Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

In the context of her editorial, she's talking about the hurt that the Church has allegedly caused to blacks, women, and LGBTQ members.  Putting some blacks, women, and LGBTQ members into prominent leadership positions is the restitution she is suggesting. 

That seems to be taking place.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Anyone who wishes may join the LDS Church and attend without repercussions.

Anyone?

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  I virtually never discuss politics with local friends, neighbors, relatives, etc.  And I glean my perception of American politics from many different sources, virtually none of which are "Utah-centric" (I read the Tribune a bit, but that's about all), and which reflect a rather broad spectrum of political perspectives.

Quite a non sequitur you have there!

The LDS Church does not segregate congregations based on race.  It does provide specialized congregations to accommodate language, marital status (YSA wards) and, to a limited extent, cultural preferences.  Hence in our stake we have both a Spanish-speaking ward and also a Japanese-speaking ward.  There are no restrictions as to who can attend these wards.  My brother, whose wife is Samoan, attends a Polynesian ward with her and their children.  My adopted sister, who is Hawaiian, does not attend a Polynesian ward.  In my ward we have folks from Korea, Mexico, El Salvador, Hawai'i, Guatemala, The Philippines, The Navajo Nation, and more.  

 

We do segregate on the basis of Ward boundaries. Which are a function of socioeconomic conditions which do include factors such as race. The sad fact is that until 1978 blacks were discouraged from joining, and prohibited from full participation in the Church. It became untenable when SWK realized that asking the black Saints in Brazil to contribute to the construction of a Temple there, but were prohibited from attending.

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 9:28 AM, thesometimesaint said:

We do segregate on the basis of Ward boundaries.

We do not segregate by race or ethnicity or national origin.  That is generally the presumptive context when we use words like "segregation."

The Church "segregates" by geographical location.  Which is to say, stakes are allocated particular boundary lines, and wards are allocated boundary lines within the stake.  AFAIK, the Church, in setting such boundaries, does not take into account race or ethnicity or national origin.

Quote

Which are a function of socioeconomic conditions which do include factors such as race.

Not so.  I am not aware of any evidence that the Church takes race or ethnicity or national origin into account when it sets boundary lines for local units.  If you are suggesting otherwise, then CFR.

Quote

The sad fact is that until 1978 blacks were discouraged from joining, and prohibited from full participation in the Church.

The Priesthood Ban is indeed a "sad fact."  I am glad we are nearly 40 years past it.  I am also confused as to why you are bringing this up in the context of the Church's conduct in 2016.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 4, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Priesthood Ban is indeed a "sad fact."  I am glad we are nearly 40 years past it.  I am also confused as to why you are bringing this up in the context of the Church's conduct in 2016.

It appears that the priesthood and temple ban is still affecting members today.

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 9:41 AM, rockpond said:

It appears that the priesthood and temple ban is still affecting members today.

Apparently so.  I'm not persuaded that this effect is always legitimate, as it seems to occasionally be deployed as a pretext for justifying attacks on the LDS Church.

For example, a person using the ended-in-1978 ban as a factual predicate for accusing the Church in 2016 of "segregation" would appear to be using the ban as a pretext.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 4, 2016 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We do not segregate by race or ethnicity or national origin.  That is generally the presumptive context when we use words like "segregation."

The Church "segregates" by geographical location.  Which is to say, stakes are allocated particular boundary lines, and wards are allocated boundary lines within the stake.  AFAIK, the Church, in setting such boundaries, does not take into account race or ethnicity or national origin.

Not so.  I am not aware of any evidence that the Church takes race or ethnicity or national origin into account when it sets boundary lines for local units.  If you are suggesting otherwise, then CFR.

The Priesthood Ban is indeed a "sad fact."  I am glad we are nearly 40 years past it.  I am also confused as to why you are bringing this up in the context of the Church's conduct in 2016.

Thanks,

-Smac

Not what I said. Utah is about 1.6% black. With the highest concentrations in large metropolitan area's. We don't segregate principally by race. We do it by socioeconomic factors that include race.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Utah

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently so.  I'm not persuaded that this effect is always legitimate, as it seems to occasionally be deployed as a pretext for justifying attacks on the LDS Church.

For example, a person using the ended-in-1978 ban as a factual predicate for accusing the Church in 2016 of "segregation" would appear to be using the ban as a pretext.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Correct, it is not a factual predicate for accusing the Church in 2016 of segregation.

However, as long as the Brethren leave the door open for members to conclude that the priesthood and temple ban was a directive from God, I think it will continue to negatively impact some members.

