The New Face of Mormon Racism

[Calm]

Interesting article...am doing FM Front Page right now, so no time to comment (add-on:  yeah, right...couldn't help myself).  Didn't want to forget about it though, so posting now.  Talk whatever strikes you in the article, btw.

http://religionnews.com/2017/05/30/the-new-face-of-mormon-racism/

 

Quote

 

Over the last week or so, the social media hashtag #DearWhiteMormons has given Mormons of color an opportunity to share their experiences of being in a mostly-white church. Like this:

#DearWhiteMormons Please understand what it’s like to be a brown kid growing up in church and seeing no place for you in LDS art pic.twitter.com/SUpqzeopgb

— Zion X Lion (@Zion_X_Lion) May 27, 2017

Or this:

#DearWhiteMormons: I didn’t take get into BYU just bc I’m a WoC. I didn’t take your precious Billy’s spot, I just got a better SAT score.

— tinesha (@TineshaCapri) May 24, 2017

But it wasn’t long before some white Mormons appeared to feel threatened by the hashtag. Some called it “reverse racism” when Mormons of color explained how they had been treated or judged. The tenor of some of these tweets from white Mormons was that golly, gosh, and darn it, race just does not exist as a category in white Mormons’ minds! If blacks or Latinos bring it up, they are creating divisions and barriers where none exist. We’re all brothers and sisters in Christ, people; can’t we just get along? Stop playing the victim already.

As several people of color pointed out, such responses themselves revealed that Mormon racism is, sadly, alive and well. The very people who want to claim that racial differences do not exist and that we should forget the troubles of the past are often the same folks who perpetuate white culture and history as normative.

#DearWhiteMormons: how are you gonna celebrate Mormon pioneers every year but tell us to forget about history?

— The Hood Mormon (@thehoodmormon) May 24, 2017

And these whites’ responses are only the less extreme or overt brand of racism — the kind that wants to sweep the experiences of people of color under the rug so that whites don’t have to feel uncomfortable about the privileges they take for granted.

 

 

There is more but don't want to violate Fair Use....the rest of the article demonstrates the extreme variety of racism.  The above troubles me, but the rest of it makes me ill.  I can't remember if this is the blogger we discussed awhile back and who had a supporter show up or if this is a new one.  Hopefully the same, but unfortunately I have little doubt there are others like the two of them around.

We need to recognize that racism still exists, imo, even if it is most of the time not an active attack, but just an unintentional neglect (I really hope this is true, but possibly not, it is not something I have had much opportunity to directly deal with and not something I have researched recently), a lack of inclusion of minorities and their experiences.  I have seen much visual improvement on lds.org and there is a greater emphasis in the Mormon Newsroom on getting global stories out there (one can go to the various regions/countries to get even more than is on the main MN page), but we need more visual  change in the current art work used in teaching lessons, imo.  One of the problems is that there is a huge investment already in the current pictures and it will cost a lot to replace them, the newer ones also include more variety already, but not enough to provide a wide range yet, imo.

There is also the difficulty of the classic scriptural art work is of a European white variety, until we allow for a less standard approach to the art work, the scripture stories are going to be stuck in the European features look, imo.  

Getting more variety circulating on our walls is needed. The acceptable religious art work needs to bring in new works that are less generically white.

Last comment is the stories we include in our lessons.  The Revelations in Context are including more from a women's POV.  It will be difficult to include minorities when the historical stories are primarily of white American context.  Adding stories of missionary work and establishments of temples and LDS communities world wide could at least be added for a few weeks for the Church History year.  However, including more global stories in YW, YM, RS, and PH including choosing conference talks from nonAmerican leaders could happen pretty easily in my understanding, though there would probably have to be active solicitation of new stories from the global communities for some specific topics.  It is possible there are enough in the conference talks already to be pulled for use.  With the YM and YW lessons content being left up to the teachers, they could start including this material immediately.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Calm

[RevTestament]

I do know the Church does not have a stellar record when it comes to race issues. Is it possible the Gentile Church has looked down on others like the Jews did the Samaritans? If so, they may want to heed a scripture refresh:

Luke 21:24

24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be ^aled away ^bcaptive into all ^cnations: and Jerusalem shall be ^dtrodden down of the ^eGentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Sounds like the time of the Gentiles is about fulfilled. Now I don't personally advocate sticking an Indian and an African in every picture of Jesus - I prefer historical accuracy rather than PC, and I don't believe Jesus preached to any black people in Jerusalem. However, I have also been sometimes a little put off by the tendency of some Church artists to portray Jesus essentially as a Gentile. I guess a Gentile Church fancies Him that way.

