Racism In The L.D.S. Church

[consiglieri]

And I'm not familiar with Shakespeare, so I don't even know if I've been teased, insulted, or praised. I first thought 'Harry' was a reference to Harry Potter, what with the Barty Crouch part in there.

Believe me, you have been praised indeed. I just wanted to work it in there since your "name" is Mars and you were sounding slightly "warlike" in that post.

Your reference to Harry Potter and Barty Crouch is clever, though.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

It is only then that Consig and his group are happy, and it is only then that they are the happiest.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he today that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother.

It must be Saint Crispin's day, or something.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This thread needs further parody.

Anyone got anything?

This thread reminds me of the democratic party. Always claiming racism were none exsist.

[Nathair/|\]

This thread reminds me of the democratic party. Always claiming racism were none exsist.

The Comic Prayer

Great God of Comedy,

You who fling custard pies in the Demon's face,

You who set whoopee cushion upon the Throne of Heaven,

To You I pray;

Grant that I may see the humor

And find the joke

Where others see only sadness and sorrow.

Grant that I may never take myself

Or my situation seriously.

And let me laugh the Laugh

That will crack the sky

And shake Heaven and Earth.

This we ask in the name of all that is funny.

[toon]

Sorry Libs... I think you're naive if you see race as being a non-relevant issue. I tend to agree with much of what you say, but if two people of differing races are going to enter into a marriage, they'd be foolish not to consider beforehand the issue as relevant. Are they both sure they understand the added pressure no matter how good of character or personality they are... are they truly able to surmount the possible differences in culture and attitudes, and there are differences, including among families. I wouldn't be so cavalier to describe these as irrelevant... but more something to be acknowledged and considered as to their particular relationship no matter what ethnicities are involved.

GG

I would never say that race is not relevant. But why is it highlighted in a manual as a reason over others that probably have a more significant impact on a marriage? And why no clarification to mitigate what the foreseeable adverse reactions some members will have when this is taught? Or at least to reducte the chances that it gets taught in the wrong spirit.

I've had to teach this lesson twice, and both times, I left out the quote and focused on what i thought was the more important message behind it. I did that in part because I knew that if I used the quote, it would have caused problems for at least a couple of the kids in a class, especially since the youth from the Spanish branch that met in the same building were combined with our class.

I once talked about this lesson with a friend that taught it in another ward, someone I consider extremely articulate and brilliant (someone now serving as a mission president). He used the quote and tried to explain it in the proper light. neverthless, it caused serious problems for one of the kids in his class, who happened to be a minority.

I don't necessarily thing there's anything racist about the quote or about the fact that it was included in the manual. I just think it was a mistake to include it, and I'd be willing to bet that the next time the Church updates the Aaronic Priesthood Manual, it is not there.

[toon]

It seems infinitely more likely to me that early church leaders got it wrong; and they should say so.

I tend to beleive that the early Church leaders got it wrong here too. But as they are no longer around, it would be impossible for them to "say so."

[Mars]

I appreciate the kind words, then, consig.

And the Harry Potter reference wasn't cleverness, just awareness and a total misappropriation of names and nouns.

[Jeff K.]

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he today that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother.

It must be Saint Crispin's day, or something.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Sigh, unlike your education we had to memorize the speech and know its context. Read up on it a bit more before you use it next time.

[consiglieri]

Sigh, unlike your education we had to memorize the speech and know its context. Read up on it a bit more before you use it next time.

I guess Spielberg didn't get the memo.

[Nathair/|\]

I guess Spielberg didn't get the memo.

He never does.

[Jeff K.]

He writes them.

Besides the more correct name would be Branagh

[Libs]

I tend to beleive that the early Church leaders got it wrong here too. But as they are no longer around, it would be impossible for them to "say so."

Current leadership could say so. They have denounced other wrong teachings (like Adam-God).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Current leadership could say so. They have denounced other wrong teachings (like Adam-God).

The Priesthood was once limited to one tribe of men on the entire earth, it is still not given to women. I have my doubts as to why it was so, but in a church like ours that needs to come from the Lord. Man cannot just take it upon himself to apologize for God. Someday it may come, but it is beyond my wisdom to know what is correct.

[toon]

Current leadership could say so. They have denounced other wrong teachings (like Adam-God).

There is a difference between "denouncing" a teaching and admitting that prior Church leaders got it wrong.

But there have been plenty of current Church authorities who have stated that previous teachings or theories about the priesthood ban were speculative, misplaced, or whatever -- that we simply don't know. What more do you want? What would satisfy you? And why would what you might want even matter?

