1st Pres. and NAACP

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You people who can't observe the Church doing anything at all without instantly narrowing your eyes and wondering what are they plotting this time...

My youngest son is afflicted with paranoid personality disorder.  He interprets everything and anything anyone ever says to him in the light that best confirms his assessment of everybody's out to get him.

I sense a certain similarity between the two worldviews.

If this comment was meant for me, let me clarify my earlier use of the word suspicious.  My suspicion was not in a conspiratorial paranoid sense.  My suspicion was that the church was hoping to use the timing of the NAACP meeting as positive PR for their 40th anniversary event.  That they would want positive PR seems on this subject seems pretty clear.  

Have you listened to the Facebook live videos that the Sistas in Zion posted after the hoax was discovered.  I think they are key listening for anyone interested in this topic.  In one of the videos the author talks about how she was asked by church representatives to attend the spoken word with the tabernacle and to bring other blacks to attend as they were hoping to more diverse participants for this particular occasion.  Is it any surprise to you that the church is very concerned about how they are perceived and that they spend a lot of time and money to try and present their best image to the public?  

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900019155/the-story-behind-last-week-s-meeting-between-the-lds-church-and-the-naacp.html

Thanks Stargazer, this article states what led up to the NAACP meet up. I spoke too soon. Now to follow up on what you quoted below about some people having paranoid personality disorder, I may or may not fit that persona. But will fess up whenever I'm wrong. 

Thanks for posting that article.  I still think the timing was convenient and fit in their overall plans.  Not a conspiracy, just good planning and fortuitous timing.  

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

You'll have to forgive me, but your interpretation of Acts isn't published in the book itself. So merely quoting a chapter isn't sufficient to explain what your take on it is.

Ummmm, "my take" is that the vision of the animals in the sheet is reported by Peter in Acts 10 and 11. And then the council on circumcision happens in Acts 15. That is "my take."

I feel confident my interpretation is supported by the text. 

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Even keeping it exclusive to the Jews wouldn't have been an injunction based on ethnicity - it would have, rather, been a religious restriction.

One could argue the same thing with blacks and the priesthood then.  How is that any different?  People call it racism because the only discriminating factor appears to be race.  Well, if that is racism, then I don't see why discrimination against gentiles and Samaritans was not also an 'ism.  What makes one a "religious restriction" and the other an 'ism?  

55 minutes ago, Gray said:

As I said before, there were quite a number of Romans who converted to Judaism.

Yes, but as I said before, that is not what was happening in Christ's group.  They were different.  They discriminated and did not allow Romans to be baptized until after the revelation of Peter.  

[JAHS]

32 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

16 hours ago, JAHS said:

Interesting to note that President Hinckley actually did offer an apology to an individual pastor back in 2012:

"Just before Pastor Murray came to BYU, he met with Gordon B. Hinckley. In that meeting, President Hinckley offered him an apology for the LDS Church's participation in slavery and in racism—using the same spirit Pastor Murray had urged me to use when I approached my angry son. In truth, Dr. Murray himself had some cause for anger; he had personally been confronted by the past Mormon teaching that Blacks were cursed."

This is the tribute Pastor Murray paid to his fellow pastor, President Gordon B. Hinckley:
"President Hinckley is a true messenger of our Lord. Two years ago, I was invited to Salt Lake City by the LDS Church, and President Hinckley took his personal time to sit with our small group that was touring the many ministries and apologized to me in front of the group. That was amazing! Now the [LDS] Church pushes Blacks to learn their lineage via the Church. That will open eyes and doors that will open new avenues of life."

Pastor to Pastor: President Hinckley's Apology for Racism in the Church

Thank you.

I don't think we can call that an official apology from the church since it was a conversation between one "pastor" to another, and we don't know the exact words President Hinckley used to convey the message that Pastor Murray got, but it does indicate that at least president Hinckley was aware of the issue and how it might make black members and non-members feel. 

