Jump to content

Ayla Stewart "Infuriated" by LDS Church's Condemnation of White Culture


Darren10

Recommended Posts

I found this via Daniel Peterson's facebook post which links to his Patheos website. From Slate:

Quote

Stewart has said she was scheduled to speak at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, but the violence there prevented her from appearing as planned. Her online output mixes down-home parenting anecdotes with calls to preserve “white culture,” and she has become a prominent white-nationalist voice. A long piece about the women of the alt-right in the latest issue of Harper’s describes her evolution from self-described feminist pagan to someone who hopes for the repeal of the 19th amendment. (Seriously.) She now has more than 30,000 Twitter followers.

Stewart actually seemed cheered by her church’s initial statement against racism in general, arguing that it confirmed her belief that “you cannot be anti-white and a follower of Christ.” The LDS’s stronger follow-up on Tuesday, by contrast, infuriated her. (Some observers have implied the church’s addendum may have been a response to her initial approval.) “The Church PR department, nor any member of the church I know of, has ever asked a black, Asian, Arab, etc. member of the church to renounce their culture and not promote it,” she wrote in a lengthy blog post. “So why are whites, and only whites, being singled out?”

:vava: It could not have happened to a nicer person. :vava:

Slate article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/08/18/the_mormon_church_condemned_white_supremacists_and_this_mormon_white_supremacist.html

Dan's Patheos weblink: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/08/mormon-church-condemned-white-supremacists-mormon-white-supremacist-mom-mad.html#uLGjjRFZHyVOdhYB.01

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

“The Church PR department, nor any member of the church I know of, has ever asked a black, Asian, Arab, etc. member of the church to renounce their culture ...

Actually church leaders regularly say in conference that people who join the church have to leave being all cultural practices that are inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  

Link to comment

I listened to this podcast: http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/207-a-white-supremacist-church-no-more-moroni-benally/

Gina and this Moroni were aghast at what the church has said in their statement against white supremists given the church's past. Thinking the church has to from here on out change a lot. They bring up white shirts being a thing. And what about Pres. Kimball's thinking that the Native Americans aka Lamanites will turn whiter if they are in these LDS homes? 

Our church's outcry about the supremacists is almost like an oxymoron. 

Or here is a quote among many about lighter skin:

After the people again forgot the Lord and dissensions arose, some of them took upon themselves the name Lamanites and the dark skin returned. When the Lamanites fully repent and sincerely receive the gospel, the Lord has promised to remove the dark skin. The Lord declared by revelation that, ‘before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as a rose.' The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts and delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord. Perhaps there are some Lamanites today who are losing the dark pigment. Many of the members of the Church among the Catawba Indians of the South could readily pass as of the white race; also in other parts of the South.

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, v. 3, p. 123, 1953

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to this podcast: http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/207-a-white-supremacist-church-no-more-moroni-benally/

Gina and this Moroni were aghast at what the church has said in their statement against white supremists given the church's past. Thinking the church has to from here on out change a lot. They bring up white shirts being a thing. And what about Pres. Kimball's thinking that the Native Americans aka Lamanites will turn whiter if they are in these LDS homes? 

Our church's outcry about the supremacists is almost like an oxymoron. 

Or here is a quote among many about lighter skin:

After the people again forgot the Lord and dissensions arose, some of them took upon themselves the name Lamanites and the dark skin returned. When the Lamanites fully repent and sincerely receive the gospel, the Lord has promised to remove the dark skin. The Lord declared by revelation that, ‘before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as a rose.' The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts and delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord. Perhaps there are some Lamanites today who are losing the dark pigment. Many of the members of the Church among the Catawba Indians of the South could readily pass as of the white race; also in other parts of the South.

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, v. 3, p. 123, 1953

So albinos are the master race?

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to this podcast: http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/207-a-white-supremacist-church-no-more-moroni-benally/

Gina and this Moroni were aghast at what the church has said in their statement against white supremists given the church's past. Thinking the church has to from here on out change a lot. They bring up white shirts being a thing. And what about Pres. Kimball's thinking that the Native Americans aka Lamanites will turn whiter if they are in these LDS homes? 

Our church's outcry about the supremacists is almost like an oxymoron. 

Or here is a quote among many about lighter skin:

After the people again forgot the Lord and dissensions arose, some of them took upon themselves the name Lamanites and the dark skin returned. When the Lamanites fully repent and sincerely receive the gospel, the Lord has promised to remove the dark skin. The Lord declared by revelation that, ‘before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as a rose.' The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts and delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord. Perhaps there are some Lamanites today who are losing the dark pigment. Many of the members of the Church among the Catawba Indians of the South could readily pass as of the white race; also in other parts of the South.

