Joanna Brooks Railing Against The Church. Again.

[Nevo]

We need to look into Black Pete taking it upon himself to marry several white women in a polygamous relationship with these women.

"Black Pete" was a figure from the earliest days of the Church in Kirtland. He was long gone by the time the priesthood ban was instituted. The person you're thinking of here is William McCary (see this article, pp. 81-82, for details).

[Bikeemikey]

I don't think that it is silly. People will never know the title of the church if the media and members leave out the title. What we then can have are people referring to the church as The Church of Latter Day Saints. The point is simple: members writing in the media have an obligation to refer to the church by its correct name.

No they don't.

And if they do or don't you can't pass judgement on their faith or testimony.

[gree0232]

Well, there I see a lot of angst about this subject, but it is a fairly common line of our critics - and the reason it is so common is that it gets, as we see here, emotional traction - and it is difficult on the face to explain. What we owe our critics is a solid response, and its a difficult one for our church because there is no one solid reason that justifies the segregationist exclusion based solely on race. There are several explanations that go out about this chapter in our history, and, as the article points out, those various explanations do often seem to run at cross purposes - whether that is 'divisional' rather than the simple result of members coming to terms with the practice is debatable but ultimately irrelevant.

IMHO, the exclusion was as much the result of pragmatism as anything else. The church was persecuted almost to the point of extinction in its early days, and we should remember that in these days, before and immediately after the Civil War, injecting oneself into the slavery question was a sure fire way to bring down even more heat. IMO, we are not always given guidance from Heavenly Father that is unerringly correct - a quick perusal of Old Testament and Christ's handling of slavery in the New Testament, knowing that societal attitudes have to change before the institution can be wiped from the earth, he nevertheless declares all men inherently equal before God.

We cannot right all wrongs equally at the same time - and sometimes, that means prioritizing issues until such time as you can address the issues correctly. IMHO, the exclusion was an issue of pragmatism. There are obviously other opinions out there, but, what we owe the wider public is not incredulity or offense, but solid answers to common inquiries.

[why me]

No they don't.

And if they do or don't you can't pass judgement on their faith or testimony.

I didn't. But I can pass judgement on their writing. I can also question the motive behind such writings. And the intended audience and purpose.

[why me]

"Black Pete" was a figure from the earliest days of the Church in Kirtland. He was long gone by the time the priesthood ban was instituted. The person you're thinking of here is William McCary (see this article, pp. 81-82, for details).

Yes, you are right. I was referring to William. I do believe that his claiming to be prophet, forming his own mormon community and practicing polygamy led to the priesthood ban. The persecution that this would have brought down on the lds church at that time if this knowledge of his polygamy to white women would have been known to the mobs, the response would have been severe.

[Calm]

Well, there I see a lot of angst about this subject, but it is a fairly common line of our critics - and the reason it is so common is that it gets, as we see here, emotional traction - and it is difficult on the face to explain. What we owe our critics is a solid response.....There are obviously other opinions out there, but, what we owe the wider public is not incredulity or offense, but solid answers to common inquiries.

Joanna Brooks is not a "critic" though, but a member. That is what makes this more 'angst', not the accusation itself, but from whom it is coming.

Does her comment help in giving "solid answers" or confuse the issue more?

Edited May 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[gree0232]

Joanna Brooks is not a "critic" though, but a member. That is what makes this more 'angst', not the accusation itself, but from whom it is coming.

Does her comment help in giving "solid answers" or confuse the issue more?

The source is kind of irrelevant. The fact is the the criticism of the article is in line with oft heard criticism, for multiple sources, about that history in the church.

The real question is how to respond? Do we attack 'her'? Does that help? Do we attack her observations emotionally? Does that help? Or do we, as some have done here, acknowledge the valid points and offer explanations in cool and calm manner and ... at some point merely agree to disagree?

We've all had to deal with this aspect of the church's history ... the church makes no claims about being perfect, only that, if its wrong about something, it will acknowledge it, change, and move on. At some point critics undo themselves. Taking a point about this historical issue and attempting to make it ... modern racism? ... or claim that the church is not repentant enough about the episode? Well, that simply ignores everything the church does - it ignores the difficlty of teh question historically, and, to be blunt, it ignores the lessons of Moses, and how he too had to acknowledge that his people, the chosen of God themselves, when freed from captivity were not yet ready to assume the mantel of leadership and responsibility.

Not knowing the exact reason for the barring, the best we can do is speculate - and some of those reasons hold more water than others. What is most important is to acknowledge that the church is made up of people seeking God, and that, as is always the case with such things, those searching for God will eventually be lead right.

We all stray. We all make mistakes. The leaders of the church prayed that they would be allowed to undo that policy ... and were inspired to do just that. That is is a pretty powerful testimony that Heavenly Father himself found 'men of color' worthy of his priesthood ... and it is THAT guidance that we follow as Mormons.

Our critics tend to ignore that. Joseph Smith calls such behavior a lie of omission. Those who behave as such will eventually reap what they sew. Our members viewing it and confused by it? They perhaps deserve a reasoned response and the freedom to question and explore. We make no claims to perfection - only in seeking after that which is right and just - however imperfectly our humanity allows us to do so.

[smac97]

The source is kind of irrelevant.

The source is very relevant. The article by Joanna Brooks is full to overflowing with false characterizations and outright dishonesty.

That this stuff is coming from a member of the Church is relevant.

That this stuff is coming from a member of the Church who presumes to explain the Church to the rest of the world is relevant.

That this stuff is coming from a member of the Church who presumes to explain the Church to the rest of the world and claims to be knowledgeable about the LDS Church, yet instead peddles dishonest calumnies against the leadership of the Church is relevant.

