A Mormon Says Sorry

[mormonnewb]

Were you there? Maybe I know you! Of course I know that you weren't there so you could not understand the context or the brother in question. The brother was not crying but he was happy. But i don't believe that he was happy because he got something that he didn't have but because he did get something that was unexpected. But in a way you may be right. My point was simple: he was not damaged during the ban. In fact, he was a very educated doctor who was doing quite fine in his life and in the church as was his wife. We were home teaching partners and so I do think that I may know just what I am talking about.

 

Did I ever say that blacks enjoyed second class citizenship? I don't remember writing such a sentence. By the way, I haven't exercised my priesthood in years. I am not very active in the church nor very worthy. I really don't miss not exercising my priesthood. What is important is that members still treat me as an equal. And they do.

I was not there. However, the fact that I've been black for most of my entire life might give me a LITTLE insIght into the black experience. While you home taught with a black man of that era, I was RAISED by one and knew HUNDREDS more. And while I certainly never met this brutha, I just thought you might want to know that "in the good old days," most black men were reticent to voice their objections to racism to white folks. Who woulda thunk it, right? So it is POSSIBLE that this man really wanted the priesthood but simply never told YOU about it. Just a possibility ...

On the other hand, it was possible that this brutha was quite comfortable with his second-class status. In fact, there were even a few slaves who were content with their station in life. After emancipation, they freely chose to stay with their masters rather than face the uncertainties of freedom. And no, I'm NOT equating the priesthood ban with slavery. For one, by 1978, the saints really should have known better (JOKE! JOKE! JOKE!).

Seriously, my point is that if there were some blacks who could be content under slavery, then there could have been SOME blacks who were content under the far less onerous pre-1978 restrictions. However, just as the contentment of a few slaves, didn't justify slavery, neither does the POSSIBLE contentment of a few blacks saints justify the Church's actions pre-1978.

[canard78]

True, words change meanings. But I am talking about the 1970's and this is where the term is being applied to members and to the church by some members on this thread. Can we apply 21st word meanings for the 19th century and 20th century? Was Archie Bunker racist or prejudice? I believe that the term used for Archie was prejudiced or bigoted. But not racist. So, I take issue with the church being called racist for its 19th and 20th century policies. .

 

The word 'gay' has only meant homosexual in the last couple of decades. But if I were to describe someone from 100 years ago, who was homosexual, as a gay person, it would still be an accurate description.

 

To say someone is prejudiced based on someone's race is the same as saying racist. I know the second is a 'hotter' word - but it's equally accurate. Prejudice based on race is racism!

[why me]

prej·u·dice

/ˈprɛdʒədɪs/  Show Spelled [prej-uh-dis]  Show IPA

noun

1.

an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

2.

any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

3.

unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

4.

such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.

5.

damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority

 

rac·ism

noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\

: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race

: the belief that some races of people are better than others

 

 

When grouped together they all mean the same thing.   

 

However you can also read this:

 

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/prejudice-and-discrimination/

 

No use of the word racist or racism. Such was the way it was in the 70's. But there was a general use of the word prejudice. The late 20th century and 21st century words racist or racism are used to squash any debate on race. The terms are much more strong and more suited to exercise control over such discussions. So, the church past policy becomes racist and not prejudiced or bigoted.

[why me]

I was not there. However, the fact that I've been black for most of my entire life might give me a LITTLE insIght into the black experience. While you home taught with a black man of that era, I was RAISED by one and knew HUNDREDS more. And while I certainly never met this brutha, I just thought you might want to know that "in the good old days," most black men were reticent to voice their objections to racism to white folks. Who woulda thunk it, right? So it is POSSIBLE that this man really wanted the priesthood but simply never told YOU about it. Just a possibility ...

On the other hand, it was possible that this brutha was quite comfortable with his second-class status. In fact, there were even a few slaves who were content with their station in life. After emancipation, they freely chose to stay with their masters rather than face the uncertainties of freedom. And no, I'm NOT equating the priesthood ban with slavery. For one, by 1978, the saints really should have known better (JOKE! JOKE! JOKE!).

Seriously, my point is that if there were some blacks who could be content under slavery, then there could have been SOME blacks who were content under the far less onerous pre-1978 restrictions. However, just as the contentment of a few slaves, didn't justify slavery, neither does the POSSIBLE contentment of a few blacks saints justify the Church's actions pre-1978.

