Iron Rod Saints and Liahona Saints

[cacheman]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am a native Californian from the SF Bay area, and lived in that area at around the time Mauss was doing his survey.  Wish I had known him then.  As a member then of the Bay Ward of SF Stake, I do recall an influx of young singles from elsewhere,. and all seemed very broad-minded and inclusive (on the surface).  Now I am wondering why Mauss would make such far-reaching statements, if his research did not back it up.

His study location was simply an attempt to mirror an earlier study that looked at attitudes in other religions.  He use the same survey questions to get a feel for how Mormons would compare. 

I'm not sure which 'far-reaching statements' you're referring to. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, cacheman said:

His study location was simply an attempt to mirror an earlier study that looked at attitudes in other religions.  He use the same survey questions to get a feel for how Mormons would compare. 

I'm not sure which 'far-reaching statements' you're referring to. 

The quotations are key here.  Did he mean them, or not?

[cacheman]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The quotations are key here.  Did he mean them, or not?

Which quotations? I'm sorry,  I'm not following you. 

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, cacheman said:

Interestingly,  in his paper he used other metrics for orthodoxy in data presented in other graphs.  These results showed no strong correlation, but tended to lightly skew towards more devout members holding more negative views towards blacks.

Apparently,  this is not in line with your anecdotal experience. Also. ..Mauss did not conclude in the study that doubters held more racist views.  That is Fairmormon's misleading interpretation of the study. ..............................

Why then do Bush and Mauss say that “the Mormons, in spite of their peculiar doctrine on the Negroes, were no more likely to give anti-Negro responses than were the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans (whether American or Missouri Synod) or Baptists (whether American or Southern), and furthermore the Mormon respondents were very nearly the same as the Protestant averages.” ... “among those of urban origin, the ‘Orthodox’ or ‘believers’ were consistently less likely to express anti-Negro attitudes than were the ‘doubters’ of key Church doctrines.” (Bush & Mauss, Neither White nor Black, Signature Books, 1984, 20-23)?

[cacheman]

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why then do Bush and Mauss say that “the Mormons, in spite of their peculiar doctrine on the Negroes, were no more likely to give anti-Negro responses than were the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans (whether American or Missouri Synod) or Baptists (whether American or Southern), and furthermore the Mormon respondents were very nearly the same as the Protestant averages.” ... “among those of urban origin, the ‘Orthodox’ or ‘believers’ were consistently less likely to express anti-Negro attitudes than were the ‘doubters’ of key Church doctrines.” (Bush & Mauss, Neither White nor Black, Signature Books, 1984, 20-23)?

I agree that the second part of that statement is misleading.  It deals with only the smallest subset, and uses an odd metric for orthodoxy. To his credit,  he immediately follows it up with his more measured conclusion paragraph. 

My bigger concern is that others like Fairmormon / Mormon Voices are muddying the waters even more by misportraying his conclusions to paint 'doubters' in a negative light and give the impression that Mauss found the more orthodox LDS to hold less racist views. That is the paragraph that you copied and pasted without attribution and upon which you based the following statement: 

 

"it is precisely the less faithful who are more likely to express racist attitudes.  Why?  Perhaps because they do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ"

 

I'm assuming you copied the paragraph in question from Fairmormon or Mormon Voices. I can't find it in the book you cited, and the Fairmormon timeline also uses the 1967 date to refer to his study published in 1966.

Edited January 13, 2018 by cacheman

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Jeanne said:

If one is not asked, for whatever reason, how is it discussed in ward council meetings or in missionary groups without knowing or understanding a situation?  Surely...not just gossip...but with concern..at least ask face to face especially if you are home teachers or visiting teachers...I think it is okay and as for me...I would have loved someone to ask anything..but I was ignored like a contagious person.

Same here! The first time my Relief Society president has came to my house was today! She thought the new people had moved into our house because they saw them moving things in and the bishop received their records. We let the new owners move their stuff in a week early so they didn't have to rent a storage unit.

I've sincerely felt just as you said, a contagious person. It would have been nice to hear from any of the RS presidency or bishopric, but zero. Especially since the bishop and stake president were aware of my struggles. They sure do want to reach out to others, but not me. So I was just curious if someone like me is off the list of trying to help activate, because of having doubts.

