Suggestions for improving race relations in the Church

[Scott Lloyd]

On Thursday, June 08, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Darren10 said:

They are on par with General Authorities in terms of optics. The RS, Primary, Young Men, Young Women were all established for the building of the kongdom of God on the earth. They were not established to serve as a political means to reach out to a specific race. They have always been open to all races; not to appease to one. 

Don't forget Sunday School. It too is an auxiliary. 

And they are not on a par with General Authorities. They are what the name conveys: auxiliaries to the priesthood councils. 

Edited to add: I agree they were established to help in the building of the Kingdom of God, not to serve political purposes.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Exactly. That is the point. For all visitors to our ward buildings they see Jesus portrayed "in our image" assuming you are white, Gentiles - apologies if not. Is that really what we want to portray in ward buildings in Africa? or Asia? With deference to our Renaissance kin artists, times have changed, and the Church has represented it is an international Church - not a "white, European Gentile Church." Maybe it is time to start acting like that. I shrink at the thought of Kimball expecting Native skin to turn whiter. If I were Native I think I may have been offended. The Church has some rethinking to do. The countenance of all who come to Jesus is white or pure no matter the pigmentation of their skin nor ethnic background. 

Yes, exactly. If you were "x" you would be offended; I hope you're not suggesting that all "x"s perceive and process LDS facilities/publications art as racially offense the same way and as you think they ought. But you're not "x", so let's not deny the "x" saints the humanity or spiritual maturity to express and address their needs with the same keys, council process and Gift of the Holy Ghost as any other member.

Does racist artwork and attitudes undermine Zion where you live and have responsibility? Is there a complaint that the artwork is a distraction, or is systematically desensitizing the "x"s to acquiesce to the racism that breaks their spirit and keeps them in their place? You can do something about that in your councils.

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, Darren10 said:

They are on par with General Authorities in terms of optics. The RS, Primary, Young Men, Young Women were all established for the building of the kongdom of God on the earth. They were not established to serve as a political means to reach out to a specific race. They have always been open to all races; not to appease to one. 

If you're saying it's a matter of optics, then we probably all agree.  It seems some black members of the Church think it would be good "optics" to have representatives from the Genesis Group given those seats.  If you disagree, that's fine.  

 

What I get from the list is that for the last 39 years, the attitude of the Church towards black members and the fallout from the priesthood ban is "We fixed it in 1978.  Everything is fine now.  Stop talking about it."  The list says to me "Everything isn't fine now.  There is still fallout and we need to keep working on this."  

While I don't agree with every point on the list, I'm not sure I'm in a position to argue the general point with them.  

[Darren10]

17 hours ago, Thinking said:

Failure to repudiate what should be repudiated destroys credibility.

I agree. But as I said, an organization needs to be extremely careful to repudiate its past. Thus far I personally fail to see anything that needs repudiation by the Church as an organization. Repudiating members who have purported false ideas about blacks and the priesthood repudiates freedom to be creative and to think through situations: something the LDS church has always supported its members in doing. For better or for worse, that has been their position.

[Darren10]

16 hours ago, halconero said:

I'm trying to figure out the code in this, but can't, so I'll just chalk it up to covfefe.

Anyways, a lot of these ideas are good! I like the one about temple actors, art ,the documentary, and instruction on the essays. The Young Men's/Women's theme is good. Same with the education, highlighting early black saints, expanding the hymnbook, and missionary instruction. I wouldn't necessarily have a Office called "Genesis Group" as part of the General Officers, but having an dedicated to binding together members on the cultural/racial level by understanding historical wrongs, cultural practices, and more is a decent idea. I'm trying to think of a name for it that doesn't sound too wordy but gets the name across. General Cultural Presidency?

"can't, so I'll just chalk it up to covfefe"

The word with infinite meanings. That's a safe place for you.

The art and temple actors I'm perfectly fine with. I don't care what race plays who in the temple sessions and LDS art has been more inclusive over the past recent years. So has the photos depicting LDS members in church publications. I like that. As for Young Mens and Womens and full blown educational instructions, I do not oppose those but that's where I ask for what purpose, how much resources do people expect the Church to expend to accomplish this goal and what is the realistic outcome expected? I for one want the Church to keep its focus on spiritual edification, not political or social per se, and I really d not see an significant change in race relations due to such massive implementations. Even a dedicated group to correct historical wrong leaves me wanting a vision of a better outcome. It's just a lot of resources used for little results. I think keeping the focus on guiding people to salvation is the best way to go, even to improve race relations.

