Isn't It Time We Call Ourselves Out?

[Bernard Gui]

Good. Leadership Roullette.

I think Mission Presidents had a bit more autonomy to run their missions and set policies as they saw fit. The original letter to Lowry Nelson from the Mission President is further evidence of this.

 

Were you serving during the same time?

Mid-60s. It was not easy or pleasant, but I can say it was done in good faith and in anticipation that

it would not always be that way.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I understand your position and find much with which to agree. We should align with righteousness, wherever it may be found. There were certainly racist feelings in the church in the 50s and 60s and 70s when I was growing up, but I did have a few black friends in the church during that time, and while it was difficult for them, they were staunch in their membership and defense of the church. I don't recall any kind of blatant antagonism in the behavior or words of white members I knew towards other races that would compare with the intensity of what I witnessed from some non-Mormons at the time. My sister married a Latino man, which was considered a mixed-race marriage and was not very common, but family and church members were far more than just tolerant towards them. I suppose one could call this "racist light" in the spectrum of racial attitudes. 

 

The Restoration took place in a racially divided America. My own take is that the Lord was waiting for a generation that was fully prepared for complete integration, and that was my generation. Not only were we waiting, expecting, hoping, and praying for it, we rejoiced when it happened. In my opinion, had this happened earlier it would have either destroyed the church or at least seriously impaired its missionary efforts. From what I observed, the transition was remarkably tranquil. Within a year we had our first black high councilman and he was considered a Rock Star! God works his wonders on his own timeline and in his own way with the materials he has on hand, and in this case it was timed just right. 

I have to disagree with the underlined point. The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickerton) had a black Apostle in the early 1900's (decades before the 60's)and their church wasn't destroyed. In fact, they are actually the 3rd largest Book of Mormon believing church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_(Bickertonite)#Racial_integration

Edited June 12, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Scott Lloyd]

Another classic Pahoranesgue, contention baiting statement.

Why don't you quote the entire sentence?

 

And I notice that, yet again, it is the so-called "liberal" clique who are trying to silence discussion of an ideologically objectionable proposition, and they are doing it by means of the "racism" bludgeon.

 

I felt that bludgeoning on a now-closed thread where my efforts to engage in good-faith discussion were met with an assertion that my views were "disgusting," that I was not to be taken seriously, and where I had absolutist rhetoric thrown in my face and told to "deal with it." I summarily withdrew from that thread, even before I found it closed the next day, ostensibly for incivility.

 

And I've seen it on this thread, where one of the contributors has been told to shut up unless he intends to apologize.

 

Oh yes, the bludgeoning is occurring, and it does seem ideologically motivated.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

Mid-60s. It was not easy or pleasant, but I can say it was done in good faith and in anticipation that

it would not always be that way.

I don't doubt that it was done in good faith. I believe that the leaders (first presidency) fully believed in the race theories as doctrine. I don't assign any malicious intent, but I do think they were wrong and I think it's appropriate to acknowledge that it was wrong and even apologize for the generations of people it effected and continues to effect.

[stemelbow]

Discouraged, but not forbidden. Could you provide a source that it was forbidden?

Well it'd take more time than I care to devote, but I seem to recall reading in some areas, and at some point, the Church straight up forbid teaching black people, but for the sake of my point it does not matter. Discouraged works in this case. Forgive me for adding forbidden.

[stemelbow]

It may seem silly or funny to you now, but it was the way things were as we coped with the ban. I hesitate judging my ancestors based on what I know or believe now. 

I judge the action wrong whether now or then. I don't hold that against those who lived then, so much though. God will judge fairly.

[stemelbow]

That absolutely did not happen in my mission which included 6 Latin American countries, some with very heavy black populations.

Interesting. I've heard some suggest that in that era, missionaries who did teach and baptize black people were given a certain name (can't remember what that was) and to baptize such was seen as a lesser work--as baptizing them meant you are baptizing people who can't take on leadership roles and help the Church grow.

[Bernard Gui]

I don't doubt that it was done in good faith. I believe that the leaders (first presidency) fully believed in the race theories as doctrine. I don't assign any malicious intent, but I do think they were wrong and I think it's appropriate to acknowledge that it was wrong and even apologize for the generations of people it effected and continues to effect.

