Has the church made progress with race since the revelation on the priesthood?

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

"44 - 40 or fight"? Yes?

Or when the "United States" and a thing they called manifest destiny would mean that the whole North American continent, or at least, the parts that interested them the most, was considered "More United States than anything else".

The title is nevertheless, The United States  OF  America., North America. Canadians are equally North Americans as are any United Statesians.

That isn't our name. If I called Canadians the "United Provencions of America" you'd rightly object. 

[USU78]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

"44 - 40 or fight"? Yes?

Or when the "United States" and a thing they called manifest destiny would mean that the whole North American continent, or at least, the parts that interested them the most, was considered "More United States than anything else".

The title is nevertheless, The United States  OF  America., North America. Canadians are equally North Americans as are any United Statesians.

That's '54^40" or fight!'

[bcuzbcuz]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

That's '54^40" or fight!'

Damn, you're right.

[Stargazer]

On 6/17/2016 at 8:59 PM, Duncan said:

He's ANNOYING!!!!!! he brought a Camel down the streets of Provo for some song and I don't know if he knows but there is medication for that now!

 

[Stargazer]

On 6/17/2016 at 7:50 PM, BlueDreams said:

Well I'm half black...so I guess I should say stuff  

first off, the ideas about how things are going are wide and dependent on where someone's from, expectations, etc. for a few views you can check out these conferences: 

<snip />

- socially...this dovetails into general social issues and not necessarily Mormon specific. There's still a belief that it's better to marry in your race and black people are at the bottom of the racial totem poll. I had a nice discussion about this with a group of largely black women and it was a recurring theme. I also have a nagging fear of being an "acceptable" minority. I'm mixed, pretty, petite, and have a good amount of white pioneer-stock family. Without knowing me, i come off as safe and a little exotic. But not too overwhelmingly black or whatever. I've also had a couple of guys that I went on dates with that it felt like I reminded them of their mission peoples or was to try out that minority experience a little. In short, I was a token. Tokenism isn't fun all the time, but particularly while dating. 

This isn't a "thing" for me any longer, since my sweet Wendy found me and now I am off the market, but before my late wife died last year she told me that she expected me to re-marry, and afterwards it did occur to me that I could have the opportunity to date or even marry outside my own race.  I was quite intrigued with the idea, since I have known some non-white women whose company I thought I would enjoy, but that very notion you mention (tokenism) made it seem a course strewn with possible pitfalls.  Not for me, but for the poor unfortunate woman whom I might manage to convince to go out with me, or even marry me!  If she were black or Asian would she just simply accept that I loved her for herself, irrespective of her race?  Now, I could definitely do that, no problem, but for her would there always be that little nagging doubt that I married her for her exoticness?  My Wendy is definitely exotic, of course, being an Englishwoman with a delightful accent.  But I didn't marry her for her accent -- that's just a bonus -- but it is unavoidably part of her charm. By the same token (unintended irony), if I had fallen in love with a woman of color, of course it would have been an unavoidable part of her charm -- but not the reason for marrying her!

Actually, meeting any new person can be a delightful experience in newness: new personality; new quirks; new everything.  Encountering a person of a different race or cultural background is always a plus, and vive la difference, should not be taken as tokenism.

 

 

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

"44 - 40 or fight"? Yes?

Or when the "United States" and a thing they called manifest destiny would mean that the whole North American continent, or at least, the parts that interested them the most, was considered "More United States than anything else".

The title is nevertheless, The United States  OF  America., North America. Canadians are equally North Americans as are any United Statesians.

Actually, that was "54-40 or Fight!"  ETA: oops I see USU78 beat me to it.

I've lived in Canada, Britain and Germany.  Common denominator?  They all called those of us from the land south of the 49th parallel and north of Mexico "Americans".  The ones north of the 49th parallel they called Canadians, and the ones south of the US they called Mexicans.