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Don't forget Sunday School. It too is an auxiliary. 

And they are not on a par with General Authorities. They are what the name conveys: auxiliaries to the priesthood councils. 

Edited to add: I agree they were not established to help in the building of the Kingdom of God, not to serve political purposes.

When the Sunday School leaders sit with General Authorities the *optics* are that they are on par with one another. if I am not mistaken thought, the Sunday School leaders sit in the front row, not up behind the podium but I honestly have never pad much attention to such things so I may be wrong. And the Sunday School was created by divine inspiration, was it not? If there were divine inspiration to incorporate the Genesis Group as an auxiliary office, I'm 100% OK with it and 100% in sitting its leaders right along side General Authorities in General conference if so directed by the divine inspiration. I do not care to see any such thing just to cater to political pressure.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

If you're saying it's a matter of optics, then we probably all agree.  It seems some black members of the Church think it would be good "optics" to have representatives from the Genesis Group given those seats.  If you disagree, that's fine.  

 

What I get from the list is that for the last 39 years, the attitude of the Church towards black members and the fallout from the priesthood ban is "We fixed it in 1978.  Everything is fine now.  Stop talking about it."  The list says to me "Everything isn't fine now.  There is still fallout and we need to keep working on this."  

While I don't agree with every point on the list, I'm not sure I'm in a position to argue the general point with them.  

I do disagree for the reasons I have outlined.

I do not get the sense that the church purports, "everything is fine now", and absolutely not "stop talking about it"; but to "move on". I fully agree. Holding the present accountable for sins of the past, while having some merit, can end up being a never-ending saga of back and forth bickering. I get weary just thinking about it.

"I'm not sure I'm in a position to argue the general point with them.  " - Me too. A virtual high-five to ya', sir.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

When the Sunday School leaders sit with General Authorities the *optics* are that they are on par with one another. if I am not mistaken thought, the Sunday School leaders sit in the front row, not up behind the podium but I honestly have never pad much attention to such things so I may be wrong. And the Sunday School was created by divine inspiration, was it not? If there were divine inspiration to incorporate the Genesis Group as an auxiliary office, I'm 100% OK with it and 100% in sitting its leaders right along side General Authorities in General conference if so directed by the divine inspiration. I do not care to see any such thing just to cater to political pressure.

Maybe we could have the leaders of the Genesis Group sit in Conference, but to make sure the optics look good they could sit at the back of the room.

Edited June 9, 2017 by cinepro

[Garden Girl]

This list has items that I can fully support, and others that I have varying degrees of disagreement... i.e.:

2) I too get tired of seeing Jesus portrayed as a white European type... He was a Middle Eastern Jew, and would have been of a darker complexion with brown eyes and black hair.  Therefore I don't believe it would be any more appropriate to portray him as black or any other type, including as white.

3) Members of highly visible leadership positions should be chosen by the Spirit, not because they are of a particular race...

4) The Church has already repudiated and apologized for the ban via Appostle Bruce R. McConkie... a repudiation reaffirmed subsequently in various forms in ensuing years... now it is up to us to live accordingly in our interactions with not only blacks but all races...

9) Bring more blacks into Church-owned BYU as students or faculty??  As I recall this was called "affirmative action" years ago when I was part of the Calif universities system... a practice eventually disbanded system-wide and beyond based on several factors... there was also a reverse discrimination lawsuit brought against the univ by a student trying to get into medical school after he was bypassed for one of the few open slots available in favor of a less qualified minority (black) student ... he won (I believe it went to the Calif Supreme Court)... I believe students should be admitted based on admission standards applicable to all students, not just for blacks... and faculty chosen based on their ability and experience...  and as far as I know, this is the practice today...

12) Again, members of the MoTab choir are chosen in an audition process and based on ability... which is as it should be.  All are invited to attend auditions... 

GG

 

[strappinglad]

There are a couple of acting positions in the temple  film where ,if the actor were black , would raise eyebrows. Better we don't go there for at least a generation.