I don't agree with you on this for reasons explained in #421. In the eternal scheme, it had absolutely no effect.

[Bernard Gui]

I have to disagree with the underlined point. The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickerton) had a black Apostle in the early 1900's (decades before the 60's)and their church wasn't destroyed. In fact, they are actually the 3rd largest Book of Mormon believing church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_(Bickertonite)#Racial_integration

Ummmmmm......

[HappyJackWagon]

Interesting. I've heard some suggest that in that era, missionaries who did teach and baptize black people were given a certain name (can't remember what that was) and to baptize such was seen as a lesser work--as baptizing them meant you are baptizing people who can't take on leadership roles and help the Church grow.

Kind of like baptizing women?

[Bernard Gui]

I judge the action wrong whether now or then. I don't hold that against those who lived then, so much though. God will judge fairly.

On this we can agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting. I've heard some suggest that in that era, missionaries who did teach and baptize black people were given a certain name (can't remember what that was) and to baptize such was seen as a lesser work--as baptizing them meant you are baptizing people who can't take on leadership roles and help the Church grow.

It seems to me Benard is speaking from personal experience and first-hand recollection. You are speaking from hearsay, and when asked for a source, you reply that it would take more time than you care to devote.

[Bernard Gui]

Interesting. I've heard some suggest that in that era, missionaries who did teach and baptize black people were given a certain name (can't remember what that was) and to baptize such was seen as a lesser work--as baptizing them meant you are baptizing people who can't take on leadership roles and help the Church grow.

Emphasis on "I've heard." I didn't hear that.

[Bernard Gui]

Kind of like baptizing women?

Women have leadership positions and always have. 

[ttribe]

Why yes, as a matter of fact.

 

Good, then.  Perhaps we can find some common ground.  Did you, like me, gain a greater appreciation for the existing cultural tapestry and history of the people you were serving?  A culture and history that pre-dated their involvement with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

 

I'm sorry, I must have missed the bulletin that showed how black Americans now enjoy utopian living conditions entirely as a result of gaining civil rights, and are largely free from social problems. When did that happen?

 

Since there is no society, even predominantly LDS ones, that "enjoy utopian living conditions" it seems you've created a false dichotomy.  Perhaps a good faith effort on your part might acknowledge the incremental benefits that derive from both the influence of the existing civil rights movement and the potential conversion to LDS doctrines.

 

I must admit, though, being completely out of my league at explaining the problem with whyme's postings when compared to Sis. Blue Dreams.  Perhaps you could address what she has posted in that she has expressed the issues much better than I can and I find myself agreeing with her in total thus far.

 

 

I regret that not only is that assertion false, but I find it insuperably difficult to accept that you believe it yourself.

Have you never at any time made a non-controversial observation about a widely shared (if not outright definitional) attribute of a group of people without "taking it upon yourself" to speak for them?

 

I must admit I had to look up the word *insuperably* and commend you on a vocabulary that never fails to impress.

 

I cannot say I have "never at any time" made an observation as you described.  But I do actually make a conscious effort to avoid such statements because of the hubris I perceive they broadcast.

 

 

Which is a remarkably ironic thing to say, given the following: 

 

Do you know of any rhetorical device more blunt, hard and heavy than the "racist" bludgeon that you wield so indiscriminately?

 

Indeed the word *racism* has been abused a great deal over the years.  I do not, however, believe I have done so in this instance.

 

Really?

Then I guess you have no quarrel with Whyme either.

And I notice that, yet again, it is the so-called "liberal" clique who are trying to silence discussion of an ideologically objectionable proposition, and they are doing it by means of the "racism" bludgeon.

Of course.

Yes, there it is again.

 

And, there it is.  The arbitrary line that separates "us" v. "them."  Do you really have so few enemies with whom to spar that you must manufacture them?

 

I'll give you credit for the laugh, though.  That was quite literally the first time anyone has referred to me as a "liberal" anything.

 

And I've seen it on this thread, where one of the contributors has been told to shut up unless he intends to apologize.

 

Oh, you do love your rhetoric.  He was not told to "shut up unless he intends to apologize."  I know, because it's quite obviously my response to him you are referring to.  I did, however, suggest he not continue with the argument lest he intended to apologize because I perceived he was digging himself into a deeper hole.  That's quite different.