So, how would you interpret what I linked? The manifestations of the spirit that was seen after the ban was lifted? And the manifestations of the spirit among the african american population who investigated the church after the ban was lifted? Would that signify a correct change in policy and the truthfulness of the lds church?

[canard78]

Of course that is one opinion. But I do have a problem with the term being applied to the priesthood ban. Why is this the case? Well, it is quite simple and I have posted the link on this thread but never got a reply for it. So, I will do it again.  Here it is:

 

The reaction of different Church members varied, as one might expect. Some called the bishop and expressed concern. Others asked questions. Generally, however, they wanted to accept the will of the Lord and do what was right. A member of the high council summed up the attitudes of many when he said, “I have lived in the South all of my life. I’ve held prejudices. Now the Prophet and the Lord have asked me to change my views and practices. I’ll certainly go along with it, support it, and sustain it.” He spent his family home evening talking with his family about how they could follow the intent of the Lord’s manifestation.

 

Two weeks later things began to happen—The meetinghouse for the Albany, Georgia, First and Second Wards was dedicated. Among the many nonmembers attending the dedicatory services was Alice Moultrie, a friend from work who had responded to our invitation to attend.

 

“It was a wonderful meeting,” Alice reflected the next day at work. “The people were so friendly. Even though I was just about the only black person there, I felt right at home. I feel something drawing me there.”

 

That something, of course, was the Holy Ghost. In the ensuing weeks as Alice was taught by the missionaries and the members, she received many powerful manifestations from the Holy Spirit regarding the truthfulness of the gospel.

 

She accepted the baptismal challenge and the day finally came when she was led by the hand into the waters of baptism. As she took her place in the baptismal font, her eyes grew wide and she exclaimed softly, “So this is the baptismal font!” The meaning of her comment was not understood by others until after the meeting had concluded.

 

“I had seen that font before in a type of vision,” she shared with us later. “I saw myself in the water and every other detail of the font’s interior exactly as it is. When I stood in the water and looked up, I realized the Lord had shown me my baptism before it happened.”

 

Soon after her baptism Alice was called to be the secretary of the ward Sunday School organization. More recently, because of her warm spirit and her burning testimony, she has been called to be a stake missionary.

 

Although she was the first black convert in our ward, she did not have the distinction very long of being the only black member. In the twelve months following Alice’s baptism in late August of 1978, some forty black brothers and sisters were baptized in the Albany area—and their numbers have continued to grow. A heavy outpouring of the Spirit has accompanied each conversion. Here are some examples:

 

1. Herbert and Mildred Samuels were baptized just a few weeks after Alice Moultrie. The first black elder to be ordained in the Albany First Ward, he became a dynamic stake missionary with an intense love for others. Sister Samuels is a counselor in the Primary and adds much to the ward with her gifted soprano voice. Their temple marriage took on added significance when Brother Samuels died in a tragic car accident in the summer of 1980.

 

2. Mark and Ada Clark’s conversion to the Church was especially significant to us since he, like Alice Moultrie, was a colleague at work. He had impressed us for some time as being an “unbaptized Mormon,” but procrastination had prevented us from asking him the golden questions. Success often creates boldness, however; and in the light of the missionary success our ward was having, the approach to Mark was rather blunt. “Mark, you need to learn more about the Mormon church!” Because of the friendship we shared he was not offended, and he agreed to meet with one of us in our home to receive the missionary discussions.

 

Within two weeks, it was apparent Mark and Ada would be baptized. They were doing all the right things. Their questions in the discussion were thoughtful and spirited. They prayed often about the message of the gospel. They studied the Book of Mormon and the pamphlets they received and struggled until they understood what they had read.

 

After meeting with them and the missionaries for the third discussion, we received a strong impression that 11 January 1979 (the date they had been preparing for since the first meeting) was indeed to be the night of their baptism. When Satan began placing obstacles in the Clarks’ path that final week, it would have been easy to have given in to their request to “hold off on the baptism for a little while.” But the Spirit prompted us to hold firm, and so we did.