Are there distinctive temple films for the Asian saints, or the African saints? If not, there probably should be.

[Glenn101]

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

While I generally believe it appropriate to be addressed on the local level, some things just can't be handled at the local level. Like Church art distributed throughout the world through SLC. Inclusivity at the local level is not going to get rid of the white, Gentile Jesus art distributed throughout the Church - at least not anytime soon.

I don't know if that is a real problem to most people. I, myself, do not really like any depiction of Jesus by a human. Almost seems sacrilegious to me. And I have no idea what a person born of a human but fathered by God the Father would really look like. Everyone assumes that such a person would look like all the other Jews that we see, but I just do not know. So, if there are going to be depictions of Jesus, I would not have a problem with Him being depicted as darker or lighter or of an olive complexion, depending on the target audience.

However, I really do not expect that art is a great barrier to improved race relations in the Church. But I could be wrong.

Glenn

[bsjkki]

I had no idea about this issue relating to race, lineage and patriarchal blessings. https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/06/08/patriarchal-blessings-race-and-lineage-history-and-a-survey/

[bsjkki]

22 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

On the Gospel Topics essay, I get a little why it's been done gently. I was in a group composing largely of brown/black members when I first read it and then later my professor had our class read it. He noted a person who struggled with it when he had discussed it in church and in this class another student struggled with it as well. Both white. One older, one not.

What caused the struggle? I think that essay causes some people trouble because they wonder how past church leaders and teachings got things so wrong. It brings up the prophetic infallibility issues. My husband remembers being taught to teach some of those denounced teachings on his mission and he was happy they were denounced and thinks the essay should be required reading to root out the false teachings. I'm curious if that was the same issue that caused people to struggle.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I don't know if that is a real problem to most people. I, myself, do not really like any depiction of Jesus by a human. Almost seems sacrilegious to me. And I have no idea what a person born of a human but fathered by God the Father would really look like. Everyone assumes that such a person would look like all the other Jews that we see, but I just do not know.

Well, I'm pretty sure He didn't look like a white, European male. I too am sometimes troubled by art - such as the Christus statue in the visitor's center. When we moved to Utah, my wife wanted to fill the house with Jesus art, and she will tell you my response - no Jesus statues. In fact no statues of any biblical character, Moroni, etc. We can have pictures of the temples and one or two pictures of Jesus if you have to - and try not to get one of Him with brown hair and blue eyes. I was kind of dismayed by the art in the local bookstores. I wanted a realistic Jesus, and it was hard to come by. I don't believe a picture of Jesus while on the earth is sacrilegious - at least not so long as we don't kneel or bow to it.

[juliann]

On 6/8/2017 at 11:20 AM, Darren10 said:

 

As for the Genesis Group. They're an excellent bunch. But placing them on par with General Authorities because they are black does not settle well with me. That is not what my view of what the Restored Gospel is about.

 

Leaders of that group were approved by the First Presidency. I was told the story by one of them. That has everything to do with the restored gospel. Your third sentence is really, really offensive. I'm sure you didn't mean it to be but we all have a duty to overcome racism, and the first is to become more aware of the language we use.

[juliann]

5 hours ago, Darren10 said:

When the Sunday School leaders sit with General Authorities the *optics* are that they are on par with one another. if I am not mistaken thought, the Sunday School leaders sit in the front row, not up behind the podium but I honestly have never pad much attention to such things so I may be wrong. And the Sunday School was created by divine inspiration, was it not? If there were divine inspiration to incorporate the Genesis Group as an auxiliary office, I'm 100% OK with it and 100% in sitting its leaders right along side General Authorities in General conference if so directed by the divine inspiration. I do not care to see any such thing just to cater to political pressure.

Do you know anything about the Genesis group at all?

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

What caused the struggle? I think that essay causes some people trouble because they wonder how past church leaders and teachings got things so wrong. It brings up the prophetic infallibility issues. My husband remembers being taught to teach some of those denounced teachings on his mission and he was happy they were denounced and thinks the essay should be required reading to root out the false teachings. I'm curious if that was the same issue that caused people to struggle.

It was specifically this part...specifically the part in bold:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else." 