[stemelbow]

It seems to me Benard is speaking from personal experience and first-hand recollection. You are speaking from hearsay, and when asked for a source, you reply that it would take more time than you care to devote.

I'm not pitted against his position at all. I'm asking, essentially, if he had experienced anything like that which I had heard from others.

[stemelbow]

Emphasis on "I've heard." I didn't hear that.

Awesome thanks.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Ummmmmm......

The example merely goes to prove that racial integration during the time of segregation would not have destroyed a church. I believe the churches of the Restoration missed golden opportunities with blacks and the early "Hippy Movement". I believe Zion would be a lot closer if we hadn't of gone so hawkish and fundamentalist capitalist, and reached out to the downtrodden and oppressed among us, instead of the "best and brightest".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Damned if do, damned if I don't I guess.

 

I decided to withdraw because, as ttribe pointed out my calling others out was essentially doing what I accused them of doing, unauthoritatively I might add (on both sides). I remain firm in my convictions that someone must have authority to make such pronouncements and that those who take the calling upon themselves are guilty of pride and are in the hands of the devil, yes that includes me. The Lord will not inspire anyone to unauthoritatively call anyone out. I figured I best repent and put my money where my mouth is. 

But you are not making generalization of a whole organization. So it is not apples to apples and you are not a hypocrite for pointing that some one needs authority to call the church to repentance.

 

As Saint's we do have an obligation for keeping things in check esp if other members are doing somethings that are objectionable. There is nothing you did that was wrong and nothing you said that needed an apology. You made very good points. And some people could not handle it. Not your problem.

 

Carry on.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Senator]

Why don't you quote the entire sentence?

 

 

Because when he leads with this kind of blather, I don't care what else he has to say.

[mormonnewb]

I don't agree with you on this for reasons explained in #421. In the eternal scheme, it had absolutely no effect.

 

Huh?  It had NO effect ... in the eternal scheme?  So if you were never a member of this Church, it would have no eternal effect on you and your family?  If that is the case, why would you be a member now?  Just party on, Garth, and reap the eternal rewards later.

 

If membership in this Church has ANY value, then discouraging membership in it has SOME effect on those discouraged persons.  How is it that even debatable?

[HappyJackWagon]

Huh?  It had NO effect ... in the eternal scheme?  So if you were never a member of this Church, it would have no eternal effect on you and your family?  If that is the case, why would you be a member now?  Just party on, Garth, and reap the eternal rewards later.

 

If membership in this Church has ANY value, then discouraging membership in it has SOME effect on those discouraged persons.  How is it that even debatable?

Yeah, but they'll say it doesn't matter because of vicarious temple work.

 

Regardless, the claim that there was "no effect" is utterly ridiculous.

[why me]

The example merely goes to prove that racial integration during the time of segregation would not have destroyed a church. I believe the churches of the Restoration missed golden opportunities with blacks and the early "Hippy Movement". I believe Zion would be a lot closer if we hadn't of gone so hawkish and fundamentalist capitalist, and reached out to the downtrodden and oppressed among us, instead of the "best and brightest".

However, in the middle 1800s it just may have. Many people in missiouri would have been very upset with lds integration. Perhaps one reason for Joseph's murder was his presidential campaign calling for equality:

 

My cogitations, like Daniel’s, have for a long time troubled me, when I viewed the condition of men throughout the world, and more especially in this boasted realm, where the Declaration of Independence "holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours; and hundreds of our own kindred for an infraction, or supposed infraction, of some over-wise statute, have to be incarcerated in dungeon gloom, or penitentiaries, while the duellist, the debauchee, and the defaulter for millions, and criminals, take the uppermost rooms at feasts, or, like the bird of passage, find a more congenial clime by flight.

The wisdom which ought to characterize the freest, wisest, and most noble nation of the nineteenth century, should, like the sun in his meridian splendor, warm every object beneath its rays; and the main efforts of her officers, who are nothing more nor less than the servants of the people, ought to be directed to ameliorate the condition of all, black or white, bond or free; for the best of books says, "God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."

Our common country presents to all men the same advantages, the facilities, the same prospects, the same honors, and the same rewards; and without hypocrisy, the Constitution, when it says, "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," meant just what it said without reference to color or condition, ad infinitum.