 

We both went to visit with Mark just two hours before his scheduled baptism to bear our witness and to answer his questions. The Spirit was very strong as we all knelt to pray. Following prayer, Mark rose to his feet and asked simply, “What do we need to bring for tonight?” Later that evening he and his wife were baptized. Subsequently they, too, have been sealed in the temple. Mark is presently elders quorum president in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

 

3. Jim and Lawanda Coston joined the Church after being friendshipped and after receiving the discussions in the home of a recent convert in the ward. After baptism, Jim commented that he had lost the desire to engage in his usual social activities. His family had taken on added significance and he desired to spend the majority of his time with them.

 

In time, Jim was called to be a counselor in the elders quorum presidency, and Lawanda was called to serve with the Young Women. Then, early this year, Jim was presented to be one of the counselors in the bishopric.

 

Such outpourings of the Spirit have brought new excitement to the Church in the Albany area, and our love for one another has increased. One member, who had admitted earlier that he was finding it difficult to accept the impact of the revelation, remarked how the Spirit had influenced him while helping the missionaries teach a black family. “I felt the Spirit very strongly,” he said. “My eyes were opened. I know now how badly the Lord wants all of his children to be a part of his Church.” His words had a familiar ring of the Apostle Peter after teaching Cornelius’s household:

 

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

 

“And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

“For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

 

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 10:44–47.)

 

As time progressed and black brothers and sisters have entered the Church, we have learned that an increased capacity to love does not come about by sermons from the pulpit or through directives in a priesthood quorum. It comes as a result of serving together, in such activities as pulling corn on the welfare farm, jointly teaching with the missionaries, sacrificing together to make a Church activity just a bit better, or just being friends.

 

The Saints in Albany have experienced something akin to what Peter and Cornelius experienced, and we feel strongly that our latter-day prophet is repeating the message found in the tenth chapter of Acts [Acts 10], namely:

 

1. There are many righteous persons on the face of the earth who have not had the gospel preached to them.

 

2. Many such individuals have been spiritually prepared, or are being spiritually prepared, for the messengers who will bring the glad tidings of the restoration of the gospel.

 

3. A revelation from God has come to the Lord’s anointed spokesman declaring that the fulness of the gospel should now be taken to people who previously (according to the Lord’s timetable) had not been included in full proselyting activities.

 

4. Members of the Church must overcome any prejudices and cultural patterns we might have in order to extend a true hand of friendship and fellowship to all individuals of all races, cultures, and tongues.

 

5. Rapid growth, far greater than that seen in past years, will accompany the Church as we follow the will of the Lord.

 

Because of our experiences in Georgia, we have felt the Spirit of the Lord in abundance. The formula is sweet but well known: in inviting our brothers and sisters to join us in the gospel fold, we’ve found ourselves entering anew.

 

 

http://www.lds.org/l...a____&hideNav=1

 

How to rationalize such manifestations of the spirit that occurred after the ban was lifted? I don't think that revisionism works in this case. Were the members both black and white suffering from delusion? Was the Holy Ghost wrong? Please give me an explanation. Likewise for mormonnewb.

 

You're mixing up two things. You're saying that everyone you knew and the people listed in this article all welcomed the ban. That's great. Almost everyone I know who were alive at the time say the same thing. It must have been a relief to have such an awful policy be overturned. FWIW I have a friend who knew several members who left the church because they didn't support it being given. He vividly remembers a group of members declining the sacrament when it was offered to them by a newly ordained black deacon.

 

But the fact that most welcomed it and a few rejected the restoration of the priesthood to black members doesn't alter the fact that the ban was a racist policy. 

 

Racism simply means: "racial prejudice or discrimination." 

[mormonnewb]

I realize that you were speaking in the present and that was my point. I don't think that we can put 21st century labels to the 20th and 19th century. My own father was prejudice like many white New Jerseyans. Not to mention the prejudice of black americans. He saw the riots and experienced the riots. He bought a shot gun to protect his family. But he was not a racist. But if he were around today, many would call him racist, if he still held such attitudes. It seems no one is prejudice anymore.

Perhaps, it helps to think of it this way: racism is not different than prejudice, it is simply a subset of prejudice. After all, one can have prejudice in regards to many things (e.g., gender, religion, nationality, etc.). Therefore, we currently use the term "racist" because it is more precise than prejudice.