You'd think they'd at least reach out and see how I'm doing, I wonder if I would be back into going to church again if they had. That's another thing I'd like them to know. Don't give up on people like me. But I wasn't worth it apparently. And as before when I've been a broken record on this subject, members of this board tell me I should go to the bishop and tell them my concerns. But that just feels funny. I could have even told the RS president my feelings today, but I didn't, it's in the past. So as a warning for those that are active believing members in a presidency or calling that help activate people in their ward, don't be afraid to talk to people like me. I've never felt lonelier. And I know it's my fault for opting out of having visiting teachers but as a former RS secretary in two RS presidencies I know the RS president would contact those that didn't have visiting teachers. The few years I didn't have visting teachers, two RS presidency presidents never called or reached out.

I know I sound like a baby, but hoping any of you out there won't make the same mistake. Even if you think people like me might want to be left alone, that's not the case, don't take the chance someone may actually want a phone call. That's all, I've said my peace, and I hope you don't respond back that I should have done something. This is too hard for me to hear especially when you've no idea what it feels like, or maybe you do.

Sorry Jeanne, I turned this into a post back to all, instead of just to you, I apologise for my rant or plea, but I know you know how I feel.

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

I have only one time thought that way and I was very close to the person and knew his circumstances. 

I rarely ask someone why they are not coming. Most of the time I feel it is too personal. I rarely, if ever, ask when someone IS coming as well why they are coming and I have found a lot of assumptions can be made there as well.

 

 

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect for most people it's because asking that would seem impolite or impertinent and liable to offend. Not because they necessarily think it due to sin. While the effects of sin definitely have a place for some people, I think for most people it's assumed the issue is losing their testimony.

Clark and Rain, I told the whole story to Jeanne. Rain, I know you know my story. My plea is for people in leadership callings that usually look out for inactives...don't assume someone wants to be left alone. Call them, ask them, do whatever it takes to let them know they're thought of or missed and then let that person respond. If the response is they want to be left alone then fine, honor their wishes. But just in case they might be like me, don't let it go unattended to, if we're a church of Jesus Christ, don't let the one go. 

Edited January 13, 2018 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

I agree that the second part of that statement is misleading.  It deals with only the smallest subset, and uses an odd metric for orthodoxy. To his credit,  he immediately follows it up with his more measured conclusion paragraph. 

My bigger concern is that others like Fairmormon / Mormon Voices are muddying the waters even more by misportraying his conclusions to paint 'doubters' in a negative light and give the impression that Mauss found the more orthodox LDS to hold less racist views. That is the paragraph that you copied and pasted without attribution and upon which you based the following statement: 

"it is precisely the less faithful who are more likely to express racist attitudes.  Why?  Perhaps because they do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ"

I'm assuming you copied the paragraph in question from Fairmormon or Mormon Voices. I can't find it in the book you cited, and the Fairmormon timeline also uses the 1967 date to refer to his study published in 1966.

I got it from http://www.blacklds.org/history , which provided the citation.  I am perplexed that they gave a false citation, if that is what you are saying.  I don't have a copy of that book.

However, I do stand by my opinion that "it is precisely the less faithful who are more likely to express racist attitudes.  Why?  Perhaps because they do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ."  Perhaps I am wrong in that belief, but that is my lifetime of experience with Mormons and with civil rights -- having spent many decades on the front lines of the movement for civil rights, including marching with Dr. King's SCLC and similar organizations since the early 1960s.  I do wish that an LDS apostle or two had been standing on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma back then (Bloody Sunday, Mar 7, 1965), but I am not sure that they even realized that there was such a bridge.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 

Clark and Rain, I told the whole story to Jeanne. Rain, I know you know my story. My plea is for people in leadership callings that usually look out for inactives...don't assume someone wants to be left alone. Call them, ask them, do whatever it takes to let them know they're thought of or missed and then let that person respond. If the response is they want to be left alone then fine, honor their wishes. But just in case they might be like me, don't let it go unattended to, if we're a church of Jesus Christ, don't let the one go. 

Tacenda - I am so sorry for our struggles and lonliness. I wish I could have been there for you. 

I truly feel though, from what you have said in the past that there was miscommunication between you and your leaders and they felt you were asking not to be contacted. That's why I had hoped you would go to them. I think they must have been trying to honor your wishes and respect you. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they truly are just ignoring you and if that is the case then they are so, so not doing as the Savior would, but I trust that most leaders would have contacted you if only they knew you welcomed it. 

It makes me sick to hear that you are moving and that this was never worked out. That you sat hurting for so long and they might have sat feeling hopeless to do anything. I really hope you get what you need in the next ward.