The fact is the the criticism of the article is in line with oft heard criticism, for multiple sources, about that history in the church.

So a member of the church spreading falsehoods and defaming a general authority is no big deal, eh? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that.

The real question is how to respond?

We point out the falsehoods and mischaracterizations in her writing. We've done that in this thread.

Do we attack 'her'?

We criticize her writing, yes. We criticize her publishing such falsehoods while purporting to be a member of the Church, yes.

Does that help?

Pardon me, but that's a silly question. Of course exposing falsehoods helps.

Do we attack her observations emotionally? Does that help?

First, she's not peddling mere "observations." She's declaring doctrine. She's falsely accusing a general authority of racism. She is bearing false witness to the world about her own religion and its leaders.

Second, I'm kinda sorta okay with a bit of indignation being communicated along with the criticism. What Joanna Brooks is doing deserves strong pushback. Some slurs are worth getting irked about.

Or do we, as some have done here, acknowledge the valid points and offer explanations in cool and calm manner and ... at some point merely agree to disagree?

Well, perhaps you have a point. I'll think on it.

We've all had to deal with this aspect of the church's history ... the church makes no claims about being perfect, only that, if its wrong about something, it will acknowledge it, change, and move on. At some point critics undo themselves.

This thread, though, isn't about critics. It's about a Church member, Joanna Brooks, who is walking, talking and acting like an adversary of the Church. Peddling falsehoods and mischaracterizations about the Church and defaming our leaders is not something Church members should do.

-Smac

Edited May 6, 2013 by smac97

[gree0232]

The source is very relevant. The article by Joanna Brooks is full to overflowing with false characterizations and outright dishonesty.

That this stuff is coming from a member of the Church is relevant.

That this stuff is coming from a member of the Church who presumes to explain the Church to the rest of the world is relevant.

That this stuff is coming from a member of the Church who presumes to explain the Church to the rest of the world and claims to be knowledgeable about the LDS Church, yet instead peddles dishonest calumnies against the leadership of the Church is relevant.

So a member of the church spreading falsehoods and defaming a general authority is no big deal, eh? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that.

We point out the falsehoods and mischaracterizations in her writing. We've done that in this thread.

We criticize her writing, yes. We criticize her publishing such falsehoods while purporting to be a member of the Church, yes.

Pardon me, but that's a silly question. Of course exposing falsehoods helps.

First, she's not peddling mere "observations." She's declaring doctrine. She's falsely accusing a general authority of racism. She is bearing false witness to the world about her own religion and its leaders.

Second, I'm kinda sorta okay with a bit of indignation being communicated along with the criticism. What Joanna Brooks is doing deserves strong pushback. Some slurs are worth getting irked about.

Well, perhaps you have a point. I'll think on it.

This thread, though, isn't about critics. It's about a Church member, Joanna Brooks, who is walking, talking and acting like an adversary of the Church. Peddling falsehoods and mischaracterizations about the Church and defaming our leaders is not something Church members should do.

-Smac

Same issue still presents itself, and a simple question makes the point: Who exactly are you trying to convince?

You are on an lds forum, we all see the inaccuracies, and we have two choices ... we can attack the 'member' for having concerns, or we can explain, kindly, calmly and with facts what the explanation is.

If we do the former, people come here and see a bunch of Mormons flaming about something that is fairly common criticism and assume that Mormons in general are an emotional bunch ... or they see the reasoned response pointing out the inaccuracies of the article, and reiterating the church's stance toward black priest holders ... and that current policy is that it is both sanctioned and desired, we believe, by God himself.

We are always going to have critics. We will always have people who disagree with our doctrinal positions, but President Uchdorf's talk during the priesthood session of the last general conference issued a stern warning against casting people out or hurling stones at them based on a difference in opinion. I can attest to you, as a convert, that our church handles the difficult questions with aplomb ... and we should too.

The author/member of the church is wrong. I believe we have all been at some point. It happens to the best of us. Railing against her may be cathartic, but it really doesn't accomplish much. Disagreeing with her in a casual, logical, and inescapable manner arms all those with accurate information to confront, not just the author, but legitimate critics who use this issue to torment members of the church or otherwise drag it through the mud.

To those looking for an excuse to deny Christ, they will always find a reason to do so. To those listening and looking ... they too will find Christ if we advertise his teachings. Being wrong is a opportunity to teach, not condemn - IMHO at any rate.

[why me]

Same issue still presents itself, and a simple question makes the point: Who exactly are you trying to convince?

You are on an lds forum, we all see the inaccuracies, and we have two choices ... we can attack the 'member' for having concerns, or we can explain, kindly, calmly and with facts what the explanation is.

We do have lurkers on this forum from all walks of life. They may need to see criticism of something that is now on the web about the church. Also, no one is attacking Joanna. However, we can critique her writings. Maybe we can claim that we are critically engaging the writer about an article that she wrote. What is unfortunate is your word 'attack'. This word is often used against members who are critiquing negative writings about the church. Also, members are allowed to get a little emotional about some issues. If The Church of Jesus Christ was a cult, we can all be emotionless, mind controlled and be calm, Joanna is a seasoned journalist and writer who can be hard hitting toward her own church. She can take it.

[why me]

Railing against her may be cathartic, but it really doesn't accomplish much. Disagreeing with her in a casual, logical, and inescapable manner arms all those with accurate information to confront, not just the author, but legitimate critics who use this issue to torment members of the church or otherwise drag it through the mud.

To those looking for an excuse to deny Christ, they will always find a reason to do so. To those listening and looking ... they too will find Christ if we advertise his teachings. Being wrong is a opportunity to teach, not condemn - IMHO at any rate.