The problem is that we so frequently associate the term "racist" with groups like the Klan so that the term is unnecessarily pejorative. Most people with racist thoughts are perfectly decent people. They don't harbor hateful thoughts towards blacks or others, they simply have general prejudices about them. My very best friend in the Church falls under this category. In fact, if I was in jail and only allowed one phone call, it would be to him because I know he would move heaven and earth to get me out. However, I have noticed that he has some general prejudices when it comes to race (that can be overcome once he gets to know someone).

So, yes, I suspect that most saints were kind and decent to the few blacks in their midst. After all, these were the "good blacks." In fact, wasn't your friend a DOCTOR? How could they object to being around someone of such obvious intelligence? However, would he have been just as accepted if he was, say, a janitor?

[mormonnewb]

So, how would you interpret what I linked? The manifestations of the spirit that was seen after the ban was lifted? And the manifestations of the spirit among the african american population who investigated the church after the ban was lifted? Would that signify a correct change in policy and the truthfulness of the lds church?

A correct change in policy? ABSOLUTELY! I fully support the repeal of the priesthood/temple ban!

As for the "truthfulness" of the Church, that is a MUCH longer discussion. Suffice it to say, that the LDS Church is MY church and I find extraordinary value in its practices and teachings (obviously, with a few exceptions).

[thesometimesaint]

A correct change in policy? ABSOLUTELY! I fully support the repeal of the priesthood/temple ban!

As for the "truthfulness" of the Church, that is a MUCH longer discussion. Suffice it to say, that the LDS Church is MY church and I find extraordinary value in its practices and teachings (obviously, with a few exceptions).

I accepted the Church as true in 1971. But I've never accepted any/all the rationalizations/excuses/reasons given for the ban on Priesthood. The only thing  I do know is that I don't know. Looks like I finally am in agreement with the Church.

[why me]

So, yes, I suspect that most saints were kind and decent to the few blacks in their midst. After all, these were the "good blacks." In fact, wasn't your friend a DOCTOR? How could they object to being around someone of such obvious intelligence? However, would he have been just as accepted if he was, say, a janitor?

I wouldn't call them good blacks. I would call them church members or brothers and sisters. Your sentence implies too much negativity in connotation. You just condemned my former ward with one sentence. Marvelous but sad.

 

My home teacher partner was african, educated in africa. I am sure that you will have a smart reply to that information.

Edited December 21, 2013 by why me

[why me]

Point of information. Those interested in a wonderful understanding of what was happening during the priesthood ban and why it may have happened can listen to this podcast:

 

http://mormonstories.org/mormon-stories-026-blacks-and-the-lds-priesthood-an-interview-with-darius-gray-and-margaret-young/

[mormonnewb]

I wouldn't call them good blacks. I would call them church members or brothers and sisters. Your sentence implies too much negativity in connotation. You just condemned my former ward with one sentence. Marvelous but sad.

My home teacher partner was african, educated in africa. I am sure that you will have a smart reply to that information.

Wow! I thought I was easily offended. I spent the first two paragraphs in my post explaining how perfectly decent people could have this attitude, including my very best friend in the church. Yet, YOU read condemnation of your entire word into the post? As my teenager would say, "Whatever!"

[why me]

Wow! I thought I was easily offended. I spent the first two paragraphs in my post explaining how perfectly decent people could have this attitude, including my very best friend in the church. Yet, YOU read condemnation of your entire word into the post? As my teenager would say, "Whatever!"

You brought up the racist old southern idea of 'good blacks' in relation to the ward members because my companion was a doctor. You basically insulted my former ward members by saying this. The idea that there are good blacks or bad blacks depending on how 'white' they are was your implication.

 

My point has been rather simple: When the ban was lifted the Holy Ghost testified to many people and the spirit fell upon many, both black and white. Hearts were changed. I can not disagree with the holy ghost. Something extraordinary happened and heavenly father was a part of it.

[CV75]

I would be surprised if he is actually feeling guilty. I tend to doubt it. I think that he wishes to make a statement, post it on youtube and see where it leads. Already he is known and is becoming a spokesperson. I tend to question those who criticize the church through youtube.

 

I remember a T-shirt that exclaimed: I'm a YouTube Superstar. There are many who wish they were.

In any case, I think he's messed up!

[mfbukowski]

As I wind down my mortal life I'm not convinced that what happens in this life is all that important. Don't get me wrong I value my life, but I'll be OK in the next.

