1st Pres. and NAACP

[smac97]

.

Edited May 21, 2018 by smac97

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That is not the question I am addressing.  

I was addressing this by Cinepro:

To assume that it must be racism because "what other explanation could there be?", just doesn't do it for me.  Like I said, one could use the same argument for the early church.  The early church discriminated (like it or not) on ethnic and religious grounds (Samaritan, gentiles).  Before Acts 10, certain groups were unworthy to be baptized, after acts 10, they were.  It is a parallel, and there is not really a good explanation in either case.  When there is not a good explanation, people start throwing out 'isms as the only possible explanation. 

Sorry for the confusion.

The ban was racist because Brigham Young instituted the ban for racist reasons.  The other aspects (including questions raised by the ban ending in 1978) are interesting, but hardly needed to know whether or not it was "racism" not.  Brigham Young did not hide the reason, so we don't get to pretend like it's shrouded in mystery.

Edited May 21, 2018 by cinepro

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But am I inclined to demand an apology from the descendants of the perpetrators (there must be many by now) for those who were killed and harmed so long ago? Not in the least, even if I thought they were disposed to excuse or justify the actions of their ancestors, which I highly doubt.

Furthermore, to make the analogy a a bit more comparable, suppose there existed a society or association of descendants of western Missouri residents of the late 1830s. Would I be demanding an apology from that association for the Hawn's* Mill Massacre? No. You see, like Smac97, I'm not a believer in collective or institutional guilt. It is silly to say the least.

I suspect black members of the Church understand the distinction, and would nonetheless appreciate the gesture in the same way the Church appreciated it when, in 2004, the State Government of Illinois apologized for the events of the 1840s:

Quote

 WHEREAS, The biases and prejudices of a less enlightened age in the history of the State of Illinois caused untolled

hardship and trauma for the community of Latter-day Saints by the distrust, violence, and inhospitable actions of a dark time

in our past; therefore, be it
 

    RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-THIRD GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we

acknowledge the disparity of those past actions and suspicions, regretting the expulsion of the community of Latter-day Saints,

a people of faith and hard work; and be it further

 

    RESOLVED, That we asks the pardon and forgiveness of the community of Latter-day Saints for the misguided efforts of our

citizens, Chief Executive and the General Assembly in the expulsion of their Mormon ancestors from the gleaming city of

Nauvoo and the State of Illinois.

Illinois HR0627

 

So Illinois offers an apology to the Church over 150 years later.  How did the Church respond? 

Did they say "hey, it wasn't you guys, so don't worry about it"?

Did they say "actually, we don't believe in collective guilt or the ability for a group to apologize for the actions of its past members, so not only do we not accept this apology, we deny your ability to even offer such a gesture"?

No, here's what actually happened:

Quote

A spokesman for the LDS Church, Dale Bills, called the resolution "a thoughtful gesture" and said the church will have more to say about the apology next week. President Hinckley and [Utah Governor] Walker are scheduled to hold a press conference with the Illinois officials on April 7.

"I think it brings closure," the governor said Wednesday from Vancouver, British Columbia, where she is on a trade mission. "It was certainly a very generous gesture on their part to realize historically they had really driven a whole group of people out of their state.

"Now they're saying they're sorry it happened. I think it does bring a great deal of friendship and, at least for me, warm feelings about Illinois that they would care that much and pass this resolution."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/595052990/Illinois-offers-regrets-to-LDS.html

So while the carefully crafted explanations of why the Church shouldn't (and even can't) offer an apology for the Priesthood Ban may sound convincing to those who want to be at peace with the lack of apology, even the Church seems to recognize the ability and usefulness for institutional apologies even long after the original perpetrators are dead and buried.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I suspect black members of the Church understand the distinction, and would nonetheless appreciate the gesture in the same way the Church appreciated it when, in 2004, the State Government of Illinois apologized for the events of the 1840s:

 

So Illinois offers an apology to the Church over 150 years later.  How did the Church respond? 

Did they say "hey, it wasn't you guys, so don't worry about it"?

Did they say "actually, we don't believe in collective guilt or the ability for a group to apologize for the actions of its past members, so not only do we not accept this apology, we deny your ability to even offer such a gesture"?

No, here's what actually happened:

So while the carefully crafted explanations of why the Church shouldn't (and even can't) offer an apology for the Priesthood Ban may sound convincing to those who want to be at peace with the lack of apology, even the Church seems to recognize the ability and usefulness for institutional apologies even long after the original perpetrators are dead and buried.

But the gesture from the Illinois delegation was not an apology. It was an expression of regret. The Illinois general assembly made certain that the resolution was carefully worded to thus reflect that fact.

Quote

Rep. Jack Franks said Thursday he intended to remove the phrase seeking pardon and forgiveness before the measure passed. His new version instead ends with the state "regretting the expulsion of the community of Latter-day Saints, a people of faith and hard work."