Who has condemned her? Who has railed against her? And what is casual and logical? I think that you are referring to tone in a post. But tone is can be critical and hard hitting, I think that Joanna's tone in her piece was critical and hard hitting against the church. I don't see calmness or casual.

[gree0232]

We do have lurkers on this forum from all walks of life. They may need to see criticism of something that is now on the web about the church. Also, no one is attacking Joanna. However, we can critique her writings. Maybe we can claim that we are critically engaging the writer about an article that she wrote. What is unfortunate is your word 'attack'. This word is often used against members who are critiquing negative writings about the church. Also, members are allowed to get a little emotional about some issues. If The Church of Jesus Christ was a cult, we can all be emotionless, mind controlled and be calm, Joanna is a seasoned journalist and writer who can be hard hitting toward her own church. She can take it.

That is exactly what is happening on this thread though is it not? People are attacking the article because "well, she is a member of the church" as if being a member of the church alone imbues us with a perfect knowledge of the church, and an equal state and status in understanding the lessons of the gospel.

I watched an interview with Gordon B. Hinkley that gets to the center of this issue, where he was asked point blank why the church had a position that seems so at odds with equality. His answer is both honest and telling of our faith - because it is is faith - it was simply, "I don't know." Many of us, myself included on this very forum, can reach points of acceptance and understanding based on what we know about circumstances and what we THINK we know of Heavenly Father's intent. President Hinkley answered the question, IMHO, perfectly. He does not know why we were asked to do this thing. He knows that we were and that we followed the commandment. He knows that the change was desired, prayed for, and ultimately granted from Heavenly Father. The reason for the decision is ultimately unknown - what is known now, officially and without question, is that skin color has no bearing on worthiness in the priesthood before God. Its official.

The 'divisions' that the author sees are indeed there. What she believes they represent is off the mark - people in positions of authority and not will struggle to understand the decision, especially as we grow further removed from the context in which it was issued, and the differing opinions result from that struggle to comprehend rather than doctrinal refusal to extrapolate a solid position on racial equality.

She is wrong. But she is also a member of the church, she is seeing something and struggling to understand it ... and simply being troubled by an observation? If the source is genuinely a concern as it seems to be, then perhaps we can show patience for members who question, however inadvertently and save the invective for those whose sole goal is to discredit the gospel by any means necessary - people like Ed Decker.

Ms. Brooks is merely wrong ... ain't we all at one point or another?

The spirit of response to Ms. Brooks should be ... "I am sorry Ma'am, I understand your concern, but what you see is not quite what you think it is. Here is what is going on and why ... noting that ultimately, the reasons for the policy are not known, all that is known is that Heavenly Father desires the service of all able priest holders regardless of skin color."

Ed Decker, in contrast, would have ample reason to question the intent of his 'objective' observations. Those attempting to use the past to justify current claims of racism are, at best, disingenuous. The more they adopt such dishonor in the criticism, the easier they are to discredit - so sayeth each and every one of my multiple wives that do not exist ... and simple fact checking quickly demonstrates as absurd. Really, is this type of criticism damaging to the church? Or to the zealots who have to resort to such extremes to find anything to criticize?

Insinuating fine, upstanding people as closet racists? Silliness itself. No reason to let it get ones dander up.

[Calm]

Ms. Brooks is merely wrong ... ain't we all at one point or another?

Most of us don't choose to publish such public condemnation of others though. I believe if she had come in private to a friend or church leader first, rather than turning her opinion into national news, there would have been a very different scenario.

This is an issue that needs to be addressed. Why did Sister Brooks choose to use this vehicle to publish her position? Did she try and discuss it with Brother Di-ckson first to see if her concerns were valid or not? She apparently heard of some discussions behind the scenes and was willing to depend on that, why not go straight to the individual with whom she had issues first instead of attacking him in public...even drawing the comparison between what he said and the rationalizations used by Edwards to justify slavery?

If one chooses to use a sledgehammer where a light tap might have been all that was necessary, one is going to come across looking like a thug....and using a national news venue is the sledgehammer of communications these days, imo, when there are so many, many other options.

Edited May 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

Yes, you are right. I was referring to William. I do believe that his claiming to be prophet, forming his own mormon community and practicing polygamy led to the priesthood ban. The persecution that this would have brought down on the lds church at that time if this knowledge of his polygamy to white women would have been known to the mobs, the response would have been severe.

Good job they rescinded the ban soon afterwards to stop it becoming an established point of church doctrine. We wouldn't have wanted it to last for nearly 150 years or something.

The idea that an idea race should be denied the priesthood and temple blessings in this life because of one apostate is ridiculous. There were plenty of white members who did just as badly as this guy and somehow their whole race weren't vilified.

As for banning to avoid the wrath of the mobs. Weren't they in Utah when this was initiates. Hadn't they gone there to escape the mobs?

Besides, the idea of this being done to 'save their stripes' is quite unpleasant.

The whole episode makes my stomach turn. It's a blot on our history with no justofication and shocking that it was left in place for so many decades.

[smac97]

Same issue still presents itself, and a simple question makes the point: Who exactly are you trying to convince?

First, this thread was principally intended to raise awareness.

Second, there are people of all sorts on this forum.

Third, you seem bound and determined to distract from criticism of Joanna Brooks' article. Why is that?

You are on an lds forum, we all see the inaccuracies, and we have two choices ... we can attack the 'member' for having concerns, or we can explain, kindly, calmly and with facts what the explanation is.

Nobody is attacking Joanna Brooks for "having concerns." She is making false statements about the Church. She is defaming a Church leader. She is doing these things while simultaneously claiming to be a member of the Church.