Realize what you are saying here- as always, I am interested in the ARGUMENT and how well it holds water.

 

The statement was made, essentially saying that black people were denied the joys and temporal happiness of being able to hold the priesthood, and that was a serious detriment to their lives.

 

I agreed with that statement,  and you chimed in essentially saying that those joys were not that important- that in an eternal scheme we all receive God's blessings regardless of if we hold the priesthood or not so blacks were not damaged that seriously.   With that, I heartily disagreed.

 

Now you are saying that life itself is "not all that important"- so the implication I suppose is that all those black folks should just have realized that, that life is not that important, so that it was OK if they were mistreated and didn't get the joys of life they deserved,based on your argument that YOU are not convinced that "what happens in this life is not all that important".

 

I think that is 1- a horrible argument, and of course to me, that itself is a mortal sin, and 2- a really dismal attitude, and 3- reprehensible that you think it's ok that people don't get joy out of life because "life is not all that important".

 

Let's just say I disagree and keep it civil.   And I know you don't care if I disagree, because you have said so.  But really that is a pretty sad attitude.

[mfbukowski]

I was not there. However, the fact that I've been black for most of my entire life might give me a LITTLE insIght into the black experience. While you home taught with a black man of that era, I was RAISED by one and knew HUNDREDS more. And while I certainly never met this brutha, I just thought you might want to know that "in the good old days," most black men were reticent to voice their objections to racism to white folks. Who woulda thunk it, right? So it is POSSIBLE that this man really wanted the priesthood but simply never told YOU about it. Just a possibility ...

On the other hand, it was possible that this brutha was quite comfortable with his second-class status. In fact, there were even a few slaves who were content with their station in life. After emancipation, they freely chose to stay with their masters rather than face the uncertainties of freedom. And no, I'm NOT equating the priesthood ban with slavery. For one, by 1978, the saints really should have known better (JOKE! JOKE! JOKE!).

Seriously, my point is that if there were some blacks who could be content under slavery, then there could have been SOME blacks who were content under the far less onerous pre-1978 restrictions. However, just as the contentment of a few slaves, didn't justify slavery, neither does the POSSIBLE contentment of a few blacks saints justify the Church's actions pre-1978.

Agreed.

There is a book written by Viktor Frankl called "Man's Search for Meaning" in which he discusses how he was able to at least find meaning in his life, if not joy, while being in a concentration camp.

 

And the Stockholm Syndrome is another psychological phenomenon in which one who is under captivity will identify with his captors.  Patty Hearst is a notable example of this in action- where she actually participated in bank robberies organized by her captors.

 

But it is ridiculous in my opinion to assert that blacks were contented under the ban.  I think it shows what spiritual giants those people must have been to actually have a testimony of the church under those circumstances.

[thesometimesaint]

Realize what you are saying here- as always, I am interested in the ARGUMENT and how well it holds water.

 

The statement was made, essentially saying that black people were denied the joys and temporal happiness of being able to hold the priesthood, and that was a serious detriment to their lives.

 

I agreed with that statement,  and you chimed in essentially saying that those joys were not that important- that in an eternal scheme we all receive God's blessings regardless of if we hold the priesthood or not so blacks were not damaged that seriously.   With that, I heartily disagreed.

 

Now you are saying that life itself is "not all that important"- so the implication I suppose is that all those black folks should just have realized that, that life is not that important, so that it was OK if they were mistreated and didn't get the joys of life they deserved,based on your argument that YOU are not convinced that "what happens in this life is not all that important".

 

I think that is 1- a horrible argument, and of course to me, that itself is a mortal sin, and 2- a really dismal attitude, and 3- reprehensible that you think it's ok that people don't get joy out of life because "life is not all that important".

 

Let's just say I disagree and keep it civil.   And I know you don't care if I disagree, because you have said so.  But really that is a pretty sad attitude.

 

This life is important, as it sets the stage for the next. IF I am earnestly seeking to do Gods' Will in this life then I believe I'll be OK in the next. IF I am deliberately not seeking it. Then I need to some serious repenting.