However, perhaps the Church should start facing up to its history and should portray some of the stories of the earliest black members. I know why they haven't so far - because when those black members showed up in Utah, they got the cold shoulder. I can only imagine how crushing that was to them. However, portrayals of members such as Elijah Able doing missionary work, or portrayals of their conversions I believe could do some good. Similarly, portrayals of the missionaries going to the Indians with the gospel I also believe could do some good. Here, the Church was not stellar either. Some Indian men in Utah were basically slaughtered because they had taken some cattle. There was no effort to communicate with them, or try to relay the idea that these cattle were raised by the Mormon settlers. Of course Natives had no concept of property - they saw cows and killed them for their families.

Perhaps, pictures of Jesus' return with Natives, Blacks, Asians, and Caucasians all with white countenances would be appropriate with the scripture from Nephi:

2 Nephi 26:33

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he ^ainviteth them ^ball to ^ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ^ddenieth none that come unto him, black and white, ^ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the ^fheathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

 

[Gillebre]

To me the issue is largely one involving some aspects of Mormon culture. There are obviously positive aspects as well as negative ones (as referenced by this article). I read a good number of the comments, and while some I believe are on point, others miss the mark by, in my opinion, veering off into offended territory. There is no excuse for any degree of racism in the world, our society, and especially the Church, yet it does exist in it's own forms. I believe it has everything to do with the culture of the people and the worldly ideas that seep in gradually to become part of the way they live. It only takes a little bit here and there, and we are so easily distracted by a multitude of things: entertainment, duty, work, etc...

I believe that it would serve no good to place blame at one region of membership over another, but that it is important to boil this down to the core substance of the issue. All members of the Church have assimilated a mixture of religious and social culture which form the unique perspective that shapes their views. Over time their perspective gets cloudy because of all the things that find their way into it, and it becomes more and more vital to purge and reform it according to the pure and precious principles that are the very bedrock of what the Mormon faith is all about: the loving perspective and Atoning mission of Jesus Christ. It is about the way He sees us, everything that we were, are now, and yet could be. His culture revolves around the love He has for us, and that love, I think, comes in great part from the very unique way He knows us. It is the unifying of perspectives, ours with His, the acceptance of His heart and desires, that can transform and purify culture as I believe it must be done. It's all about Him. He is the answer we need, and it's an answer that only comes one by one to the individual who then shares that light through acts of genuine sincerity and non-judgmental compassion. 

Everyone must do what they can to become more self-aware and strive with real intent to connect with the perspective only the Holy Spirit can give. We are all imperfect, and we'll still fail to measure up to His standard, but thankfully we can always try again.

 

 

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Now I don't personally advocate sticking an Indian and an African in every picture of Jesus - I prefer historical accuracy rather than PC, and I don't believe Jesus preached to any black people in Jerusalem. However, I have also been sometimes a little put off by the tendency of some Church artists to portray Jesus essentially as a Gentile. I guess a Gentile Church fancies Him that way.

If we continue to portray him as European, why not portray him as Indian or African as it would be just as accurate, imo.

[stemelbow]

 

Quote

#DearWhiteMormons: how are you gonna celebrate Mormon pioneers every year but tell us to forget about history?

In this case members are following the lead of it's leaders and therefore it's Church.  The Church in every instance has tried to downplay its role in the problems that are a race in our unique Mormon culture.  members most often act in ignorance on this issue.  My wife and I adopted a black son (who is now 18 and is graduating from HS next week) and witnessing all of this has not been fun. 

[rodheadlee]

That just confirms that there are more people that are bad then there are good. The only way to get rid of racism is to stop  categorizing people by their race.

[thesometimesaint]

It doesn't bother me what he actually looks like as long as we have Jesus in our countenance.

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If we continue to portray him as European, why not portray him as Indian or African as it would be just as accurate, imo.

The problem is an undue focus on the Dutch Masters for most Mormon art. They made Jesus (and Jews) look northern European. That's not accurate and almost certainly they'd look more like Palestinians today. 

Church art has always sucked, but I think we're noticing more its problems the last few years. The issue with the way the Book of Mormon was translated is the obvious example. There were plenty of texts describing how it was translated but most artists portrayed it erroneously. Guess what people remembered? Not the texts but the paintings. The content of the Book of Mormon is like that too. Despite more than 25 years of a focus on a mesoAmerican setting yet most Church art makes the Nephites look like a cross between vikings and Roman centurians. I'd love to see the Church commission art where there is not a gladius to be found and all the swords are macuahuitls. 

We're also an international church. While the Church has always been pretty inclusive with photographs with the rest of the art they haven't been. Commission me a painting of Jesus looking like a person living in Palestine of late antiquity surrounding by children of all races. Commission me some paintings of the second coming with multiple races. Commission some paintings with Adam and Eve appearing as different races.