The aspirations and expectations of a virtuous people, environed with so wise, so liberal, so deep, so broad, and so high a charter of equal rights as appears in said Constitution, ought to be treated by those to whom the administration of the laws is entrusted with as much sanctity as the prayers of the Saints are treated in heaven, that love, confidence, and union, like the sun, moon, and stars, should bear witness,

"For ever singing as they shine,

The hand that made us is divine!"

Unity is power; and when I reflect on the importance of it to the stability of all governments, I am astounded at the silly moves of persons and parties to foment discord in order to ride into power on the current of popular excitement; nor am I less surprised at the stretches of power or restrictions of right which too often appear as acts of legislators to pave the way to some favorite political scheme as destitute of intrinsic merit as a wolf’s heart is of the milk of human kindness. A Frenchman would say, "Presque tout aimer richesses et pouvoir" (Almost all men like wealth and power.)

 

http://www.blacklds.org/platform

 

Now of course, what his platform said was extremely revolutionary and it did not go over well with those in  Missouri who supported slavery. Of course, critics do not give Joseph any credit for this platform and it seems that some on this thread when civil rights are discussed seem to want to ignore it. But this was one of a couple reasons why Joseph was murdered when he was running for president.

 

And it could have been one reason for Brigham's shyness about blacks and the priesthood after one black member decided to call himself prophet and help himself to white wives. For example, here is an interesting link from a nonlds source. It gives wonderful understanding to BYs decision:

 

https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/wrong-side-white-w-paul-reeve

 

 

It is impossible to understand that trajectory without first understanding the ways in which white Mormons themselves were racialized. The prevailing American fear of interracial mixing played a significant role in that process, especially as outsiders projected their own alarm over race mixing onto Mormons. At Kirtland, outsiders suggested that Black Pete received revelations to marry white women. In Missouri settlers argued that Mormons were inviting free black converts to that state, not only to incite a slave rebellion but to steal white women.

After the Mormons openly announced the practice of polygamy in 1852, the charge of interracial mixing took on a life of its own. One Army doctor filed a report with the United States Senate in which he claimed polygamy was giving rise to a degenerate "race." Political cartoons depicted interracial polygamous families, sometimes with black, Asian, and Native American wives mixed in among the white. In a variety of ways outsiders constructed Mormons as racially suspect, facilitators of interracial mixing and therefore of racial contamination. As one news account put it, "the days of the white race are numbered in this country." At the crux of this fearful deterioration was the "American of the future," "a black Mormon."

Against such a charged national racial backdrop, Mormons responded with an effort to claim whiteness for themselves. In 1852, Brigham Young drew upon the curses of Cain, Ham, and Canaan, derived from long standing Judeo-Christian Biblical exegeses, to bar black men from the priesthood. Leaders later expanded the policy to include temple worship for black men and women, except for proxy baptisms for their deceased ancestors. In 1908, leaders cemented those policies in place when historical forgetfulness trumped verifiable evidence to misremember that the bans had always been there, divine mandates that only God could rescind.

With that reconstructed memory as the new guiding principle, it took Spencer W. Kimball, the faith's mild and unassuming prophet, to overturn the ban. In 1978, Kimball announced a revelation which returned Mormonism to its universalistic roots and reintegrated its priesthood and temples.

 

- See more at: https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/wrong-side-white-w-paul-reeve#sthash.GquLxGBb.dpuf

 

Of course, critics and perhaps even Mormonnewb will ignore such reasoning as stated above. But in context, it is quite understandable. The survival of the church was at stake.

Edited June 12, 2015 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

Because when he leads with this kind of blather, I don't care what else he has to say.

So instead of dealing with the substance of his argument, you shout him down with a marginalizing insult.

Yup, pretty much what I encountered two days ago on that short-lived thread.

[Senator]

So instead of dealing with the substance of his argument, you shout him down with a marginalizing insult.

Yup, pretty much what I encountered two days ago on that short-lived thread.

 

Shout him down?? Me, shout down the King of the Shout Down?!

 

Now that's funny.......

 

And who was it that first leveled the marginalizing insult?

 

ETA:  And by the way, I went back to look at the thread you mentioned, and it looks to me that you flung back as much "disgust" and "shout down" as your apponents did.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Senator