 

And neither the Church nor the governor of Utah made a fuss over that fact. The fact that certain journalists were imprecise in their wording does not change the character of the resolution passed by the Illinois legislative body.

By continually citing these outdated news stories, you are undercutting your own position.

By the way, my comparison had more to do with Mountain Meadows than it did with the pre-1978 priesthood ban. I'm not convinced that a call for an apology is universal among the members of the Church of African descent. See Hamba Tuhan's posts previously on this thread.

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe you are wrong that it didn't come from the church. There is the Oath of Vengence and I could quote and link to many sites that prove this was what occurred. Does it not instruct to the nth degree?  Diary of Heber C. Kimball (21 December 1845),^{[full citation needed]} saying that in the temple he had "covenanted, and will never rest … until those men who killed Joseph and Hyrum have been wiped out of the earth".

http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/6328718

If it was a directive from the Church to carry out the massacre, why did Brigham Young direct, in an express dispatch that arrived too late,  that the Iron County Church members leave the emigrants alone?

Citing the book Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Turley, Walker and Leonard, here is the conclusion on the FairMormon website:

Quote

While the Utah War was nearly a bloodless conflict, tragedy struck some caught in the crossfire. A recent work has examined the way conspiring, local Mormon leaders manipulated others to become complicit in the Mountain Meadows Massacre in part by exploiting their desires for vengeance.^[9] However, in their approach to explain how basically good people could commit such an atrocity, the authors found elements in common with vigilantism and mass killings perpetrated everywhere. They agree that these southern Utah Mormons were acting against the principles of their religion.^[10] Their oaths of taught them to channel their righteous indignation into petitioning God for justice while they worked constructively to build and defend Zion.

Edited to add: Read the entire FairMormon entry for your own enlightenment. It would seem the "oath of vengeance" was nothing more than a petition to God to visit vengeance upon those who had murdered the prophets, not a vow to take it upon oneself to perform the vengeance.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But the gesture from the Illinois delegation was not an apology. It was an expression of regret. The Illinois general assembly made certain that the resolution was carefully worded to thus reflect that fact.

If the Church only wants to ask for the "pardon and forgiveness" of those who were wronged (the wording from Illinois), all the while insisting it isn't an actual "apology" (even with the Deseret News and Church spokespeople referring to it as an "apology"), I think everyone would be okay with that.

 

Update: it looks like shortly after the resolution was introduced, they took out the part where they asked for forgiveness (thus only expressing "regret"), maybe after some blowback from Illinoisians who got "offended"?:

 

Quote

Franks said the language in his original resolution, which was approved last week by voice vote, was "a little bit over the top. ... I think it's not my position to ask pardon and forgiveness for the entire state. I don't want to offend anyone."

Illinois House Softens State Apology For Treatment of Mormons

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by cinepro

[california boy]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I suspect black members of the Church understand the distinction, and would nonetheless appreciate the gesture in the same way the Church appreciated it when, in 2004, the State Government of Illinois apologized for the events of the 1840s:

 

So Illinois offers an apology to the Church over 150 years later.  How did the Church respond? 

Did they say "hey, it wasn't you guys, so don't worry about it"?

Did they say "actually, we don't believe in collective guilt or the ability for a group to apologize for the actions of its past members, so not only do we not accept this apology, we deny your ability to even offer such a gesture"?

No, here's what actually happened:

So while the carefully crafted explanations of why the Church shouldn't (and even can't) offer an apology for the Priesthood Ban may sound convincing to those who want to be at peace with the lack of apology, even the Church seems to recognize the ability and usefulness for institutional apologies even long after the original perpetrators are dead and buried.

Are there church members that find this gesture to heal for past wrongs coming from the government, but withheld by the church in its past hurtful actions disturbing? Which group comes out more Christlike in its showing of compassion for those who have been hurt from wrongful policies?  

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, MorningStar said:

I got an error when I posted the video, but Sistas in Zion posted a heartbreaking response on Facebook to the fake message that went out.  

I am way late to the thread and am headed home from my honeymoon. But I saw the fake version with no context but thinking it was real yesterday night (I had a bit of an upset stomach from waaaayyyyy to much tropical food) earlier in the thread and then soon after. I was surprised by the relief I felt as I read it.....and I've never wanted an apology. In retrospect, it wasn't the apology really. It was the bullet point and the capacity to really out-root the last racist vestiges of opinion that do still effect me and other people of color. Though the essay certainly helps in the evolution of thought from those who've read it....there's still pockets of odd thoughts or simply racist beliefs that infect LDS folks. Several racist beliefs are bolstered in LDS history or LDS beliefs. And not just with Black folks, but other POC's.....I had a friend who is native american get cussed and chewed out with several racial epithets by a white woman in provo and before that had her daughter asking racially uncomfortable questions....several of which had LDS themed language in it. And yes that is extreme.....but it is based on several things that are still found more pervasively than I'd hope in LDS circles. It was the hope that all forms of racism may be looked at and re-thought in all LDS folks that was the relief. And to have solid points to break against things, like disapproval of interracial relatiionships, that can still exist. I noticed before I went to bed, assumptions that this would be over if minorities or others stopped bring it up the ban. I'm less concerned of the past but the present attitudes of members that many don't realize are painful. It was a moment of relief of picturing less need for racial talks with my children and maybe more sensitivity than some of the racial slights, insensitivity, and gut punches I've had growing up. And continue to have. It wouldn't fix everything, I would still have to teach my children to have to deal with greater society....but at least they'd have a safer place in the community that means the most to me. 