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, not based on ethnicity. You're reading modern concerns into an ancient text. Canaanites had the same ethnicity as Hebrews. It was their tribal identity and religious practices that set them apart.

Does it really matter what the proper 'ism is to call it.  If it is discrimination based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, tribe, etc, etc, etc, it is all fundamentally the same principle of discrimination.  One is not better then another. 

[Stargazer]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

You're confusing religious practices (and the associated ritual purity concept) with ethnic concerns.

 

It would be great if you stopped reading your modern notions of ethnicity into an ancient text.

Do you seriously expect that the ancient Jews were any less subject to ethnic and racial prejudice than we are?  It would be great if you would stop reading your (apparent) expectation that the ancients were more enlightened than we are.

[Stargazer]

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If this comment was meant for me, let me clarify my earlier use of the word suspicious.  My suspicion was not in a conspiratorial paranoid sense.  My suspicion was that the church was hoping to use the timing of the NAACP meeting as positive PR for their 40th anniversary event.  That they would want positive PR seems on this subject seems pretty clear.  

Oh for goodness sake.  Wouldn't you want positive PR?  But why does that have to translate into something that deserves condemnation or suspicion?  My neighbor has been a jerk towards me for some reason, so I invite him to dinner at my house in order to try to get some positive relations going.  My birthday is next week.  Am I trying to inspire him to give me a birthday present?  That's what my other neighbor thinks.

Quote

Have you listened to the Facebook live videos that the Sistas in Zion posted after the hoax was discovered.  I think they are key listening for anyone interested in this topic.  In one of the videos the author talks about how she was asked by church representatives to attend the spoken word with the tabernacle and to bring other blacks to attend as they were hoping to more diverse participants for this particular occasion.  Is it any surprise to you that the church is very concerned about how they are perceived and that they spend a lot of time and money to try and present their best image to the public?  

Yes, and during the Music and the Spoken Word, the camera sometimes pans past, or even focuses briefly on MoTab choir members who happen to be black.  And on other occasions black performers such as Gladys Knight or  Alex Boyé sing with the MoTb. Now, what shall we think of this?  That this is done deliberately for some nefarious PR reason?  I have an idea! Let's avoid this --- make sure the camera never light upon non-white choir members, and when Sis. Knight or Brother Boyé sings with the choir, make sure nobody knows about it!  And either never invite Elder Sitati to speak in General Conference, or if he does, put  a substitute image  instead of him speaking (a nice mountainscape, for example), just so nobody gets the idea that the Church is looking for good PR.  It would definitely relieve the Church of being accused of trying to "make nice" artificially about race relations.  The PR fruits would be wonderful, don't you think?  

Perhaps I am getting too worked up over this.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Stargazer

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Oh for goodness sake.  Wouldn't you want positive PR?  But why does that have to translate into something that deserves condemnation or suspicion?  My neighbor has been a jerk towards me for some reason, so I invite him to dinner at my house in order to try to get some positive relations going.  My birthday is next week.  Am I trying to inspire him to give me a birthday present?  That's what my other neighbor thinks.

Yes, and during the Music and the Spoken Word, the camera sometimes pans past, or even focuses briefly on MoTab choir members who happen to be black.  And on other occasions black performers such as Gladys Knight or  Alex Boyé sing with the MoTb. Now, what shall we think of this?  That this is done deliberately for some nefarious PR reason?  I have an idea! Let's avoid this --- make sure the camera never light upon non-white choir members, and when Sis. Knight or Brother Boyé sings with the choir, make sure nobody knows about it!  And either never invite Elder Sitati to speak in General Conference, or if he does, put  a substitute image  instead of him speaking (a nice mountainscape, for example), just so nobody gets the idea that the Church is looking for good PR.  It would definitely relieve the Church of being accused of trying to "make nice" artificially about race relations.  The PR fruits would be wonderful, don't you think?  

Perhaps I am getting too worked up over this.