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Priesthood Ban is indeed a "sad fact."  I am glad we are nearly 40 years past it.  I am also confused as to why you are bringing this up in the context of the Church's conduct in 2016.

Bravo!

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently so.  I'm not persuaded that this effect is always legitimate, as it seems to occasionally be deployed as a pretext for justifying attacks on the LDS Church.

For example, a person using the ended-in-1978 ban as a factual predicate for accusing the Church in 2016 of "segregation" would appear to be using the ban as a pretext. 

In the days of microaggressions being actionable, this fits right in.

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 9:52 AM, thesometimesaint said:

Not what I said. Utah is about 1.6% black. With the highest concentrations in large metropolitan area's. We don't segregate principally by race. We do it by socioeconomic factors that include race.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Utah

We don't segregate by race.  We don't segregate by socioeconomic factors.  We segregate by geography.

So I'll now formally assert a CFR.  Please provide evidence that the Church establishes unit boundary lines by "socioeconomic factors that include race."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 9:56 AM, rockpond said:

Correct, it is not a factual predicate for accusing the Church in 2016 of segregation.

However, as long as the Brethren leave the door open for members to conclude that the priesthood and temple ban was a directive from God, I think it will continue to negatively impact some members.

Agreed.

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not what I said. Utah is about 1.6% black. With the highest concentrations in large metropolitan area's. We don't segregate principally by race. We do it by socioeconomic factors that include race.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Utah

Thanks for the buggy ride:  I read that wiki twice through and nowhere did I find anything about a "we" doing any kind of "segregat[ing]" based upon any kind of factor.  The closest I could find is a map that showed where who lives, with nearly all the state residing in 4 counties along the Wasatch Front, with 2 more counties with any appreciable population.

So  ...  this will run you a CFR:  show us who is doing the segregating.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

In the context of her editorial, she's talking about the hurt that the Church has allegedly caused to blacks, women, and LGBTQ members.  Putting some blacks, women, and LGBTQ members into prominent leadership positions is the restitution she is suggesting. 

Her values are based upon her own spiritual insights.  She has come to the spiritual conclusion that her conscience transcends mere feelings and that her conscience will be the ultimate rudder in her life.  You can argue that the human conscience is mere feelings that need external yardsticks such as scriptures, modern prophets and apostles, local priesthood leaders, etc., but that is extremely unconvincing for those of us that have been touched by the ideas that Emerson articulates in Self-Reliance. 

Viewed from the context of spirituality, steps of the repentance process include admitting you did something wrong, saying you're sorry, and trying to fix the harm you caused.  The demands she places on the Church are the same demands that the Church puts on everybody who sins.  In principle, whether this makes any sense isn't a matter of whether one believes the Church is guided by revelation.  It's a matter of whether one believes the Church is less than perfect and is therefore subject to the same process we all go through to repent of mistakes.

Based on her comments, I do not believe that even if the Church was to do the "restitution" that she is suggesting or demanding, she would not come back to the church anyway.  She has found some excuses not to believe which is fine.  If she really believed that the Church was lead by revelation and that God runs it, she would know that at least half of what she wrote is unrealistic.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Bravo!

Because those of us who have read history from before 1978 know that race has had a lasting effect on the Church. Thankfully we're moving away from that, but I imagine that it will take at least a few more generations before it is completely gone.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Correct, it is not a factual predicate for accusing the Church in 2016 of segregation.

However, as long as the Brethren leave the door open for members to conclude that the priesthood and temple ban was a directive from God, I think it will continue to negatively impact some members.

Do we know for certain that it was not a directive by God?  Perhaps that might require its own revelation.  That it was not directed by God.

Edited May 4, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

We do segregate on the basis of Ward boundaries. Which are a function of socioeconomic conditions which do include factors such as race. The sad fact is that until 1978 blacks were discouraged from joining, and prohibited from full participation in the Church. It became untenable when SWK realized that asking the black Saints in Brazil to contribute to the construction of a Temple there, but were prohibited from attending.

Blacks were not discouraged from being members.  That they did not participate fully really does not matter.  If the end game for being a member is salvation in the celestial kingdom, all the blacks who joined and were faithful during that period will obtain it. 

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Because those of us who have read history from before 1978 know that race has had a lasting effect on the Church. Thankfully we're moving away from that, but I imagine that it will take at least a few more generations before it is completely gone.

Ridiculous politicization of matters of faith.

Just because matters don't look like some want them to have looked and look does not matter in the slightest in determining whether G-d is running things.  He has His timetable and His agenda, and He is under no obligation to share with us the "whys and wherefores" of His "whens and hows," does he?