As I mentioned, I tend to think that the early Church simply got it wrong and that it then became self-perpetuating. To me, that's the best explanation. And how they may have got it wrong isn't of that much interest to me. I'm not sure what an admission beyond the "we don't know" would accomplish. I suspect it might help to shut up those few that still cling to the old theories and speculation, but it also might play more into the hands of critics, resurrecting an issue that for the vast majority no longer exists. And in 20 or so years, those few that still cling to the preexistence, mark of Cain, descentend of Ham, etc., theories will no longer be around.

[Garden Girl]

As a brand new African-American LDS convert,

Without answering this question, the Church has left many members to believe that blacks are somehow inferior to whites (either by curse or through lack of valiance in the pre-existence)? Sure, whites must treat "them" well and even allow "them" into the priesthood, but that doesn't mean that blacks and whites are in fact EQUAL. In fact, black LDS members owe a great debt of gratitude to white members for working so hard to get God to give us a "break." After all, according to the Declaration, if President Kimball hadn't been so earnest in praying for expansion of the priesthood, God would have continued in His racist ways.

As a brand new convert, I'm surprised you joined, based on your post...

But frankly, in the 15 years that I've been reactivated, I've seen nothing to indicate that "many memebers" have been left to believe that "blacks are somehow inferior"... nor have I seen any indication of an attitude that we whites "must" treat "them" well... or that we feel that blacks are not equal.

In fact, when I served as a temple ordinance worker in the Portland, OR temple, we had a number of blacks on my schedule, and I saw nothing of the sarcastic attitude that you have exhibited here, nor any of the treatment of our black workers that you describe. IMO, it is your attitude and the sarcasm of your remarks that give me pause.

And I stand by my earlier posts.

GG

[Pahoran]

The source for the "ghetto" reference was earlier in this very thread (on Page 1 or 2, I believe).

Okay, I see it. And while ordinarily I take anything BCSpace says with a generous pinch of salt, in this instance all he is doing is relating his own experience: he had a missionary companion from Kenya. His Kenyan companion felt like he had nothing in common with North American blacks, particularly those in whatever "ghetto" he was serving in.

Or is that a naughty word too, now? Should we primly refer to it as "the 'g' word?"

I guess if we really want to, we can find occasion for offence about just about anywhere we look.

But you know, there are still societies where the notion of "political correctness" actually means something. In such societies, if you say or do something that is "politically incorrect," you run the risk of getting a knock on the door at two in the morning, after which your family will not see or hear from you for twenty years or so. Since I don't live in such a society, I confess that I take delight in making fun of sacred PC cows.

I'm familiar with Article #2 of the Articles of Faith and find it curious that you aren't equally skeptical of the belief that God would punish black men for the sins of their fathers.

I'm curious that you seem to rather automatically impute such a belief to me.

The problem is conflating race with culture. I agree that people should consider cultural differences when choosing a spouse but people of different races don't necessarily come from different cultures. My four black sons are the product of two Ivy-league educated parents and have lived their entire lives in a lilly-white gated community. From a cultural standpoint, they don't get any "whiter." They enjoy the same music, the same movies, and have access to the same gadgets and gizmos as their white counterparts in our ward. Yet, according to the manual, my son will be encouraged to find a black girl to date because Heaven knows, our church is practically teeming with inner-city wards.

And is encouragement a bad thing?

Before my wife and I got married, we considered that counsel; we looked at the intent behind it. We then took a closer look at our own circumstances and cultural expectations. We took steps to try and minimise any issues that might arise.

We were both living in Australia at the time; we went back to my then-fiancee's home country to be married. Her father, who was old and whose health was failing, at one point got upset and called me a "white devil." My wife loved her father very much, and was distressed that he was unhappy. He did not know me well, so his views were not based upon a personal knowledge of my many shortcomings. I will not try to parade my superiority at his expense by smugly labelling him a "racist;" he was an old man with the traditional views of his culture. Had he been living near where we lived in the early years of our marriage, I can imagine that his views might have caused my wife continuing distress, which would have been a bad thing. However, we lived far away, so his opinions had little impact.

The point is that the counsel to which you object is wise. Even though we entered into an interracial marriage, we did not ignore that counsel. Rather, we took it on board and acted to head off the problems it was intended to guard against. I rather imagine your sons could do the same thing, should the occasion arise.

