus the enslavement of one human by another was wrong.  The belief that blacks could have an equal place in Heaven (if they became good Christians!) was quite commonplace in Northern Methodist culture...

My sources say:

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...