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not what I said. Utah is about 1.6% black. With the highest concentrations in large metropolitan area's. We don't segregate principally by race. We do it by socioeconomic factors that include race.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Utah

No, Utah does not ban blacks from entering the state.  Utah has few blacks because historically blacks have chosen to live other places like the south.  Latinos are increasing in Utah because they are choosing to move in.  If blacks want to move to Utah in larger numbers, they can do so.  There are areas they can afford.

Edited May 4, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We don't segregate by race.  We don't segregate by socioeconomic factors.  We segregate by geography.

So I'll now formally assert a CFR.  Please provide evidence that the Church establishes unit boundary lines by "socioeconomic factors that include race."

Thanks,

-Smac

Is there something about the socio in socioeconomic factors you don't understand?

As to your CFR

SEE http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/06/why-sunday-morning-remains-americas-most-segregated-hour/

 

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We do not segregate by race or ethnicity or national origin.  That is generally the presumptive context when we use words like "segregation."

The Church "segregates" by geographical location.  Which is to say, stakes are allocated particular boundary lines, and wards are allocated boundary lines within the stake.  AFAIK, the Church, in setting such boundaries, does not take into account race or ethnicity or national origin.

Not so.  I am not aware of any evidence that the Church takes race or ethnicity or national origin into account when it sets boundary lines for local units.  If you are suggesting otherwise, then CFR.

The Priesthood Ban is indeed a "sad fact."  I am glad we are nearly 40 years past it.  I am also confused as to why you are bringing this up in the context of the Church's conduct in 2016.

Thanks,

-Smac

I understand this perspective but not only has the church acknowledged they have had wards divided by race in the past, and some currently based on ethnicity and language, but geographic boundary lines can be a form of discrimination. I'm not claiming there's any intention to overtly discriminate but boundary lines can functionally be discriminatory.

In banking "redlining" is the process of refusing a loan or insurance based on the perceived financial risk of a certain geography (ie. neighborhood/ side of the tracks etc). It is viewed as discriminatory because there is disparate impact on certain populations that may also fall into lower income categories.

So a bank could say, we're not making any loans on any home under $50,000 in value. This policy could essentially shut out groups of people in low-income geographies that are closely related to racial demographics. Therefore the disparity of the policy impact is considered discriminatory.

My point in mentioning this, is that by setting geographic boundaries there can be negative impact on minority groups that acts like segregation. So claiming that we're not segregating by race may be true while in reality there are racial divides based upon geographic lines.

 

Edited May 4, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 10:16 AM, thesometimesaint said:

Quote

So I'll now formally assert a CFR.  Please provide evidence that the Church establishes unit boundary lines by "socioeconomic factors that include race."

Is there something about the socio in socioeconomic factors you don't understand?

As to your CFR

SEE http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/06/why-sunday-morning-remains-americas-most-segregated-hour/

My CFR was for evidence that the LDS Church "establishes unit boundary lines by 'socioeconomic factors that include race.'"  The article you provided says nothing about the LDS Church.

So again: Please provide evidence that the Church establishes unit boundary lines by "socioeconomic factors that include race." 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

http://mormonstories.org/black-athletes-at-byu-with-darron-smith/

http://mormonstories.org/black-mormon-lives-matter/

These two podcasts might answer to some of the CFR or not.  

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Bravo!

You know, another 40 years down the road, some historian is going to bring it all up..members too.  This isn't going to go away.  Essays are not making the difference.  Bravo for some changes I agree..but history unexplained clearly will always promote questions.

[USU78]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

Is there something about the socio in socioeconomic factors you don't understand?

As to your CFR

SEE http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/06/why-sunday-morning-remains-americas-most-segregated-hour/

In other words, you've got nothing.

Other religions' "segregation" is by choice, not anything else.  I can attend any "black" evangelical church I choose to, and any black man can attend any "white" evangelical church he chooses to.  This is not a meaningful "segregation," which in political parlance (which you are, of course employing) means "no black folks allowed!"

And amongst Mormons there has been little to no "segregation" other than limited as to duration non-English-speaking wards/branches (usually the latter) to serve immigrant populations.  The German-speaking ward in SLC, for example, was organized in 1963 and, although it still exists, serves only about 60 people.  Welsh speakers were forbidden to form their own congregations in Utah territory.  Such wards are examples of self-segregation, however, and nobody is required or particularly encouraged to attend them, other than as a convenience of language spoken.

There has never been a blacks-only or whites-only LDS congregation that I have been able to discover.

Bringing in gerrymandering arguments is simply ridiculous:  as ridiculous as finding offense in the microaggressive:  "May I take your coat, ma'am?"