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, Rain said:

Tacenda - I am so sorry for our struggles and lonliness. I wish I could have been there for you. 

I truly feel though, from what you have said in the past that there was miscommunication between you and your leaders and they felt you were asking not to be contacted. That's why I had hoped you would go to them. I think they must have been trying to honor your wishes and respect you. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they truly are just ignoring you and if that is the case then they are so, so not doing as the Savior would, but I trust that most leaders would have contacted you if only they knew you welcomed it. 

It makes me sick to hear that you are moving and that this was never worked out. That you sat hurting for so long and they might have sat feeling hopeless to do anything. I really hope you get what you need in the next ward.

With the world and all it's problems and heartache, natural disasters etc. I feel so selfish complaining like this, but it hurt sooo much. I was once a part of the council meetings, back when the whole RS presidency were invited, and heard of those that needed support in the ward, be it non-employment, illnesses or other. I remember distinctly when the ward missionary leader brought up that we were to find at least 5 members in the ward and seek to activate them. So it was so odd that I was completely left alone when I became inactive, but I became inactive several years after my faith crisis. They had many years to address my issues. And you're probably right that I dropped the ball, not saying you said that specifically, but that is why it bewildered me when I actually quit coming and still had no one call. Our home teachers came maybe once in six months or even less. 

Rain, you were there for me back then, and even offered a listening ear and gave me your phone number! Here I could be an axe murderer or something!!

Thanks Rain, your words mean so much and the sincerity behind them!

P.S. The only thing I can think of is that my husband maybe told the bishop that I wanted to be left alone, but when I asked him he said he didn't do that. Maybe I might be brave enough to ask the bishop why the hands off approach one day to find out the mystery.

Edited January 13, 2018 by Tacenda

[cacheman]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I got it from http://www.blacklds.org/history , which provided the citation.  I am perplexed that they gave a false citation, if that is what you are saying.  I don't have a copy of that book.

 

So,  you got the quote from blacklds.org and then deleted the exact same portion of the quote that Fairmormon deleted before posting it here? Interesting, in that the deletion significantly changes the reported result of the study.  Why did you take out that part, coincidentally making your paragraph an exact copy of the Fairmormon paragraph rather than the site you claim to have sourced the info from. 

This is like a bad game of telephone where Mauss publishes a study in 1966, then briefly references portions of the study in 1967. Later,  Signature reprints the 67 paper in their 1984 book which serves as the source from which blacklds.org cherry picked the most flattering stats for their timeline.  At some point afterwards, Fairmormon and/or Mormon Voices adapts and modifies the quote from blacklds.org in a way that misrepresents the results and makes doubters look worse. Then you source the quote from blacklds, and modify it to be identical to the misleading one that Fairmormon uses. You then use it to justify painting 'the less faithful' as being more racist.  When confronted with the emperical data disagreeing with your statement, you still stand by your statement based on your personal experience.

I appreciate the time and effort that you and others put in fighting for equal rights and combatting stereotypes.  I just wanted to make it clear that your stereotype about the less faithful being more racist is not based on the study you were referencing, but simply your personal experiences.

-cacheman

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

So,  you got the quote from blacklds.org and then deleted the exact same portion of the quote that Fairmormon deleted before posting it here? Interesting, in that the deletion significantly changes the reported result of the study.  Why did you take out that part, coincidentally making your paragraph an exact copy of the Fairmormon paragraph rather than the site you claim to have sourced the info from. 

This is like a bad game of telephone where Mauss publishes a study in 1966, then briefly references portions of the study in 1967. Later,  Signature reprints the 67 paper in their 1984 book which serves as the source from which blacklds.org cherry picked the most flattering stats for their timeline.  At some point afterwards, Fairmormon and/or Mormon Voices adapts and modifies the quote from blacklds.org in a way that misrepresents the results and makes doubters look worse. Then you source the quote from blacklds, and modify it to be identical to the misleading one that Fairmormon uses. You then use it to justify painting 'the less faithful' as being more racist.  When confronted with the emperical data disagreeing with your statement, you still stand by your statement based on your personal experience.

I appreciate the time and effort that you and others put in fighting for equal rights and combatting stereotypes.  I just wanted to make it clear that your stereotype about the less faithful being more racist is not based on the study you were referencing, but simply your personal experiences.

-cacheman

You've got me there, cacheman, and thanks.  I need a good thrashing now and then . . .