The author/member of the church is wrong. I believe we have all been at some point. It happens to the best of us. Railing against her may be cathartic, but it really doesn't accomplish much. Disagreeing with her in a casual, logical, and inescapable manner arms all those with accurate information to confront, not just the author, but legitimate critics who use this issue to torment members of the church or otherwise drag it through the mud.

To those looking for an excuse to deny Christ, they will always find a reason to do so. To those listening and looking ... they too will find Christ if we advertise his teachings. Being wrong is a opportunity to teach, not condemn - IMHO at any rate.

The problem here is that Joanna Brooks is peddling falsehoods and mischaracterizations. And she is not doing so because she is ignorant or misinformed (she's far too educated, intelligent and informed for that excuse).

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

Good job they rescinded the ban soon afterwards to stop it becoming an established point of church doctrine. We wouldn't have wanted it to last for nearly 150 years or something.

The idea that an idea race should be denied the priesthood and temple blessings in this life because of one apostate is ridiculous. There were plenty of white members who did just as badly as this guy and somehow their whole race weren't vilified.

As for banning to avoid the wrath of the mobs. Weren't they in Utah when this was initiates. Hadn't they gone there to escape the mobs?

Besides, the idea of this being done to 'save their stripes' is quite unpleasant.

The whole episode makes my stomach turn. It's a blot on our history with no justofication and shocking that it was left in place for so many decades.

I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that the Lord and his apostles were commanded of the Father to not offer the gospel to the gentiles for a period of years, as can be verified by the following scriptural references:

"5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." (Matthew 10)

"24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15)

Years later, a dramatic special revelation given directly to Peter, the President of the Church, was required to revoke the "gospel for the Jews only" Church policy. Even though this revelation, in the form of a vision from the Lord, was given to Peter three consecutive times, he still didn't understand the meaning and import of the intended message, and this, likely, because of his own deeply entrenched thinking . For verification I speak the truth, read the following:

"9 ...Peter went up upon the ^ahousetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate." (Acts 10)

You are surely aware of the fact that the gentiles of that day were considered by the Jews to be "unclean," and were even commonly referred to as "dogs". And for some unknown reason, the Lord seemed to allow this perception of gentile uncleanness and unworthiness to be perpetuated by a "gospel ban against the gentiles" that was only rescinded by means of this most powerful and graphic revelation. And as I asserted, after three repetitions of the vision Peter still didn't understand the revelation was given to lift the ban against preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. He finally understands the meaning of the vision when he puts 2 and 2 together after meeting with the gentile Cornelius and his gentile entourage. As so we read:

"7 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,

18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19 ¶While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?

22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

24 And the morrow after they entered into Cæsarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10)

And so we see, there was a church-wide ban against extending the blessings of the gospel to the gentiles, because it was "an unlawful thing" to do so. Also understand that with that ban was, by natural extension, a ban against the gentiles holding the priesthood as well. So in light of the above incontrovertible facts, one wonders if after the ban was lifted there may have been members who decried the Church leaders and said, "the whole episode makes (our) stomach(s) turn. It's a blot on our history with no justification and shocking that it was left in place (for so long)."

In the practice of law there is an important principle called precedent (i.e. an earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances) and the above clearly shows that the precedent of a gospel dispensation being extended to different lineages at different times is nothing new.

As for yours truly, he is satisfied that after all is said and done, when the day comes that the mysteries of the economy of God are fully revealed, the priesthood ban of our day will be viewed in much the same light we now tolerantly view the gentile ban policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Meridian-day Saints -- part and parcel of the Lord's will. I, for one, have always given the Lord's duly authorized servants of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times the benefit of the doubt, and it has made all the difference. It must be a hard thing for any member of the Church to harbor ill-will towards its leaders past or present. Before I myself jump to conclusions on any controversial issue, I always remind myself of the fact that "for now we look through a glass darkly, but then face to face."

Edited May 6, 2013 by teddyaware

[smac97]

That is exactly what is happening on this thread though is it not? People are attacking the article because "well, she is a member of the church" as if being a member of the church alone imbues us with a perfect knowledge of the church, and an equal state and status in understanding the lessons of the gospel.

Part of her career involves speaking to the media as a sort of independent voice of Mormonism. She is quoted frequently in news items precisely because of her status as a Church member.

She is also highly educated and intelligent, so I do not think we can chalk up her peddling of falsehoods, mischaracterizations and defamation to ignorance (a lack of "a perfect knowledge of the church," as you put it).

Nobody has suggested that her article is the result of a whoopsy-daisy. That's the problem. It appears to be a calculated attempt to publish falsehoods and defamatory comments about the LDS Church and its members and leaders. You'll note that we probably wouldn't get much exercised if this article were published by Ed Decker or Mill McKeever or James White, professional and avowed anti-Mormons all of them. The characteristics of this article that I think is sticking in our collective craw are that

A) the article contains falsehoods, mischaracterizations and defamatory remarks,

B) the article was written by a person claiming to have special insights on and knowledge about the LDS Church,

C) those special insights are derived solely from the author's status as a member of the LDS Church (as opposed to, say, from scholarship like that published by Jan Shipps); and

D) the above-referenced falsehoods, mischaracterizations and defamatory remarks cannot be reasonably attributed to ignorance.

I watched an interview with Gordon B. Hinkley that gets to the center of this issue, where he was asked point blank why the church had a position that seems so at odds with equality. His answer is both honest and telling of our faith - because it is is faith - it was simply, "I don't know."

Contrast that statement with the content of the article under discussion. Joanna Brooks did not say "I don't know." She attributed the ban to racism (frankly, she may be right about that). But worse than that, she accused Elder Dikcson of current, ongoing racism.