Of course, most everyone in Latin American call us US people "Norte Americanos".  And thus leave Canada completely out of the equation.  And, apparently, Mexico, since it is also part of North America.

Oh, well.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Stargazer

[Bernard Gui]

Two Mormon missionaries were walking on a path. As they approached the river, a beautiful young woman asked if they would please carry her across because she was afraid to go into the water. One of the elders picked her up, waded across the river carrying her in his arms, and set her down on the other side. She thanked him and went her way. The missionaries continued on their path. After a while, one said, "You violated the mission rule not to touch a woman!" His companion replied, "Elder, I put her down at the side of the river. It is you that is still carrying her."

Edited June 22, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Maedros]

In South Africa there's still a lot of political strife due to the fall of the white-Apartheid regime so racism among white members is still very much an issue in every ward where I've attended but it is related to the country's political climate and not to Brigham Young's priesthood ban. White members still hold most of the leadership positions (in multi-racial wards) and this is in many cases due to racial stereotyping - black folk are very much aware of this since white people are so terrible at masking their prejudice but as stated above this is due to the political situation and not the priesthood ban. The admonition to follow the prophet is taken very seriously among the membership here so you'll rarely have a black member get upset over the ban but they do get upset over the members themselves who still suffer from the "superior-than-thou" syndrome but I'm confident that this attitude will eventually be quelled because the growth in baptisms and confirmations is 90% from black South Africans and blacks from neighbouring countries.

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

SEE!!!!!! this is what i'm talking about!!!!! He's outta control!

[gopher]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

SEE!!!!!! this is what i'm talking about!!!!! He's outta control!

I'm sorry I opened this can of worms by mentioning Alex Boyé! 

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Actually, meeting any new person can be a delightful experience in newness: new personality; new quirks; new everything.  Encountering a person of a different race or cultural background is always a plus, and vive la difference, should not be taken as tokenism.

It isn't always. I can usually tell the difference. Most of the people I've dated have been white (although, ironically, all of the people I've kissed have been minorities of varying races...don't know how that happened). And most of those I haven't felt like a token minority with. The ones that have, haven't lasted long....maybe 2 dates at best. The ones that have lasted longer had fallen apart for other reasons... very different views, poor timing, personality differences, general disinterest on my part, etc. But you're plenty happy now and that's all that matters. I'll see where life leads me. I'm still in love with a man who is a no-go for dating right now. He's mixed white/native and one of the things he really really likes is my curly hair. Currently I feel prompted to wait and see (among other things). But if he doesn't pan out, my dating history doesn't give me too many clues as to racially who I'd marry except that it'll probably be a differing racial background than my own. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited June 20, 2016 by BlueDreams

[gopher]

1 hour ago, Maedros said:

In South Africa there's still a lot of political strife due to the fall of the white-Apartheid regime so racism among white members is still very much an issue in every ward where I've attended but it is related to the country's political climate and not to Brigham Young's priesthood ban. White members still hold most of the leadership positions (in multi-racial wards) and this is in many cases due to racial stereotyping - black folk are very much aware of this since white people are so terrible at masking their prejudice but as stated above this is due to the political situation and not the priesthood ban. The admonition to follow the prophet is taken very seriously among the membership here so you'll rarely have a black member get upset over the ban but they do get upset over the members themselves who still suffer from the "superior-than-thou" syndrome but I'm confident that this attitude will eventually be quelled because the growth in baptisms and confirmations is 90% from black South Africans and blacks from neighbouring countries.

It can take a long time to get over the social and political prejudices.  I live in a former slave state where many of the fiercest and bloodiest battles were fought in the US Civil War and some of the old attitudes still remain with some people.  I've been impressed with the increased effort even in the past 10 years from white members to help black members feel part of the ward family.  We've seen an increase in convert baptisms and higher retention from the black community.  Even though they are aware of the ban, it doesn't seem to be a big hindrance to joining the church. 