 

To me, what happens to me is important, but not as important as my reaction to it. IE; If some one hits me it hurts, but if I get all vengeful and seek revenge then that is my problem. I am not a pacifist, and definitely not a door mat(emotionally or otherwise). I don't believe God expects me to be either. That being said I will be judged not on what Adam(men) does to me, but what I do to them.

 

I don't believe that not having the Priesthood is a detriment. Sure there are certain things that I couldn't do in this life.  Like give Priesthood Blessings, but as a member of the Church I can still give a fathers blessing and use such inspiration as God directs. I believe God answers the prayers of the good man as well as the Priesthood holder. I'll never be President of the US either, but that is not a detriment to me. I look upon that as being a blessing. .Will the good black male member of the Church be refused a Sealing to his beloved wife in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom simply because he couldn't, through no fault of his own, hold the Priesthood in this life. I don't believe so. I'm not a Mark E. Peterson type person where the best the black person could even hope for was eternal servitude to his(her) white better overseers.

 

If I mistreat ANYONE then I am in serious need of repentance. Heck I believe if I mistreat my cat then I need to repent, even if I don't get scratched first.

[cdowis]

An OPINION that was titled, taught, and believed to be DOCTRINE.  We seem to gloss over that.

  

Can I assume that you have some difficulty in discerning what constitutes official DOCTRINE.  For example, do you also think that BOM geography (the one Hill Cumorah) was taught as doctrine?  Help us to know what is opinion and what is doctrine. Is something that is  "commonly accepted" considered official doctrine?

 

I think the recent article on race and the priesthood does not gloss over anything.  It may have been commonly accepted as a explanation of the policy, but may I suggest that does not make it doctrine.

 

Now, am I glossing over anything, or am I pointing out that we need to be more discerning with our assumptions.

Edited December 24, 2013 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

I was not there. However, the fact that I've been black for most of my entire life might give me a LITTLE insIght into the black experience. While you home taught with a black man of that era, I was RAISED by one and knew HUNDREDS more. And while I certainly never met this brutha, I just thought you might want to know that "in the good old days," most black men were reticent to voice their objections to racism to white folks. Who woulda thunk it, right? So it is POSSIBLE that this man really wanted the priesthood but simply never told YOU about it. Just a possibility ...

On the other hand, it was possible that this brutha was quite comfortable with his second-class status. In fact, there were even a few slaves who were content with their station in life. After emancipation, they freely chose to stay with their masters rather than face the uncertainties of freedom. And no, I'm NOT equating the priesthood ban with slavery. For one, by 1978, the saints really should have known better (JOKE! JOKE! JOKE!).

Seriously, my point is that if there were some blacks who could be content under slavery, then there could have been SOME blacks who were content under the far less onerous pre-1978 restrictions. However, just as the contentment of a few slaves, didn't justify slavery, neither does the POSSIBLE contentment of a few blacks saints justify the Church's actions pre-1978.

Now I may be way out of my league here, and I hope this doesn't sound bad.  But I've often thought the only thing to come out of slavery that was good, is that they became American citizens.  If they hadn't been shipped here, would they be in Africa and suffering as so many do?  Which doesn't justify a thing, but makes it the only good thing.   

[thesometimesaint]

Now I may be way out of my league here, and I hope this doesn't sound bad.  But I've often thought the only thing to come out of slavery that was good, is that they became American citizens.  If they hadn't been shipped here, would they be in Africa and suffering as so many do?  Which doesn't justify a thing, but makes it the only good thing.   

 

Slaves weren't citizens.

 

We'll probably never know what they would have become if they remained in Africa. Anymore than we can say what the Chinese here would have become if they stayed in China. As a nation we were, and are, enriched by their contribution, and diminished by their mistreatment. 

[Teancum]

It's a shame he was perpetuating these ideas as late as 1993. I wonder if he was getting them from then-contemporary Church curricula as opposed to dredging them up from the past.

 

I have very clear memories of 1993 (the year I bought my house, etc.) and I don't remember official or institutional Church teaching from that time to the effect that the people of African descent were cursed. I think any such teaching, to the extent that it had prevailed at all in the past, had long been abandoned by then.

 

So it's great that he's apologizing, but he should not be conveying the impression (with phrasing such as "my part in it") that he was reflecting the position of the Church at the time.

 

It's maybe another case of persistent folk doctrine having been passed off as authoritative teaching.