Many of us, myself included on this very forum, can reach points of acceptance and understanding based on what we know about circumstances and what we THINK we know of Heavenly Father's intent. President Hinkley answered the question, IMHO, perfectly.

Then Joanna Brooks did not.

He does not know why we were asked to do this thing. He knows that we were and that we followed the commandment. He knows that the change was desired, prayed for, and ultimately granted from Heavenly Father. The reason for the decision is ultimately unknown - what is known now, officially and without question, is that skin color has no bearing on worthiness in the priesthood before God. Its official.

All of that is well and good, and I do not disagree with any of it. But Joanna Brooks presumed to declare that she does know what the rest of us - including the Brethren - do not. She also accused one of the Brethren of recently perpetuating racism. That just ain't cool.

The 'divisions' that the author sees are indeed there.

The Church does not teach racism. Elder Dikcson is not racist. Joanna Brooks suggested otherwise. That's wrong.

She is wrong. But she is also a member of the church, she is seeing something and struggling to understand it ... and simply being troubled by an observation?

I disagree that she is merely "struggling to understand it." She has reached a conclusion and is declaring it to the world. She couched her conclusions with falsehoods and mischaracterizations and defamatory accusations against Elder Dikcson. She is declaring doctrine.

If the source is genuinely a concern as it seems to be, then perhaps we can show patience for members who question, however inadvertently and save the invective for those whose sole goal is to discredit the gospel by any means necessary - people like Ed Decker.

Perhaps you can explain the categorical distinction between the things Ed Decker writes and the article Joanna Brooks wrote. To me, the differences appear to be of degree. The means (peddling mischaracterizations and false accusations) and objectives (trying to make the LDS Church look bad in the eyes of those who are not familiar with it - like Salon readers) appear to be disturbingly similar.

I am open to honest and accurate and well-intentioned discussion of the LDS Church by its members. But the article written by Joanna Brooks was not honest, or accurate. And I don't think it was well-intentioned, either.

Ms. Brooks is merely wrong ... ain't we all at one point or another?

I think she's more than "merely wrong." For example, claiming that Wilford Woodruff was the third president of the Church would be "merely wrong." Willfully declaring it to the world, knowing it to be a falsehood, would be something more serious than "merely wrong."

Regarding the article under discussion, accusing Elder Dikson of purveying racism was more than "merely wrong."

Fabricating "cross purposes" within the Church and conspiratorial non-existent cover-ups was more than "merely wrong."

Using inflammatory terminology - normally the province of enemies of the Church - was more than "merely wrong."

Declaring doctrine was more than "merely wrong."

Failing to inform her readers that the Church, contra to the narrative she tried to construct - expressly condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church, was more than "merely wrong."

The spirit of response to Ms. Brooks should be ... "I am sorry Ma'am, I understand your concern, but what you see is not quite what you think it is. Here is what is going on and why ... noting that ultimately, the reasons for the policy are not known, all that is known is that Heavenly Father desires the service of all able priest holders regardless of skin color."

If Joanna Brooks wrote what she did out of ignorance, your response would be appropriate. But she didn't, so it isn't.

Ed Decker, in contrast, would have ample reason to question the intent of his 'objective' observations.

Why? Why is Ed Decker situated differently? He's a self-proclaimed expert on Mormonism (so is Joanna Brooks). He claims to be well-informed about LDS doctrines, practices and beliefs (so does Joanna Brooks). He makes money writing disparaging materials about the LDS Church, its doctrines and leaders (so does Joanna Brooks - take a look at the articles she has published on Salon). He resorts to falsehoods and gross mischaracterizations and defamation to make the LDS Church look bad (so does Joanna Brooks).

Don't get me wrong, I think Ed Decker is several orders of magnitude more pernicious. That's actually a part of my concern. Ed Decker doesn't claim to be a member of the LDS Church, but Joanna Brooks does.

Those attempting to use the past to justify current claims of racism are, at best, disingenuous. The more they adopt such dishonor in the criticism, the easier they are to discredit - so sayeth each and every one of my multiple wives that do not exist ... and simple fact checking quickly demonstrates as absurd. Really, is this type of criticism damaging to the church? Or to the zealots who have to resort to such extremes to find anything to criticize?

Insinuating fine, upstanding people as closet racists? Silliness itself. No reason to let it get ones dander up.

Except that thousands of Salon readers now think, courtesy of Joanna Brooks, that Elder Dikcson - and, by extension, the LDS Church - is racist.

That, I think, is a a reason to get one's dander up.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 6, 2013 by smac97

[Benjamin McGuire]

I both agree with Brooks, and I disagree with her.

Where is Brooks largely wrong? Most importantly, she is wrong over the issue of significant numbers of members hiding behind issues like this to justify closet racism. I think if we look objectively at the history, the vast majority of members of the church were in favor of lifting the ban for a good deal of time before the ban was actually lifted. That it took so long was largely due to a small group of members in leadership positions who were opposed to the change. I am sure that there are probably racist members today. And I am also fairly confident that most of them will maintain their views regardless of what the church leadership might say (one way or the other). They may even read into talks like this justification for their beliefs that are in-congruent with many other things said by church leaders. I also think that she was clearly uncharitable to Elder D. What I mean by that is that Elder D. did not intend for his remarks to be read in the way that Brooks reads them (and probably would be dismayed that they were read this way).

Consider this comment that Elder D. made:

From the time of the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1830, the Church has moved steadily across the world from nation to nation, culture to culture, people to people, on the Lord’s calendar and in His time.