 

Let them accuse us of whatever they want; it's not artificial. We are sincerely trying to "make nice". 
 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 1:05 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know what you're trying to convey with this sarcasm, but the Church of Jesus Christ has never done anything close to instructing its members to commit mass killings. The blame for Mountain Meadows rests squarely with those who perpetrated it.

Your analogy would be valid if the order to do the massacre had come from the Church as an institution. But it didn't, so your analogy and reasoning fail.

My sarcasm is trying to convey the silliness of your argument. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I was speaking more generally about the notion you put forth that the church and its leaders have no need to recognize misdeeds of the past or apologize for them, not specifically about Mountain Meadows, though I think it applies there as well. If individuals, and local church leaders organize/or do something harmful, in the name of the church, or under the cover of their ecclesiastical roles within the church, then I think it is very appropriate for the church to apologize and denounce the evil, whether or not they were complicit.

I work for a large corporation. If I did something inappropriate and harmed people during the course of my job, in the name of the company, or organized others based on my position, I would expect my employer to denounce my actions and apologize for my behavior because it would be a reflection on the company. Apology doesn't mean they would take full accountability or responsibility for my individual behavior, but failing to recognize the role of a company officer would be a PR mess and be extremely insensitive to anyone who was harmed.

Likewise, the church's past racist teachings harmed many people. Leaders taught things that are now disavowed yet they haven't really acknowledged the harm that was caused from that racism. I think the church would do much better to accept its role in the false teachings and recognize the harm it has done. Apologize. It would be super easy and would garner significant praise and forgiveness from people who have a legitimate beef.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Oh for goodness sake.  Wouldn't you want positive PR?  But why does that have to translate into something that deserves condemnation or suspicion?  My neighbor has been a jerk towards me for some reason, so I invite him to dinner at my house in order to try to get some positive relations going.  My birthday is next week.  Am I trying to inspire him to give me a birthday present?  That's what my other neighbor thinks.

sus·pi·cion -- a feeling or thought that something is possible, likely, or true.

This is the sense that I was using the word suspicion, it had no overtly negative connotation in the context with which I was using it.

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, and during the Music and the Spoken Word, the camera sometimes pans past, or even focuses briefly on MoTab choir members who happen to be black.  And on other occasions black performers such as Gladys Knight or  Alex Boyé sing with the MoTb. Now, what shall we think of this?  That this is done deliberately for some nefarious PR reason?  I have an idea! Let's avoid this --- make sure the camera never light upon non-white choir members, and when Sis. Knight or Brother Boyé sings with the choir, make sure nobody knows about it!  And either never invite Elder Sitati to speak in General Conference, or if he does, put  a substitute image  instead of him speaking (a nice mountainscape, for example), just so nobody gets the idea that the Church is looking for good PR.  It would definitely relieve the Church of being accused of trying to "make nice" artificially about race relations.  The PR fruits would be wonderful, don't you think?  

Perhaps I am getting too worked up over this.

The point that the person made that I referenced earlier is that the church regularly uses its very few black members as tokens to try and show diversity and to over emphasize that diversity to promote an image of the church that looks better from a PR perspective.  

This is apparent and obvious to me, and if you don't see how the church has done this in its media campaigns over the years, especially with the way it has promoted Gladys Knight or Alex Boye. 

Honestly, you sound blind to what seems obvious here when it comes to the messages being portrayed in public.  The public images promoted are crafted in a very strategic and intentional direction.  Do you doubt this?  

[Gray]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Ummmm, "my take" is that the vision of the animals in the sheet is reported by Peter in Acts 10 and 11. And then the council on circumcision happens in Acts 15. That is "my take."

I feel confident my interpretation is supported by the text. 

And in what ways do you feel that your interpretation differs from mine?

 

[Gray]

57 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Do you seriously expect that the ancient Jews were any less subject to ethnic and racial prejudice than we are?  It would be great if you would stop reading your (apparent) expectation that the ancients were more enlightened than we are.