[Bob Crockett]

Which gives rise my fundamental objection to depicting Christ at all in imagery.   Maybe ok to depict Biblical scenes but it doesn't seem right just to depict Him as it is neither Him nor really a depiction of HIm.  But I'm in a minority.

[Amulek]

From the article:

Quote

This weekend she convened the first ever “Mormon Right” conference with “about a dozen” adults in attendance.

Wow. About a dozen...out of about 15 million. Well, I guess that settles it. 

 

9 hours ago, Calm said:

We need to recognize that racism still exists, imo, even if it is most of the time not an active attack, but just an unintentional neglect [...], a lack of inclusion of minorities and their experiences.

I don't consider 'unintentional neglect' to be racism. I think we unintentionally neglect people all the time in the church regardless of race (see, e.g., anyone who has ever been called to serve in Primary).

 

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If we continue to portray him as European, why not portray him as Indian or African as it would be just as accurate, imo.

While Jesus may have appeared to Joseph Smith with a Gentilized look in his vision, I sincerely doubt Jesus looked Gentile while walking the Levant. I think artists portray Him that way with Gentile children because it sells. To me it fosters the racism that has been a little endemic in the Church, which is why it bugs me. I understand most of the early converts were from "Protestant" churches, and so came with their prejudices, but the Church should continue to work on that as an institution. Exactly how to portray Jesus may not be entirely known, but the Jews probably looked like Canaanites including Phoenecians and Edomites, and most other people in the area. Interestingly, the Egyptians did portray some blond blue-eyed slaves in their art, which renders it possible that some Gentiles were invited into Israel with their exodus from Egypt. So perhaps, "Jews" are not so genetically uniform as is often assumed. Anyway, Jesus was sent to the Hebrews and that is what He looked like. All the Semites, including Arabs, that I know of have black hair, although I realize this is more mixed in today's world. To portray Him as black or Indian just smacks of trying to be PC rather than historical, and I have already seen enough of that, and the Church's fascination with white skin. Portraying Jesus as an historically accurate Hebrew I think would be a step in the right direction for the Church. In other words the Church publication office doesn't have to cater to the same artists that sell the popularized art in bookstores. I don't believe the Church should try to portray Heavenly Father nor things of heaven.

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Which gives rise my fundamental objection to depicting Christ at all in imagery.   Maybe ok to depict Biblical scenes but it doesn't seem right just to depict Him as it is neither Him nor really a depiction of HIm.  But I'm in a minority.

Yes, I think that'd cause even more problems than it solves. 

[Bob Crockett]

Well, there is a sub rosa feeling in the Church that under some circumstances such artwork should not exist.  One cannot have depictions of Jesus in meetinghouse chapels, but there are exceptions for historical buildings.   Certainly in the LA temple in the baptistry there's a huge mural of Jesus and John the Baptist.

[Bob Crockett]

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

While Jesus may have appeared to Joseph Smith with a Gentilized look in his vision, I sincerely doubt Jesus looked Gentile while walking the Levant. I think artists portray Him that way with Gentile children because it sells. To me it fosters the racism that has been a little endemic in the Church, which is why it bugs me. I understand most of the early converts were from "Protestant" churches, and so came with their prejudices, but the Church should continue to work on that as an institution. Exactly how to portray Jesus may not be entirely known, but the Jews probably looked like Canaanites including Phoenecians and Edomites, and most other people in the area. Interestingly, the Egyptians did portray some blond blue-eyed slaves in their art, which renders it possible that some Gentiles were invited into Israel with their exodus from Egypt. So perhaps, "Jews" are not so genetically uniform as is often assumed. Anyway, Jesus was sent to the Hebrews and that is what He looked like. All the Semites, including Arabs, that I know of have black hair, although I realize this is more mixed in today's world. To portray Him as black or Indian just smacks of trying to be PC rather than historical, and I have already seen enough of that, and the Church's fascination with white skin. Portraying Jesus as an historically accurate Hebrew I think would be a step in the right direction for the Church. In other words the Church publication office doesn't have to cater to the same artists that sell the popularized art in bookstores. I don't believe the Church should try to portray Heavenly Father nor things of heaven.

In truth there is no way to determine the color of skin in the Levant 2000 years ago.  So it is anybody's guess.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Danzo]

I am waiting for a Mexican version of Joseph Smith. Needs to have a Mustache.

That would make our family much happier. We would then feel the church loves us.