I wasn't there for the one my professor relayed of the older gentlemen, but from what I recall it was that had taught people on his mission based off this idea that came from his own grappling or spiritual reasoning based off the concept. To have it change on him was difficult. In the class itself, my professor specifically asked if anyone had concerns about the essay, and this was his. They both ascribed to a literal skin color change being marks of curses in the past. 

I don't remember much beyond that. But I think though some are perfectly content of changing their thoughts about this or other things in it, others may not And it can take time to readjust their constructs. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[BlueDreams]

12 hours ago, strappinglad said:

There are a couple of acting positions in the temple  film where ,if the actor were black , would raise eyebrows. Better we don't go there for at least a generation.

Are there distinctive temple films for the Asian saints, or the African saints? If not, there probably should be.

No there's not. One of the reasons the videos were made were to allow for other languages that have more bulky phraseology to have their words more easily subbed in for translation purposes.

 

The raised eyebrows is probably one of the reasons that they suggested Adam and Eve. When I was sitting and trying to make this make sense as to why they would choose 3 white couples, the only thing I could get was white people's expectations about how they looked being challenged. I'm nit saying the apostles specifically cared, just that people in the room watching may. It wasn't good enough for me. Not at all. Because what it also meant was that people like me had to swallow their hurt to accommodate their racism. I think it's stupid to wait another generation to confront subtle racist ideals...particularly on a video whose characters are meant to be taken symbolically and to represent all of us as Adam and Eve. It is the perfect space to gently nudge people to see themselves in a minority shade and gently nudge them to something better of a mentality. 

 

With luv, 

BD

[Rain]

A few years back someone said to me that art was supposed to make you feel,  not necessarily be "accurate". This helped me some, but wasn't enough. Before this I had been bothered by some portrayals of Christ because people had pointed it out to me - I had never clued into it till it was pointed out to me.

After going to Israel last year, the art thing is interesting to me.  I really didn't notice that people looked different than me. I expected to really notice a difference. The thing I noticed was that people dressed different. I was really surprised about this. 

A few years back I took an archeology at BYU Ed Week. The teacher said that Christ was most likely crucified upside down because that's how it was done then.  He showed a number of art pieces through history that gave an idea of how we come to view the crucifixion as different than it probably was. Assuming people found out that he was correct would it bother people to view art that showed Christ head up?

I have been looking for a picture of Christ knocking at the door for years. I finally found one I love except for one thing - he looks like he is shaking his fist to the people inside. I have asked many people about this picture and no one feels the same. Somehow that art speaks to me in a way that it doesn't speak to others.  

So I think we need to be careful how we speak of art.  Sometimes we criticize so heavily about a blue eyed Jesus that we forget that a specific picture of that may have brought great peace to someone, not because "Christ looks like me", but because I "feel the love of Christ" when I see that picture. 

It is not the accuracy of a picture of a group of members that makes a difference, but how people feel when they see it. Sometimes a picture of a group of white people will evoke memories for someone of love they felt growing up. Sometimes it will evoke memories of being excluded. That's why we need a variety of pictures of just one race and other pictures that are of mixed groups. 

So I would love to see more art with other races. I just think it is important to not say  or imply art with only white people is wrong. 

 

[BlueDreams]

13 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

9) Bring more blacks into Church-owned BYU as students or faculty??  As I recall this was called "affirmative action" years ago when I was part of the Calif universities system... a practice eventually disbanded system-wide and beyond based on several factors... there was also a reverse discrimination lawsuit brought against the univ by a student trying to get into medical school after he was bypassed for one of the few open slots available in favor of a less qualified minority (black) student ... he won (I believe it went to the Calif Supreme Court)... I believe students should be admitted based on admission standards applicable to all students, not just for blacks... and faculty chosen based on their ability and experience...  and as far as I know, this is the practice today...

12) Again, members of the MoTab choir are chosen in an audition process and based on ability... which is as it should be.  All are invited to attend auditions... 