Yes, I do. Racism is actually a quite modern idea. Ancient peoples were more concerned with nationalism. And of course religion was all wrapped up in national identity.  It's not about them being "more enlightened".

[Gray]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Does it really matter what the proper 'ism is to call it.  If it is discrimination based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, tribe, etc, etc, etc, it is all fundamentally the same principle of discrimination.  One is not better then another. 

I think it does matter, yes. Especially given the topic of the thread.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I don't think we can call that an official apology from the church since it was a conversation between one "pastor" to another, and we don't know the exact words President Hinckley used to convey the message that Pastor Murray got, but it does indicate that at least president Hinckley was aware of the issue and how it might make black members and non-members feel. 

I believe Pres. Hinckley and many prophets prior and after was aware of the issue..but there was never any clarification .

[Gray]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

One could argue the same thing with blacks and the priesthood then.  How is that any different?  People call it racism because the only discriminating factor appears to be race.  Well, if that is racism, then I don't see why discrimination against gentiles and Samaritans was not also an 'ism.  What makes one a "religious restriction" and the other an 'ism?  

The question is whether racism is approved of God based on ancient scriptures. The answer is there isn't any racism in ancient scriptures to begin with, just as there isn't any postmodernism - it hadn't really been invented yet.

And again, anyone could convert to Judaism, regardless of ethnicity. There's a big difference between not allowing black people to hold LDS priesthood and not allowing, for instance, practicing Catholics to hold LDS priesthood.

 

Quote

Yes, but as I said before, that is not what was happening in Christ's group.  They were different.  They discriminated and did not allow Romans to be baptized until after the revelation of Peter.  

A Roman who converted to Judaism was no longer a gentile and could have been baptized. Make sense?

This kind of restriction makes a lot of sense considering the nature of Jesus' movement, which was ultimately about ending Jewish collaboration with Rome and preparing the Jewish people for the coming eschaton (at least per Crossan's reading). You shouldn't think of Jesus' movement as a new religious movement, more as a reform movement within an existing religion (Judaism). It doesn't make sense to "reform" someone who worships Roman gods. That would be a total conversion from the ground up, which already took place outside of the Jesus movement.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Gray

[cinepro]

I suspect the Church may reach the point in the next few weeks where they realize it might have been better to not shine a spotlight on Official Declaration 2.

Quote

The First Presidency has announced a special worldwide event to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the 1978 revelation on the priesthood and invites adults and children of all ages and backgrounds to watch the broadcast.

Because in the end, if the Church is going to try and officially sell the idea that we have no idea where the policy came from (beyond Brigham Young's repeated explanations that it was for the Curse of Cain which we now don't believe in), then focusing on the fact that the ban remained in place until 1978 isn't necessarily a good thing.

It would be like the state of Missouri having a big celebration to commemorate their lifting of the "Extermination Order" in 1976.  Such a celebration could only be done by emphasizing the fact that the order existed in the first place, and it took until 1976 for them to finally get rid of it.  So what, exactly, would we be celebrating? 

I'm not trying to create a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation.  It just seems that the satirical press release cut through the confetti to point out some of the deeper issues that weren't being discussed, and now more people are having that discussion, which might not have been what the Church was going for.

 

On another note, I think there is a larger issue with the satirical press release.  When I finally sat down and read it, I was shocked by the tone.  But if it was accepted (with enthusiasm) by some in the Church, then I think the satire reveals a desire some members have for leadership that is bold and brave.  We've gotten so used to wishy-washy, PR-led leadership that to see something that looked like real leadership was a shocking but refreshing change.  If the press release had been real, I think I wouldn't have been alone in reading it and thinking "Now that's a leader, and even a Prophet." 

If there are any tears, it's because some members got to live in a world where LDS leadership was really that bold, brave and honest for just a few hours.  And then they had to go back to the world where non-apologies are read off of teleprompters after being sifted through countless levels of lawyers and correlation.  It may have been a cruel joke to put someone through that, but it wasn't the author's fault that that's the world LDS now live in.