Except what he was teaching was simply NOT folk doctrine in the past when it was taught. This positions simply disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. That you perpetuate this falsehood reflects poorly on apologetics in general.

[urroner]

Perhaps, it helps to think of it this way: racism is not different than prejudice, it is simply a subset of prejudice. After all, one can have prejudice in regards to many things (e.g., gender, religion, nationality, etc.). Therefore, we currently use the term "racist" because it is more precise than prejudice.

The problem is that we so frequently associate the term "racist" with groups like the Klan so that the term is unnecessarily pejorative. Most people with racist thoughts are perfectly decent people. They don't harbor hateful thoughts towards blacks or others, they simply have general prejudices about them. My very best friend in the Church falls under this category. In fact, if I was in jail and only allowed one phone call, it would be to him because I know he would move heaven and earth to get me out. However, I have noticed that he has some general prejudices when it comes to race (that can be overcome once he gets to know someone).

 

You say it's more the term "racist" is more precise than "prejudice," but is it precise enough.  I live in the south and have been accused several times of being racist simply because I disagreed with Pres. Obama.

 

The players in the NFL are teams when on the field, but when they are off the field, they tend to associates with their own race, whites with whites, blacks with blacks.  Are they racists because of this racial prejudice?

 

I even work for the federal government and there are no racists in the group I work with, AFAIK, but then again, like the NFL players, the blacks tend to associate with the blacks, the whites with the whites, the Hispanics with the Hispanics, and the Orientals with the Orientals.  Are we a bunch of racists because of these prejudices?

Simply stating that racism is simply a subset of prejudice and then state that only saying "racism" as applied to the KKK is an unnecessary pejorative really throws a wrench in your argument newb.  Racism, even as a simple subset to prejudice has evolved to mean people like the KKK or the Black Panthers.  "Racism" as defined by its use today means to hold either a certain race/races to be superior or inferior to the other races.  It doesn't mean to simply hold a prejudice.  Shot, by your definition, practically everybody I know is a racist.

There's a black preacher I know whom I don't consider to be racist in the slightest, but he wants his children to marry within the black race.  So, by your definition of "racist," is he a racist?

Edited December 25, 2013 by urroner

[thesometimesaint]

You say it's more the term "racist" is more precise than "prejudice," but is it precise enough.  I live in the south and have been accused several times of being racist simply because I disagreed with Pres. Obama.

 

The players in the NFL are teams when on the field, but when they are off the field, they tend to associates with their own race, whites with whites, blacks with blacks.  Are they racists because of this racial prejudice?

 

I even work for the federal government and there are no racists in the group I work with, AFAIK, but then again, like the NFL players, the blacks tend to associate with the blacks, the whites with the whites, the Hispanics with the Hispanics, and the Orientals with the Orientals.  Are we a bunch of racists because of these prejudices?

Simply stating that racism is simply a subset of prejudice and then state that only saying "racism" as applied to the KKK is an unnecessary pejorative really throws a wrench in your argument newb.  Racism, even as a simple subset to prejudice has evolved to mean people like the KKK or the Black Panthers.  "Racism" as defined by its use today means to hold either a certain race/races to be superior or inferior to the other races.  It doesn't mean to simply hold a prejudice.  Shot, by your definition, practically everybody I know is a racist.

There's a black preacher I know whom I don't consider to be racist in the slightest, but he wants his children to marry within the black race.  So, by your definition of "racist," is he a racist?

 

No, simple disagreements with someones ideas isn't racist. Disagreeing with them because of their race is by definition racist.

 

No, simple association is not in and of itself racist. Association because of race is by definition racist.

 

In and of themselves friendships are not racist, being friends because of race is by definition racist.

 

Racism is a subset of prejudices. I pretty much don't care what people believe. They can believe any silly thing they want, as long as they let me believe any silly thing I want. IOW it is what they do unto others that is important. What they believe not so much. There is a well known psychological function that says. If we do something consistently enough we will develop the justifications for those actions.

 

There are a lot of cultural assumptions there. I have more in common with a middle class black woman in southern California, than say a poor Lao woman in Laos.  But overall I would say no that isn't being racist. We tend to marry those who we date. If we are selecting our dates because of their race. Then yes that is by definition being racist.

[Chronos]

Tone down accusations of dishonesty.

 

~Chronos