Was the official policy of the church (well documented) to avoid proselytizing among black populations due to the "Lord's calendar" or was it due to racist policies implemented by leaders of the church?

We can't say on the one hand that the priesthood ban was largely a cultural phenomenon and at the same time argue that it was intended by God, and that the revelation in 1978 was necessary to extend the priesthood to the blacks, and that not extending the priesthood earlier (say in the days of Joseph Smith) was because God was not ready to extend the priesthood to the blacks then. This stands completely opposite the idea that God had no problem giving the priesthood to the blacks, and that Joseph Smith had no problem giving the priesthood to the blacks, and that Brigham Young (and others) very much had a problem with giving the priesthood to blacks and then took that priesthood away from them.

Ultimately, as Brooks notes, part of our problem is that we want to balance change against what she calls the "profound deference to Church leaders revered as prophets." It is difficult for members of the church to either be critical of the teachings of past and present leaders of the church (and by extension those leaders themselves), or to allow others to be critical of past and present leaders of the church. We have all seent he kinds of friction that this can cause - consider the almost militant support given by some to the writings of Elder McConkie and at the same time the almost militant criticsm of those same writings by other members of the church. At some point, we have to be less worried about being critical of some of these issues - even when it means being critical of some of our former leaders (and perhaps even some of our present leaders when they say things that are not appropriate).

Was Elder D. racist in making these remarks? No. Did he make remarks that can be understood as racist? Absolutely. And so the problem is that we need to make sure that our comments on these sensitive subjects aren't able to be so easily understood in such a problematic way. The easy solution would have been to simply edit the comments before they were published to make it clear that Elder D. was not supporting a racist ideology (Brooks saw this as a good way to respond - I do recognize that the Church is already in a lose-lose situation there by the way, condemned if they change the remarks, condemned if they don't). The fact that they weren't suggests that either those who made that decision didn't see the issue in the remarks (which is quite possible) or they decided that it shouldn't be necessary to change them just because they could be misunderstood in some way (also quite possible) or that those who reviewed the issue decided that in fact because the decision about giving the priesthood to the blacks was a revelation it suggested that it was a necessary revelation because God had determined that the blacks shouldn't hold the priesthood until 1978 (which is in fact very much a racist position).

For Brooks, what is bad is the idea that because we waited until 1978 to give the blacks the priesthood that effectively God didn't want them to get the priesthood until 1978 (this is what the conference talk could be read as inferring). Especially if we are now at the point where the church is suggesting that there was no revelation creating the ban. If the ban is man made, then we have had a racist policy in the past (as a church). And we shouldn't be laying our collective burden (for the racist policy) at God's feet by suggesting that our racism was really God's will all along. I think that is an important issue. Part of the reason why we have our leaders saying things like this is because we spent decades defending the ban using ideas just like this. So these ideas are easy, they are familiar, and they are correlated (but that doesn't make them accurate, true, or appropriate). What needs to change is the way in which we express these ideas - so that they can be just as in-line with what our leaders want to tell us without having the overtones of past racism. Whether its charitable or not, it is a reality that people parse language in this way (both believers and non-believers).

And on top of this we have the long standing issue of how we deal with stuff like this with respect to correlation. Correlation allows these kinds of statements because it tends to move very slowly in the direction of change (even when backed by statements from the leadership, new policies, and new interpretations). Correlation sticks possessively to former things (however inappropriate they may be). We have to make an effort to describe these issues in ways that aren't easy for us (because they have been repeated so often in the past). We have to move from that comfortable language of the past. We made changes (and we continue to make changes). Sometimes we need to learn how to talk about these issues differently, because the audience isn't simply members of the church in Utah who may have a relatively unique perspective. The audience is far larger, and often far less forgiving.

Ben M.

[ksfisher]

This is an issue that needs to be addressed. Why did Sister Brooks choose to use this vehicle to publish her position?

Why does she publish what she does? Because she's making money off of it.

[gree0232]

Part of her career involves speaking to the media as a sort of independent voice of Mormonism. She is quoted frequently in news items precisely because of her status as a Church member.

She is also highly educated and intelligent, so I do not think we can chalk up her peddling of falsehoods, mischaracterizations and defamation to ignorance (a lack of "a perfect knowledge of the church," as you put it).

Nobody has suggested that her article is the result of a whoopsy-daisy. That's the problem. It appears to be a calculated attempt to publish falsehoods and defamatory comments about the LDS Church and its members and leaders. You'll note that we probably wouldn't get much exercised if this article were published by Ed Decker or Mill McKeever or James White, professional and avowed anti-Mormons all of them. The characteristics of this article that I think is sticking in our collective craw are that

A) the article contains falsehoods, mischaracterizations and defamatory remarks,

B) the article was written by a person claiming to have special insights on and knowledge about the LDS Church,

C) those special insights are derived solely from the author's status as a member of the LDS Church (as opposed to, say, from scholarship like that published by Jan Shipps); and

D) the above-referenced falsehoods, mischaracterizations and defamatory remarks cannot be reasonably attributed to ignorance.

Contrast that statement with the content of the article under discussion. Joanna Brooks did not say "I don't know." She attributed the ban to racism (frankly, she may be right about that). But worse than that, she accused Elder Dikcson of current, ongoing racism.

Then Joanna Brooks did not.

All of that is well and good, and I do not disagree with any of it. But Joanna Brooks presumed to declare that she does know what the rest of us - including the Brethren - do not. She also accused one of the Brethren of recently perpetuating racism. That just ain't cool.

The Church does not teach racism. Elder Dikcson is not racist. Joanna Brooks suggested otherwise. That's wrong.