The stakes in my area have set goals on indexing the Freedman's Bureau records before the opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington DC.  I know many members were excited to contribute their time and energy to the project.  Our goal was 20,000 records, so far we've done over 100k.  A few months ago, I took a walk around the museum, which is still under construction.  It's a very unusual looking building to say the least.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

It isn't always. I can usually tell the difference. Most of the people I've dated have been white (although, ironically, all of the people I've kissed have been minorities of varying races...don't know how that happened). And most of those I haven't felt like a token minority with. The ones that have, haven't lasted long....maybe 2 dates at best. The ones that have lasted longer had fallen apart for other reasons... very different views, poor timing, personality differences, general disinterest on my part, etc. But you're plenty happy now and that's all that matters. I'll see where life leads me. I'm still in love with a man who is a no-go for dating right now. He's mixed white/native and one of the things he really really likes is my curly hair. Currently I feel prompted to wait and see (among other things). But if he doesn't pan out, my dating history doesn't give me too many clues as to racially who I'd marry except that it'll probably be a differing racial background than my own. 

 

With luv,

BD 

I wish you great happiness BlueDreams..I am hoping that the one you are still in love with..finds a go-go on dating.  Just know that as a single woman, it is not an end-all..I have found great contentment in being able to live on my own.  Contentment is so close to happiness.  I so admire you and wish you well! 

[Maedros]

13 hours ago, gopher said:

It can take a long time to get over the social and political prejudices.  I live in a former slave state where many of the fiercest and bloodiest battles were fought in the US Civil War and some of the old attitudes still remain with some people.  I've been impressed with the increased effort even in the past 10 years from white members to help black members feel part of the ward family.  We've seen an increase in convert baptisms and higher retention from the black community.  Even though they are aware of the ban, it doesn't seem to be a big hindrance to joining the church. 

The stakes in my area have set goals on indexing the Freedman's Bureau records before the opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington DC.  I know many members were excited to contribute their time and energy to the project.  Our goal was 20,000 records, so far we've done over 100k.  A few months ago, I took a walk around the museum, which is still under construction.  It's a very unusual looking building to say the least.

You're right, it can take a long time but I'm happy that the majority of the saints (on both sides of the divide) are willing to move past it and build the kingdom; those are impressive stats, you guys exceeded your goal by 400%. Its amazing actually how something that the world criticizes us over so heavily is something that is of such little consequence/hindrance to black folk joining the Church. Like the converted Lamanites: they have a zeal for the gospel and become very faithful members. The Church has made a lot of progress and will continue to do so - one mission president we had in 2000 predicted that the stakes of Zion will dot the continent and its happening. In the past 16 years since then our tiny district of three branches has become a stake and the black township is in the process of becoming its own stake, so ja, I foresee a Temple being built here in the not so distant future. So ja, to answer the question of your OP: yes, the Church has made A LOT of progress and the stone is still rolling on.

[Stargazer]

On 6/20/2016 at 7:07 AM, BlueDreams said:

It isn't always. I can usually tell the difference. Most of the people I've dated have been white (although, ironically, all of the people I've kissed have been minorities of varying races...don't know how that happened). And most of those I haven't felt like a token minority with. The ones that have, haven't lasted long....maybe 2 dates at best. The ones that have lasted longer had fallen apart for other reasons... very different views, poor timing, personality differences, general disinterest on my part, etc. But you're plenty happy now and that's all that matters. I'll see where life leads me. I'm still in love with a man who is a no-go for dating right now. He's mixed white/native and one of the things he really really likes is my curly hair. Currently I feel prompted to wait and see (among other things). But if he doesn't pan out, my dating history doesn't give me too many clues as to racially who I'd marry except that it'll probably be a differing racial background than my own. 

 

With luv,

BD 

I'm definitely settled, yes, and extremely happy with how things turned out (just finished talking with her via telephone a few months ago -- she's back in England again).