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, v. 3, p. 123, 1953

I think some people have confused the color white with the caucasian race (which is not actually white, but many different shades of peach and tan).  The color white often signifies purity in the scriptures.  That doesn't mean that being caucasian means one is more pure.

There have been church teachings in the past that have caused some of the confusion obviously, but that should only still be a problem for those with very narrow ideas about race already.  In this day and age, no one should be using quotes that are 60+ years old to support their beliefs. If they are, then it shows how weak their arguments are.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not the same thing.

How is it not the same thing.   You cannot bring your "culture" whatever that is, to the extent it contradicts Gospel principles.   Seems to me it is exactly the same thing.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to this podcast: http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/207-a-white-supremacist-church-no-more-moroni-benally/

Gina and this Moroni were aghast at what the church has said in their statement against white supremists given the church's past. Thinking the church has to from here on out change a lot. They bring up white shirts being a thing. And what about Pres. Kimball's thinking that the Native Americans aka Lamanites will turn whiter if they are in these LDS homes? 

Our church's outcry about the supremacists is almost like an oxymoron. 

Or here is a quote among many about lighter skin:

After the people again forgot the Lord and dissensions arose, some of them took upon themselves the name Lamanites and the dark skin returned. When the Lamanites fully repent and sincerely receive the gospel, the Lord has promised to remove the dark skin. The Lord declared by revelation that, ‘before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as a rose.' The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts and delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord. Perhaps there are some Lamanites today who are losing the dark pigment. Many of the members of the Church among the Catawba Indians of the South could readily pass as of the white race; also in other parts of the South.

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, v. 3, p. 123, 1953

Well push me over with a feather. Someone in the Church had a wrong idea. We now have to toss our Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C. OD1 and OD2, and especially the Articles of Faith just to satisfy you. Only it won't will it? 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Well push me over with a feather. Someone in the Church had a wrong idea. We now have to toss our Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C. OD1 and OD2, and especially the Articles of Faith just to satisfy you. Only it won't will it? 

It will, but doesn't mean I have to believe some prophets now does it? 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, rpn said:

How is it not the same thing.   You cannot bring your "culture" whatever that is, to the extent it contradicts Gospel principles.   Seems to me it is exactly the same thing.

White culture is not synonymous with Church culture. Green Jello with carrots in it not withstanding.

Link to comment

I think it's important to note that the Church's statement condemning those who promote white culture emphasized that descriptor with quotation marks. The Church did not condemn white culture but "white culture". If you here me speak what Ai wam typing you would hear a distinct shift in my tone to emphasize the differences between white culture and "white culture". Obviously you phonetically cannot shift in writing so the Church used quotations. 

I think this means that the LDS Church is not condemning the promotion of white culture insofar as that means honoring and promoting things white or caucasian culture has accopmlished, which is many. It is condemning the idea that white or caucasian (which I think is actually a Native American term describing a specific tribe) culture is superior to that of non-white culture, which it absolutely is not and which promotion has historically lead to devestating results. 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you are a Nazi it means you have to leave pretty much all of your culture behind so I understand why she would be upset.

I knew of an elderly couple in church while growing up. He served in in the army in Nazi Germany and he retained lots of sympathy towards Hitler and Mussolini though I never remember him being a racist. 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I think it's important to note that the Church's statement condemning those who promote white culture emphasized that descriptor with quotation marks. The Church did not condemn white culture but "white culture". If you here me speak what Ai wam typing you would hear a distinct shift in my tone to emphasize the differences between white culture and "white culture". Obviously you phonetically cannot shift in writing so the Church used quotations. 

I think this means that the LDS Church is not condemning the promotion of white culture insofar as that means honoring and promoting things white or caucasian culture has accopmlished, which is many. It is condemning the idea that white or caucasian (which I think is actually a Native American term describing a specific tribe) culture is superior to that of non-white culture, which it absolutely is not and which promotion has historically lead to devestating results. 

Darren, what does that look like....promoting white culture?  I am not sure what white culture or even "white culture" is or how to describe what it might look like.  Stating such things - rejecting white culture - often just sounds like rejecting white people though I seldom think that is what is intended when such terms are used.  

Regardless, I do find it strange to think that there are not a long list of groups that promote specific cultures throughout the world.  As I think about this as I am writing I can begin to formulate a way of defining negative groups, regardless of their culture, such as:  those that promote their culture  in terms of excluding other cultures; those who seek to make their culture superior to all others....just two quick ideas.  

I obviously live in a bubble - I just have never read any brochure or booklet promoting such a thing.  It may be because I tend to value almost all cultures I have come to know.  More importantly, it is why I admire American culture - it is ever changing based upon the influence of the many cultures that exert an influence on our culture.  It is also why I reject the "salad bowl" concept promoted by some activist groups over the melting pot concept that our nation has long described our American culture.  