I disagree that she is merely "struggling to understand it." She has reached a conclusion and is declaring it to the world. She couched her conclusions with falsehoods and mischaracterizations and defamatory accusations against Elder Dikcson. She is declaring doctrine.

Perhaps you can explain the categorical distinction between the things Ed Decker writes and the article Joanna Brooks wrote. To me, the differences appear to be of degree. The means (peddling mischaracterizations and false accusations) and objectives (trying to make the LDS Church look bad in the eyes of those who are not familiar with it - like Salon readers) appear to be disturbingly similar.

I am open to honest and accurate and well-intentioned discussion of the LDS Church by its members. But the article written by Joanna Brooks was not honest, or accurate. And I don't think it was well-intentioned, either.

I think she's more than "merely wrong." For example, claiming that Wilford Woodruff was the third president of the Church would be "merely wrong." Willfully declaring it to the world, knowing it to be a falsehood, would be something more serious than "merely wrong."

Regarding the article under discussion, accusing Elder Dikson of purveying racism was more than "merely wrong."

Fabricating "cross purposes" within the Church and conspiratorial non-existent cover-ups was more than "merely wrong."

Using inflammatory terminology - normally the province of enemies of the Church - was more than "merely wrong."

Declaring doctrine was more than "merely wrong."

Failing to inform her readers that the Church, contra to the narrative she tried to construct - expressly condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church, was more than "merely wrong."

If Joanna Brooks wrote what she did out of ignorance, your response would be appropriate. But she didn't, so it isn't.

Why? Why is Ed Decker situated differently? He's a self-proclaimed expert on Mormonism (so is Joanna Brooks). He claims to be well-informed about LDS doctrines, practices and beliefs (so does Joanna Brooks). He makes money writing disparaging materials about the LDS Church, its doctrines and leaders (so does Joanna Brooks - take a look at the articles she has published on Salon). He resorts to falsehoods and gross mischaracterizations and defamation to make the LDS Church look bad (so does Joanna Brooks).

Don't get me wrong, I think Ed Decker is several orders of magnitude more pernicious. That's actually a part of my concern. Ed Decker doesn't claim to be a member of the LDS Church, but Joanna Brooks does.

Except that thousands of Salon readers now think, courtesy of Joanna Brooks, that Elder Dikcson - and, by extension, the LDS Church - is racist.

That, I think, is a a reason to get one's dander up.

Thanks,

-Smac

You make a couple of assumptions that are simply wrong.

#1 - that people will base, in perpetuity, their opinion of our church based on the content of one article ... one that will no doubt be rebutted both in letters to the editor and in a published response ... which vilification and emotional angst simply fail to reach the standard of publishability.

There are millions of us out there Brother, and the mischaracterization of ONE of us is not going to sink the ship of the gospel. Again, I tell you plainly, being called a racist when you clearly are not at some point makes a far bigger idiot out of the accuser than it does the accused.

#2 - You characterize Ms. Brooks opinion of racism in Elder D as malicious rather than a genuine opinion on Ms. Brooks part. Again, Ms. Brooks is not alone in her opinion of racism, or, at the very least, of minimizing the racial legacy of this priest hood ban. Although I agree that she is clearly wrong, the best way to respond is to avoid 'her' and focus on what she writes and how its wrong (which admittedly you do above).

However, invoking the person in a public debate crosses a few lines:

#1 - Ad hominem - This is a well known fallacy, and quite frankly speculating about someone you know nothing about ... yet are certain of motives ... is a wasted effort in a debate. Just as false accusations smear the accuser when hurling claims of racism, so to does launching ad hominem against a fellow church member. It breaks no rules of the church to raise issues of racism within the church when you suspect it. Its best dealt with calmly and explanationally.

#2 - It sends a clear message of intolerance. Why raise issues within the church if you are simply going to be subjected to a personal smear? If there are issues of racism within the church, we would want an environment where people are free to report it to church authorities who can then use the authority of the church, using the appropriate keys, to stamp it out. An examination of the facts, and the facts alone, will lead to FACT BASED rebuttal rather than a personal rebuke.

Our church is big enough, strong enough, and committed enough to seeking what is right that we can handle even the toughest questions with aplomb, dignity, and the calm logic of Jesus Christ himself.

In short, tone is important, "How you dare you question my church!," is perhaps not the best tone to engage with in public discussion of the church - and it is public. People are going to do it. Best we set policies and procedures that acknowledge that fact.

[smac97]

You make a couple of assumptions that are simply wrong.

#1 - that people will base, in perpetuity, their opinion of our church based on the content of one article ...

First, I did not make this assumption.

Second, some people will base their opinion of the Church on their limited exposure to it. If that exposure is limited to the article by Joanna Brooks, then those people will have quite a negative perception of the Church. That's worth speaking out against.

one that will no doubt be rebutted both in letters to the editor and in a published response ... which vilification and emotional angst simply fail to reach the standard of publishability.

What?

There are millions of us out there Brother, and the mischaracterization of ONE of us is not going to sink the ship of the gospel.

First, I did not suggest that this article would "sink the ship of the gospel."

Second, just because it won't "sink the ship" doesn't mean it won't harm the work and reputation of the Church.

Third, just because falsehoods won't "sink the ship" doesn't mean that we should not rebut those falsehoods.

Again, I tell you plainly, being called a racist when you clearly are not at some point makes a far bigger idiot out of the accuser than it does the accused.

Perhaps. But people outside the Church will lend undue credence to Joanna Brooks' accusations of racism because she is a member of the Church. I find that problematic.

#2 - You characterize Ms. Brooks opinion of racism in Elder D as malicious rather than a genuine opinion on Ms. Brooks part. Again, Ms. Brooks is not alone in her opinion of racism, or, at the very least, of minimizing the racial legacy of this priest hood ban.