But back when it came to considering what I was supposed to do about seeking a new marital partner (in obedience to my late wife's strong urging to get remarried), it suddenly occurred to me that I was perfectly free to date (and even marry) women of color, in particular black women!  Dating someone like that was the only thing I was actually looking forward to, and I don't know why.  I've known a few black women (none of them Latter-day Saints, though), and rather liked most of them personally.  Long long time ago when I was in my early twenties, the supervisor of my department (a black man) saw me eating some chocolate and said "Mike, those chocolate bars aren't good for you!  If you want something dark and sweet, you should find yourself a black girl!"  This was an intriguing idea that I never forgot, and thought now that maybe that time had come!  But there weren't any LDS women of that description available to me, so I lost that chance.

[theplains]

On 17/06/2016 at 9:18 AM, gopher said:

I'm curious to hear your experiences with the progress the church has made since the priesthood ban was lifted.

I think that if the church followed the counsel of Galatians 3:26-28, the issue of race would
never have arisen.

Thanks,
Jim

[gopher]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I think that if the church followed the counsel of Galatians 3:26-28, the issue of race would
never have arisen.

Thanks,
Jim

Yes, it seems the church followed something similar to Matthew 10:5-6.  My point in this topic was to examine the current church to see if we are now closer to following the counsel of Galatians 3:26-28.  I do see some positive signs as I stated in my initial post.

[Calm]

You need to define what it means first.  Does it mean no one pays attention to 'race' ('' because race is a sicial construct) but other things that may be correlated to race have an affect on who does what or does it mean that the various racial percentages of the general population of local communities matches the percentages at all levels/areas of participation or something else?

Prior to the ban being lifted, there was a study showing LDS were no more racist (and possible a little less though that might be wishful thinking on my part and not memory) than the community they lived in.  Iirc, the study was performed by Armand Mauss.

Does improvement include meaning we are less racist now than we were then or we are now less racist than the surrounding local community we live in or something else?

[gopher]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

You need to define what it means first.  Does it mean no one pays attention to 'race' ('' because race is a sicial construct) but other things that may be correlated to race have an affect on who does what or does it mean that the various racial percentages of the general population of local communities matches the percentages at all levels/areas of participation or something else?

Prior to the ban being lifted, there was a study showing LDS were no more racist (and possible a little less though that might be wishful thinking on my part and not memory) than the community they lived in.  Iirc, the study was performed by Armand Mauss.

Does improvement include meaning we are less racist now than we were then or we are now less racist than the surrounding local community we live in or something else?

I did struggle with coming up with a topic title that accurately reflected my intent.  As as missionary in California during the ban, my father was instructed to not teach and baptize the black people he met.  Today we see faithful black members serving in various leadership positions in the church.  Since race is such a broad subject even in the church, I wanted to focus on how well our wards accept, sustain, and support our black members almost 40 years after the ban was lifted.

[Scott Lloyd]

On June 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

NO, Canadians do not call themselves Americans, We are North Americans, as are Mexicans, but we Canadians call ourselves exactly that, Canadians. People in South America are also Americans, although South Americans, and each identify to the country they live in, such as Peruvian, Chilean, Argentinan, etc., etc.

That US citizens think that they are the only "Americans" is more related to poor map skills and language misuse for over a hundred years.  

How about Tories? 

(j/k)

[smac97]

On 6/17/2016 at 7:18 AM, gopher said:

I'm curious to hear your experiences with the progress the church has made since the priesthood ban was lifted.  I'm not black so I won't pretend to speak on behalf of any black members, but I have seen some positive changes in the wards and stakes around me.  It may be premature to declare that black members moved on from the Priesthood ban, but I've seen great progress with members serving as Bishops, HPG Leaders, EQ presidents, High Councilors, and in Bishoprics and in Stake Presidencies.  There are nearly 200 black members of our stake with several currently serving full time missions.  Two black sisters have been baptized in my ward in the past few years, with one recently going through the temple.  One sister joined despite strong opposition from her Baptist father who brought up the Priesthood ban in an attempt to dissuade her from baptism.  He has since softened his opposition and fully supports her.  A few years ago, I asked my hometeacher his thoughts, he just shrugged and said the ban wasn't an issue for him.  He did complain that as a missionary the white missionaries would insist on feeling his hair.