 

[Tacenda]

My niece on my husband's side and her family moved to our neighborhood a couple of years ago. She has since moved to Virginia because of her husband's work. Before she moved to our neighborhood here in Davis County, Utah I told her we had a pretty diverse ward with a few families that have adopted African American children. To me I thought that was diverse, but it wasn't quite what my cute niece wanted. 

Recently she texted that she loves Virginia and the diversity and that she never wanted to return to Utah where she felt her children wouldn't be as happy. She's a follower of the Sista's in Zion and every other person fighting racism in the country. She's sometimes overkill on FB with the "likes" of these people fighting it, but I'm not her. 

She and her husband adopted two African American children so there is a reason for her concern. Her parents and family haven't heard that she doesn't want to move back, it was only suppose to be 3 years in Virginia to up the pay scale for her husband in the Air Traffic Control field, and back to Utah. I'm happy she's happy, because while she was in our neighborhood she wasn't, like I thought she'd be.

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 

. . . The Church in every instance has tried to downplay its role in the problems that are a race in our unique Mormon culture.  . .

In Every instance?

Hyperbole?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng

[thesometimesaint]

Jesus probably didn't look Norse.

[clarkgoble]

49 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Well, there is a sub rosa feeling in the Church that under some circumstances such artwork should not exist.  One cannot have depictions of Jesus in meetinghouse chapels, but there are exceptions for historical buildings.   Certainly in the LA temple in the baptistry there's a huge mural of Jesus and John the Baptist.

Most churches now have glicees of the Dutch masters painting of Christ along with a few other paintings. I noticed them popping up in most churches about 8 years ago. Now it's odd to find a church without tons of art on the walls. I think this is a good thing except for the subtle racism this communicates.

BTW - for those interested I put up a post on my long standing griping about Mormon art at Times and Seasons.

I think that if the Church de-emphasized Bloch and the other Dutch masters along with Friberg and pushed newly commissioned and more accurate art we'd all be much better off.

Edited June 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Most churches now have glicees of the Dutch masters painting of Christ along with a few other paintings. I noticed them popping up in most churches about 8 years ago. Now it's odd to find a church without tons of art on the walls. I think this is a good thing except for the subtle racism this communicates.

I was surprised when my daughter and her Mexican husband received a cross stitch from his mother in a frame she had made of the Saviour. It was the one that is most popular in LDS artwork and on many church walls. My son in law's mother is in Mexico. She isn't LDS...just thought it interesting. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

If we continue to portray him as European, why not portray him as Indian or African as it would be just as accurate, imo.

Yes, and take a look at Marcel Camus' 1959 film "Black Orpheus," a wonderful interpretation of the ancient Greek myth, set instead in Rio de Janeiro, 

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

59 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

In truth there is no way to determine the color of skin in the Levant 2000 years ago.  So it is anybody's guess.

Not true.  The genome tells all, skin color, eye color, etc.  We have only to obtain ancient DNA, which we have in many cases.  We also have a great deal of ancient art produced in color by the Egyptians.  The classic instance is the entry of a Semitic clan into Egypt contemporary with Abraham, found on the wall of the Tomb of Khnumhotep II, which is typical, and which authentic art would do well to imitate,

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I don't consider 'unintentional neglect' to be racism. I think we unintentionally neglect people all the time in the church regardless of race (see, e.g., anyone who has ever been called to serve in Primary).

 

There are times when we should recognize race when we don't.

Kids are very, very visual.  They need to see pictures of members they can relate to in order to believe they are part of the community.

There are enough adults who have that same reaction, are still quite visual and identify in part by what they see, that efforts still need to be made at an adult level, imo.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

In truth there is no way to determine the color of skin in the Levant 2000 years ago.  So it is anybody's guess.

My point is that portraying Jesus as a Gentile European seems almost a purposeful and insensitive slight to our Native, African, Asian, Indian and other members. I think an effort to be realistic would be appreciated, and would alleviate the feelings that the Church may still be racist. While as I have already noted we may not know exactly how Jesus looked 2000 years ago, I think it fair to say He did not look European, and it is doubtful that all Semites had black hair bred into them later. In fact I think Egyptian art of slave brick-makers give a fairly accurate depiction of Semites. Egyptian art also portrays Canaanite nomads traveling to Egypt giving us an idea of their approximate looks and dress. Further, the Assyrians were mostly a Semitic people, and there is Assyrian art.

P.S. Just after I posted this, I see Robert beat me to an Egyptian picture... there are many more.

here is an Assyrian painting which is probably fairly accurate

Edited June 1, 2017 by RevTestament

[Duncan]

Then Elder Eyring in 2005 visited our Stake and he said not to ask him if he has seen Christ but then he said that the way he looks like now, and he referenced DC 110, isn't the way he looked like on earth