The fact that Ms. Brooks is not alone in her defamatory accusations does not make those accusations true, nor does it my assumptions about them incorrect.

Although I agree that she is clearly wrong, the best way to respond is to avoid 'her' and focus on what she writes and how its wrong (which admittedly you do above).

Perhaps so.

However, invoking the person in a public debate crosses a few lines:

#1 - Ad hominem - This is a well known fallacy, and quite frankly speculating about someone you know nothing about ... yet are certain of motives ... is a wasted effort in a debate. Just as false accusations smear the accuser when hurling claims of racism, so to does launching ad hominem against a fellow church member. It breaks no rules of the church to raise issues of racism within the church when you suspect it. Its best dealt with calmly and explanationally.

I have not committed this fallacy.

#2 - It sends a clear message of intolerance. Why raise issues within the church if you are simply going to be subjected to a personal smear?

First, I have previously stated: "I am open to honest and accurate and well-intentioned discussion of the LDS Church by its members. But the article written by Joanna Brooks was not honest, or accurate. And I don't think it was well-intentioned, either."

Second, I reject the idea that church members are immune from criticism just because they are church members.

Third, the "personal smear" in this case is not ad hominem. Joanna Brooks is publicly spreading falsehoods and mischaracterizations about the LDS Church. It is not a "smear" to declare them as such.

If there are issues of racism within the church, we would want an environment where people are free to report it to church authorities who can then use the authority of the church, using the appropriate keys, to stamp it out.

Just so. But that has exactly nothing to do with Joanna Brooks' published falsehoods.

An examination of the facts, and the facts alone, will lead to FACT BASED rebuttal rather than a personal rebuke.

Our church is big enough, strong enough, and committed enough to seeking what is right that we can handle even the toughest questions with aplomb, dignity, and the calm logic of Jesus Christ himself.

I don't think that pointing out falsehoods indicates a lack of "aplomb, dignity, and the calm logic."

In short, tone is important,

I agree. And yet here you are, shrugging off the "tone" of Joanna Brooks' defamatory comments, made to a far larger audience than my comments in this thread. Why is my "tone" worth repeated commentary by you, but the "tone" of Joanna Brooks' comments should be ignored?

"How you dare you question my church!," is perhaps not the best tone to engage with in public discussion of the church -

First, that is not my "tone."

Second, the "tone" of Brooks' article is far more offensive, yet you have not taken issue with it. Why?

Thanks,

-Smac

[why me]

For Brooks, what is bad is the idea that because we waited until 1978 to give the blacks the priesthood that effectively God didn't want them to get the priesthood until 1978 (this is what the conference talk could be read as inferring).

Ben M.

For Joanna, the issues are usually two fold: racism and inequality. She focuses on her feminism and hightlighting racism in lds history. However, for most members, what happened in the past, happened. Most have moved on. Those of us who were around before the ban was lifted, saw very little actual racism in the church. In fact, Africans were welcomed as members and sat next to whites in church. There was no segregation. The priesthood ban did not ban membership. Unfortunately this is barely ever mentioned by critics such as Joanna. They more or less imply that the priesthood ban was similiar to banning africans from membership. But it wasn't. Now that we have the Internet, the idea of racism is a favorite bedbug for critics to bring up because it causes members to scratch. And in that, it is very useful for them to mention.

[Scott Lloyd]

For Joanna, the issues are usually two fold: racism and inequality. She focuses on her feminism and hightlighting racism in lds history. However, for most members, what happened in the past, happened. Most have moved on. Those of us who were around before the ban was lifted, saw very little actual racism in the church. In fact, Africans were welcomed as members and sat next to whites in church. There was no segregation. The priesthood ban did not ban membership. Unfortunately this is barely ever mentioned by critics such as Joanna. They more or less imply that the priesthood ban was similiar to banning africans from membership. But it wasn't. Now that we have the Internet, the idea of racism is a favorite bedbug for critics to bring up because it causes members to scratch. And in that, it is very useful for them to mention.

This analysis is spot on.

When the revelation was announced in 1978, there was such a huge, collective sigh of relief across the global Church it caused a breeze that didn't die down for months. Most everyone except the most vitriolic anti-Mormons seemed willing to leave the pre-1978 policy in the past and move on. It has only been since the advent of the Internet that the past policy has again become a prominent issue. I don't see that anything of value is accomplished by having ostensibly active Mormons such as Brooks indulging in tenuous speculations and accusations.

She seems to have an ideological bent that colors everything she views, including her own faith.

[why me]

The whole episode makes my stomach turn. It's a blot on our history with no justofication and shocking that it was left in place for so many decades.

I think that the critic interpretation has made your stomach turn. However, since I was around during the ban, my stomach wasn't turning at all. We all wanted to the ban to be lifted and we saw how african members were treated by the general membership, They were treated as equals by the overwhelming majority of members. Unfortunately, this goes unnoticed by critics who love to bring up this issue in sound bites.

[why me]

She seems to have an ideological bent that colors everything she views, including her own faith.

I read her book. I liked her book. But Joanna seems to make a side living in stressing what she believes are topical negatives about the church. She should mention that the africans who were members hardly ever experienced racism in the church. That the priesthood ban did not prevent africans from being welcomed as members and warmly welcomed at that. And we need to remember that african women had the same blessings as white female members and other female members of color. The priesthood ban affected the males but not females. Were not the african women welcomed into the relief society? Did they give lessons in relief society? Did they go visiting teaching with other women? If we answer yes to these questions, it should be stressed by every member when the subject of racism comes up. If no, we may have a problem. Edited May 6, 2013 by why me