Furthermore, given our history, we simply don't need this type of language in one of our manuals. Trust me, it is hard enough for a black person to get over the priesthood ban. How much harder are we trying to make it for African Americans to receive the restored gospel?

Umm, Elijah? I don't see any "African Americans" mentioned in that passage. Nor do I see anything that any reasonable person could regard as "racist."

I suppose it ought to be possible to purge our manuals of everything that anyone with sufficient determination might find occasion to take offence at. In fact, I can guarantee that it could be done. All we have to do is make every page look like this:

Start of page ===>

<=== End of page

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I believe that any treating of people differently based on their race is per se "racist." And this is what the APM quote is.

No. It is not.

It is giving the same counsel to all single people of all races, namely: Find a marriage partner with whom you have as much in common as possible.

It does not say anything equivalent to "Don't marry anyone of a different race." And it especially does not say anything like "people who aren't white are inferior."

But shall I tell you what I believe?

I believe that the accusation of "racism" is so perfectly calculated to elicit a knee-jerk reaction these days, that it is no wonder that cheap demagogues throw it around as much as they do.

I further believe that it takes no knowledge, no intelligence, no talent, and -- especially -- no scruples to come up with that accusation.

And finally, I believe that you are fully qualified to make it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

My issue is with this vestige of former days still showing up in the Aaronic Priesthood Manual.....

I believe that, as long as the Correlation Committee was editing the quote from President Kimball, they should have taken out race as a disqualifier for a prospective spouse, or better yet deleted the passage in its entirety.

So, when did you send in your feedback on the manual to the CC so that they were aware of your concerns?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I further believe that it takes no knowledge, no intelligence, no talent, and -- especially -- no scruples to come up with that accusation.

And finally, I believe that you are fully qualified to make it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Hot dang Pahoran, that was funny. Part of what makes something funny is that it needs to be true.

I have a question really not related to this thread directly. Do you have a cool accent when you talk? Of course there are a number of ways you could respond. Is it like an Austrailain accent? Do you talk like Mic Dundee?

Carry on.

[Jeff K.]

consiglieri, on 17 May 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

My issue is with this vestige of former days still showing up in the Aaronic Priesthood Manual.....

I believe that, as long as the Correlation Committee was editing the quote from President Kimball, they should have taken out race as a disqualifier for a prospective spouse, or better yet deleted the passage in its entirety.

So, when did you send in your feedback on the manual to the CC so that they were aware of your concerns?

Now why would he move from stumbling block to building block? Those who know him would never have thought to ask.

[Calm]

Now why would he move from stumbling block to building block? Those who know him would never have thought to ask.

Please let him respond before criticizing him for not doing it.

PS: I would suggest to everyone concerned about the wording to use the feedback address in the front of the manual to write the CC so that when the manual is updated, there will be a higher probability that they won't overlook the quote.

[ELF1024]

As a brand new African-American LDS convert...

Ok, so let me see if I understand this... your whining about something that has never had any effect on you, as it was changed over 30 years ago, and because your a new convert.

If that's the case, then I'll let you wallow in your own pity party and move along as I have no sympathy for you what so ever.

If you have an actual issue to discuss, that's fine, but rehashing things that were resolved decades ago really serves no logical purpose.

[Jeff K.]

Please let him respond before criticizing him for not doing it.

PS: I would suggest to everyone concerned about the wording to use the feedback address in the front of the manual to write the CC so that when the manual is updated, there will be a higher probability that they won't overlook the quote.

Kobe Bryant almost always prefers to shoot from the three point line and beyond. When one watches the game often enough, the player predictably always take the same position. While consig is intellectually no Kobe (more like an Sean Marks for the trailblazers), he does always seem to take the same position with rare exceptions.

[Calm]

Kobe Bryant almost always prefers to shoot from the three point line and beyond. When one watches the game often enough, the player predictably always take the same position. While consig is intellectually no Kobe (more like an Sean Marks for the trailblazers), he does always seem to take the same position with rare exceptions.

It would be more in line with his stated desire to see improvements in the Church if he spent less time focusing on his personal concerns and more time encouraging others to submit feedback to the CC (the actual department for manuals is Curriculum Planning) in order to actually promote change rather than complaining about that it hasn't happened yet.

I do not believe I have ever seen someone who claims to be a member who has complained or expressed concern on this board about something the Church teaches who has stated they have written to the Church using the feedback system the Church itself has set up. It is a rather strange phenomena in my opinion.

[Jeff K.]

I have, in regard to a procedural issue rather than a doctrinal one.