The salad bowl never worked for me because it is the very definition of weakness.  Take any bowl full of salad and throw it up in the air and what do you get?  A mess - nothing sticks together, but immediately falls apart.  Why would anyone want to belong to such a society?  On the other hand, if you have a melting pot everything sticks together and does not come apart.  The more any person or group does not assimilate the more problems develop - who's problem is it when a person or a group does not assimilate?  For me, it then becomes a personal problem of the individual and the group rather than society's.  I realize that sounds harsh, but it is common sense to me.

When I went to the Middle East I assimilated to their culture by learning their mores and cultural standards of behavior and complied.  I was not required to dress in their native apparel or join their religion, but I certainly felt the need to adapt to what their culture demanded for assimilation.  Was I wrong to do so?  If not, then why don't the same rules apply in the US?

Edited by Storm Rider
Link to comment

"Take any bowl full of salad and throw it up in the air and what do you get?"

Like a melting pot wouldn't make a mess even if stuff stuck together?

I prefer the analogy of a tapestry myself.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Darren, what does that look like....promoting white culture?  I am not sure what white culture or even "white culture" is or how to describe what it might look like.  Stating such things - rejecting white culture - often just sounds like rejecting white people though I seldom think that is what is intended when such terms are used.  

Regardless, I do find it strange to think that there are not a long list of groups that promote specific cultures throughout the world.  As I think about this as I am writing I can begin to formulate a way of defining negative groups, regardless of their culture, such as:  those that promote their culture  in terms of excluding other cultures; those who seek to make their culture superior to all others....just two quick ideas.  

I obviously live in a bubble - I just have never read any brochure or booklet promoting such a thing.  It may be because I tend to value almost all cultures I have come to know.  More importantly, it is why I admire American culture - it is ever changing based upon the influence of the many cultures that exert an influence on our culture.  It is also why I reject the "salad bowl" concept promoted by some activist groups over the melting pot concept that our nation has long described our American culture.  

The salad bowl never worked for me because it is the very definition of weakness.  Take any bowl full of salad and throw it up in the air and what do you get?  A mess - nothing sticks together, but immediately falls apart.  Why would anyone want to belong to such a society?  On the other hand, if you have a melting pot everything sticks together and does not come apart.  The more any person or group does not assimilate the more problems develop - who's problem is it when a person or a group does not assimilate?  For me, it then becomes a personal problem of the individual and the group rather than society's.  I realize that sounds harsh, but it is common sense to me.

When I went to the Middle East I assimilated to their culture by learning their mores and cultural standards of behavior and complied.  I was not required to dress in their native apparel or join their religion, but I certainly felt the need to adapt to what their culture demanded for assimilation.  Was I wrong to do so?  If not, then why don't the same rules apply in the US?

To me anyone can promote any culture so long as they do not declare that culture inherently superior to others and do not blame their problems on others not of their culture. Of course there may be varying degrees of applicability to this line of thinking but that's the fundamental rubric I follow. 

When I say promote white culture I refer to cultures which have been traditionally predominately white. I credit these cultures for developing many of today's great medicines, technonogies, and establishing and spreading modern-day democracies throughout the world. These are great are blessings. I explicitly oppose excluding non whites from recieving their credit. Even in white cultural areas, of course you may find many non whites contributing to the betterment of the world snd they are due their just credits as well. 

I think you did great assimilating into the middle eastern culture. I've no doubt that that has helped you learn good things. The number one thing I enjoy about Uber driving is the many different prople I get to meet and to learn a little but about them. 

I think where white supremecists, including Ayla Stewart, get the Church wrong in denouncing the Church's condemnation of promoting "white culture" is that the Church is not condemning white people to say they are proud to be white or that white cultures have achieved great things for the world and for their specific subcultures but that the Church condemns "white culture" in that people view whites as inherently superior to non whites and actively seek to create a whites only or white superiority in society. This is evil and the Church is right to  condemn such a point of view. It goes directly against all human beings being children of the same God and that He loves them all equally. They are all precious to Him. 

Edited by Darren10
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

caucasian (which I think is actually a Native American term describing a specific tribe)

Not native American.   its someone from the caucasus - a mountain range in Georgia and Russia and that area.  It was 1st used to describe white people by western scientists in the 19th century when they were racially profiling and categorizing people - along with for example mongoloid.  These categories are now considered obsolete, incorrect and probably racist! caucasian for whites was chosen because it was believed Europeans were descended from Japeth, who was said to come from the caucasus area. Europeans don't use the term and the UK has basically dropped it in favour of the word white followed by an area eg British or European. 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...