I believe it's still called affirmative action and is still in practice in many many schools. Affirmative Action also isn't just about quotas, from what I've read. Seeking more blacks in byu students and faculty can also include outreach programs to encourage applying to the school, more conscientious efforts when in the hiring process, making a more racially sensitive environment at school, and placing racial background as a part of the determining factors (not the factor or even the most important). Its a juggling act between a variety of factors that, by the concerns of discrimination, already "discriminate" by things like alumni relationships, socioeconomic status, and underrepresented regions. It's also not an accurate narrative that it's an either or scenario that actively seeking more diversity in the schools means that this reduced admission standards in order to gain diversity. Or that this is even significantly displacing white, qualified students from admission to the school. I'm a believer in having qualified students/faculty who are also more diverse and actively seeking more diversity when possible in recruitment and consideration. I think it's absolutely important, particulary when BYU has had recent embarassments from both faculty and students that may not have happened if there were more racial diversity present on the school. Such as the blackface incident and the professor who spouted racist ideology to a reporter (name is blanking right now). When talking about racial constructs, differing experiences and perspective, differing ethnic backgrounds are also imperative IMHO.

I'm not super close to MoTab, but have known a few people in it and I think they do try to seek out and encourage minorities to apply as well because they want it, as a missionary branch of the church, to better represent the people of the church. But this is on vague recollections from hearsay....so you can take it with that much salt  

With luv,

BD  

[MormonVideoGame]

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else." 

that is very good, but why didn't God inspire Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or one of his earlier prophets to say that? Why did God take so long? Let me know if you know why 

Or god did inspire his earlier prophets, but all of them ignored him?    

[mnn727]

Another would be to dump the KJV version of the Bible. Most whites no longer use it or read that version of English in English speaking countries, and even more Blacks do not.

[mnn727]

17 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

that is very good, but why didn't God inspire Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or one of his earlier prophets to say that? Why did God take so long? Let me know if you know why 

Or god did inspire his earlier prophets, but all of them ignored him?    

While this is certainly not official, this sounds right to me.

 

The Priesthood has never been held in bondage. Aaron and his sons weren't allowed to exercise the priesthood until after the children of Israel were free from Egypt and out in the desert for a while. When the nation of Israel was carried away into captivity in Babylon, same thing.

This said, certain groups in modern society have been held in slavery as well. It's not the fault of persons held in slavery, but just the same, the Priesthood cannot be commanded. And, even though the Civil War and related events technically ended slavery in this country, many things didn't change culturally until efforts of the Civil Rights movements in the sixties and seventies. And until all people could regard themselves as free from bondage, they couldn't hold the Priesthood. And now, while efforts continue to advance the rights of all races, we have the responsibility of adhering to the Gospel and using the Priesthood to officiate in the ordinances of that Gospel.

Edited June 10, 2017 by mnn727

[MormonVideoGame]

11 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

The Priesthood has never been held in bondage. Aaron and his sons weren't allowed to exercise the priesthood until after the children of Israel were free from Egypt and out in the desert for a while. When the nation of Israel was carried away into captivity in Babylon, same thing.

This said, certain groups in modern society have been held in slavery as well. It's not the fault of persons held in slavery, but just the same, the Priesthood cannot be commanded. And, even though the Civil War and related events technically ended slavery in this country, many things didn't change culturally until efforts of the Civil Rights movements in the sixties and seventies. And until all people could regard themselves as free from bondage, they couldn't hold the Priesthood. And now, while efforts continue to advance the rights of all races, we have the responsibility of adhering to the Gospel and using the Priesthood to officiate in the ordinances of that Gospel.

Okay let's talk about the Old Testament. In Old Testament times idolatry was a very common practice, but God was quick to condenm idolatry and his people (isralites) were not allowed to practice it. Why would a benevolent God care more about idolatry than slavery or racism? 

"many things didn't change culturally until efforts of the Civil Rights movements in the sixties and seventies."

I am not sure what the culture has anything to do with God and the church. Isn't the church suppose to be above the culture? In today's culture sex before marriage is accepted. 

11 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

While this is certainly not official, this sounds right to me.

the essay was approved by the first presidency. I am just wondering what took the church so long to clarify that it  "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."

Edited June 10, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

I will appriciate if anyone here can tell me what took the church so long to "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."

Please 

and please don't tell me it was because of the culture, in today's culture alcohol, sex before marriage, gambling are generally accepted.  In Old Testament times idolatry was a common practice, but God was quick to condenm it.