I did see this article on Tribune website a few days ago -  "All is not well in Zion on the race front" http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4006506-155/all-is-not-well-in-zion so it's clear there is still progress to be made.  She also includes a complaint from a woman that she'd like to attend church once without someone touching her hair.  Seriously, we can stop touching the hair of our black members?  It seems to be a real problem.

Bonus points for not bringing homosexuality into this thread, but sticking to the topic of race only.

When I served as a missionary in Taiwan there was a sister missionary with a veritable mane of the longest, thickest, curliest, reddest hair you ever saw (she also had very, very pale skin).  I walked into the church  building one Sunday morning to find her seated on a folding chair reading her scriptures.  She was surrounded by four young girls (6-11 years old, IIRC) who were stroking her hair and talking excitedly to each other about the missionary's hair.  I approached her and asked "Sister ________, how can you stand to having those girls pet your hair like that?"  She responded, "Oh, Elder, I gave up my sense of personal space a long time ago."

I had somewhat similar experiences.  As a 6'2 blond white guy of Scottish extraction, I was rather easy to spot in a crowd in Taiwan.  I had several experiences of children coming up to me and petting my forearms, apparently fascinated at how hairy they were (not that hairy in my mind, but compared to the average Chinese guy . . . yeah).  I even had several make comments about my arms ("Wow.  You're like a 猩猩!" (Xīngxīng - Orangutan or Gorilla)).  

On balance, Person A touching Person B's hair is, depending on context, somewhere on the "Socially Awkward/Weird" to "Socially Inappropriate" to "Eww, that's just creepy" end of the spectrum.  Nevertheless, I think it is usually less a manifestation of racial animus, and more the result of A) interest (fascination?) with an unfamiliar physical attribute (not unlike the redheaded sister missionary whose hair was found to be fascinating by young girls who grew up in a milieu where almost everyone has straight, black hair), B) lack of awareness of basic social courtesies (not unlike the weird phenomenon of a stranger or mere acquaintance touching a pregnant woman's belly, which happened to my wife a few times), C) a well-intentioned but nevertheless ill-manifested desire by Person A to get to know Person B, or D) any combination of A, B and C.

I wholeheartedly agree that members of the Church should respect the personal space of others, and should not take liberties with touching their hair.  I also hope our black brothers and sisters can be patient with those of us who need to work on improving our respect for proper social boundaries.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 11, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

I haven't read alot yet on this thread..but today, with events in our country going on..I am beginning to wonder if we are having ANY progress.  I am hoping that what has transpired that past two weeks is just growing pains to a better understanding.

I salute all police officers or members of the law enforcement on this board and everywhere!

[USU78]

17 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I haven't read alot yet on this thread..but today, with events in our country going on..I am beginning to wonder if we are having ANY progress.  I am hoping that what has transpired that past two weeks is just growing pains to a better understanding.

I salute all police officers or members of the law enforcement on this board and everywhere!

Don't understand. When / where since 1978 were Mormons shooting at other Mormons? 

[BlueDreams]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

When I served as a missionary in Taiwan there was a sister missionary with a veritable mane of the longest, thickest, curliest, reddest hair you ever saw (she also had very, very pale skin).  I walked into the church  building one Sunday morning to find her seated on a folding chair reading her scriptures.  She was surrounded by four young girls (6-11 years old, IIRC) who were stroking her hair and talking excitedly to each other about the missionary's hair.  I approached her and asked "Sister ________, how can you stand to having those girls pet your hair like that?"  She responded, "Oh, Elder, I gave up my sense of personal space a long time ago."