Edited May 21, 2018 by cinepro

[kllindley]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

And in what ways do you feel that your interpretation differs from mine?

 

I'm not entirely sure. I don't think you've made a clear statement on whether you interpret chapters 10 and 11 as coming before chapter 15.  My interpretation is that they do. 

[Stargazer]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, I do. Racism is actually a quite modern idea. Ancient peoples were more concerned with nationalism. And of course religion was all wrapped up in national identity.  It's not about them being "more enlightened".

Perhaps some scholars don't agree with you:

"There was racism in the ancient world, after all. This groundbreaking book refutes the common belief that the ancient Greeks and Romans harbored "ethnic and cultural," but not racial, prejudice. It does so by comprehensively tracing the intellectual origins of racism back to classical antiquity. Benjamin Isaac's systematic analysis of ancient social prejudices and stereotypes reveals that some of those represent prototypes of racism--or proto-racism--which in turn inspired the early modern authors who developed the more familiar racist ideas."

Edited May 21, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

sus·pi·cion -- a feeling or thought that something is possible, likely, or true.

This is the sense that I was using the word suspicion, it had no overtly negative connotation in the context with which I was using it.

The point that the person made that I referenced earlier is that the church regularly uses its very few black members as tokens to try and show diversity and to over emphasize that diversity to promote an image of the church that looks better from a PR perspective.  

This is apparent and obvious to me, and if you don't see how the church has done this in its media campaigns over the years, especially with the way it has promoted Gladys Knight or Alex Boye. 

Honestly, you sound blind to what seems obvious here when it comes to the messages being portrayed in public.  The public images promoted are crafted in a very strategic and intentional direction.  Do you doubt this?  

Yes, I guess it would be better to not showcase any black members at all.  Because everyone suspects that there is a nefarious reason for it.  We should notify the Church Propaganda Office that their machinations aren't bearing the fruit they expect.  Hope_for-_things, after all, has seen through their slyness.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Stargazer

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps some scholars don't agree with you:

Better described as "proto-racism", not really the same thing as modern notions of racism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#History

 

Quote

Racism rests on two basic assumptions: that a correlation exists between physical characteristics and moral qualities; that mankind is divisible into superior and inferior stocks. Racism, thus defined, is a modern conception, for prior to the XVIth century there was virtually nothing in the life and thought of the West that can be described as racist. To prevent misunderstanding a clear distinction must be made between racism and ethnocentrism ... The Ancient Hebrews, in referring to all who were not Hebrews as Gentiles, were indulging in ethnocentrism, not in racism. ... So it was with the Hellenes who denominated all non-Hellenes—whether the wild Scythians or the Egyptians whom they acknowledged as their mentors in the arts of civilization—Barbarians, the term denoting that which was strange or foreign

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by Gray

[Stargazer]

Just now, Gray said:

Better described as "proto-racism", not really the same thing as modern notions of racism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#History

And of course we know everything there is to know about what the ancients thought.

So, what's the difference between proto-racism and racism?

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'm not entirely sure. I don't think you've made a clear statement on whether you interpret chapters 10 and 11 as coming before chapter 15.  My interpretation is that they do.  

My statement was actually a much broader summary of the gentile issue discussed in Acts.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And of course we know everything there is to know about what the ancients thought.

So, what's the difference between proto-racism and racism?

Proto-racism sounds closer to nationalism. For instance, Aristotle thought that people from non-Greek nations were more suited to slavery. That would have included people of similar ethnicity who didn't happen to be Greek. Compare that to more modern notions about racism that are more concerned with appearance (skin color, facial features, hair types), less with nationality.

 

 

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Better described as "proto-racism", not really the same thing as modern notions of racism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#History

 

 

And yet this doesn't square with your earlier attempt to focus on the 3rd definition of racism.  It sounds like you want it both ways.