I had somewhat similar experiences.  As a 6'2 blond white guy of Scottish extraction, I was rather easy to spot in a crowd in Taiwan.  I had several experiences of children coming up to me and petting my forearms, apparently fascinated at how hairy they were (not that hairy in my mind, but compared to the average Chinese guy . . . yeah).  I even had several make comments about my arms ("Wow.  You're like a 猩猩!" (Xīngxīng - Orangutan or Gorilla)).  

On balance, Person A touching Person B's hair is, depending on context, somewhere on the "Socially Awkward/Weird" to "Socially Inappropriate" to "Eww, that's just creepy" end of the spectrum.  Nevertheless, I think it is usually less a manifestation of racial animus, and more the result of A) interest (fascination?) with an unfamiliar physical attribute (not unlike the redheaded sister missionary whose hair was found to be fascinating by young girls who grew up in a milieu where almost everyone has straight, black hair), B) lack of awareness of basic social courtesies (not unlike the weird phenomenon of a stranger or mere acquaintance touching a pregnant woman's belly, which my happened to my wife a few times), C) a well-intentioned but nevertheless ill-manifested desire by Person A to get to know Person B, or D) any combination of A, B and C.

I wholeheartedly agree that members of the Church should respect the personal space of others, and should not take liberties with touching their hair.  I also hope our black brothers and sisters can be patient with those of us who need to work on improving our respect for proper social boundaries.

Thanks,

-Smac

I remember discussing this with you before. The difference to me is that you were a foreigner in another country that is racially largely uniform. I had no problem being a novelty in China or Taiwan (though China was far more overt by their curiosity and I felt like part of the tourist spots...somewhat like the princesses in Disney. It was fun to flip it on them by asking them for a photo as well). 

It's different to get the exotic/foreign treatment in your country of origin. Where one is a unique experience, the other indicates a distinct problem with how whites relate to minorities in this country. One of de facto segregation and unnaturally reduced contact between ethnic groups. It make foreigners in their own land.

Most minorities I know are indeed very kind about the issues that happen in white areas (church, basic living, work, etc) and know that most are not malicious by their curiosity or boundary stepping behavior. But the problem is the level of weariness that comes with always clipping your words to make sure you don't step on toes. I was reading this article that went over why one can't point out someone's racism... the end I could highly relate to as it relates asking minorities about having honest constructive dialogue with whites about their racism. The answer was almost uniformly in the negative.  I very very rarely talk to white people about race, racism, microaggressions, moments of ignorance, minority irritations, etc. I can talk far more freely with my minority friends/family...and do. I'm concerned that kindness often means silence and externalizing. It is always some other white person's racist problem or the minority is overreacting or there's reasons to excuse them. Which means individual racism and ethnocentrism can't really be prodded. The silence also means that many whites can continue to believe that the problem is limited and fading at worst where minorities are aware that it may be fading but it isn't limited and is likely to affect us tille the very end. So when innocent men are killed by police for no good reason it's a shock for whites and a painful validation for blacks that there is still plenty wrong with race in America. 

I know this is going beyond your words. Part of that is probably because I've had to be kind and pick my words carefully a little more the last couple of weeks more than I usually do. Partially it could be the shootings and listening to my Facebook feed of friends (that includes a lot of minorities). But mostly it's because I, and most minorities I know, are already kind about addressing the moments of ignorance and boundary-breaking that happens regularly. At some point calls to kindness just feels like calls to silence. And I know you're not saying that I or any other minority should be silent. But the reality of our society is that there are no/few kind ways to talk about racism when there's a minority to a white. The tip-toeing gets frustrating. 

 

With luv, 

BD

(please excuse grammar errors. I was typing this on my phone)

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Don't understand. When / where since 1978 were Mormons shooting at other Mormons? 

I think Jeanne is talking about general race conflict/racism that Mormons don't have the monopoly on and are also not excused from. I don't think she was being specific to Mormon on Mormon violence. But if you want an example of questionable police-related killings that entailed Mormons, look up Darien Hunt.

 

with luv,

BD