And then I learned it was a freaking prank from some stupid white dude making some stupid point at the expense of PoC, particularly the black community. Re-emphasizing the cultural invisibility of those of color in the LDS community yet again. Something that none of us need reminding of. It went from excitement to let me give you a reminder of the crappy shades of being a I. That was definitely cruel. I was fine, but it still sucked. For those who would hope and invest even more in that desire for drastic institutional changes and have likely been even more effected by the heritage of our racist past, I can easily imagine the pain. 

 

Back to work cleaning our bungalow. 

With luv,

BD

[bluebell]

22 hours ago, MorningStar said:

I got an error when I posted the video, but Sistas in Zion posted a heartbreaking response on Facebook to the fake message that went out.  

I saw it earlier.  I wonder if the guy (I heard he was ex-mormon, does anyone know if that's been confirmed?) who created the fake apology expected to get so much hate from the black ads community?

[Kenngo1969]

White dude?

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmm."

[cinepro]

15 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I am way late to the thread and am headed home from my honeymoon.

 

Not sure if this is the first time you're mentioning this, but congratulations.

And just so I'm sure, you're not Megan Markhle, right?

[Kenngo1969]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Not sure if this is the first time you're mentioning this, but congratulations.

And just so I'm sure, you're not Megan Markhle, right?

No, but her husband is a prince ... Well, he's her Prince, and that's close enough.    (Seriously, congratulations, Blue Dreams.)

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, cinepro said:

If the Church only wants to ask for the "pardon and forgiveness" of those who were wronged (the wording from Illinois), all the while insisting it isn't an actual "apology" (even with the Deseret News and Church spokespeople referring to it as an "apology"), I think everyone would be okay with that.

 

Update: it looks like shortly after the resolution was introduced, they took out the part where they asked for forgiveness (thus only expressing "regret"), maybe after some blowback from Illinoisians who got "offended"?:

 

 

 

 

This is not an update. It's an extremely late admission on your part of what I've tried to explain to you many times: that the Illinois General Assembly and the delegation that came to Salt Lake City understood that you cannot "apologize" (meaning accept culpability) for something for which you personally or as an entity are not at fault.

The ultimate action of the Illinois General Assembly and the delegation that came to Salt Lake City illustrates the very thing I've been saying all along, yet you have repeatedly brought it up as though it supported your position.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

I've been thinking about this over the last several days. The incident with the fake website and fake transcript and falsified letters on letterhead, links, articles, etc. has illustrated the difficulty and pitfalls in discerning inspiration and the Holy Ghost from our own wants and inclinations. I think what he did was a jerk move, and the pain and anger he caused people makes me angry. Par for the course with activist ex-members. But I also found it interesting that several members (some on this board, some in our wards, some who have commented online) were moved to tears and felt that they felt the Spirit as they read it and before they knew it was a fake. And it was a fake. Thus, what they felt to be inspiration and confirmation through the Holy Ghost was really their hopes and wants, given expression through the hoax. This reminds me of something President George Q. Cannon said: 

Quote

There is one thing that we have all got to be very careful about, and that is this: I have seen Elders in my experience that when they got their own spirit moved very much they imagined that it was the Spirit of God, and it was difficult in some instances to tell the difference between the suggestions of their own spirit and the voice of the spirit of God. This is a gift of itself, to be able to distinguish that which suggests itself to our own hearts and that which comes from God. And we are misled sometimes by our own feeling, because of our inability to distinguish between the voice of the Spirit of God and the suggestions of our own spirit

July 25, 1880. Journal of Discourses 22:104 

It's interesting in light of the confirmation and inspiration we all seek for various things that are important to us. 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by rongo

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've been thinking about this over the last several days. The incident with the fake website and fake transcript and falsified letters on letterhead, links, articles, etc. has illustrated the difficulty and pitfalls in discerning inspiration and the Holy Ghost from our own wants and inclinations. I think what he did was a jerk move, and the pain and anger he caused people makes me angry. Par for the course with activist ex-members. But I also found it interesting that several members (some on this board, some in our wards, some who have commented online) were moved to tears and felt that they felt the Spirit as they read it and before they knew it was a fake. And it was a fake. Thus, what they felt to be inspiration and confirmation through the Holy Ghost was really their hopes and wants, given expression through the hoax. This reminds me of something President George Q. Cannon said: 

 

Just to clarify since I was one of the posters on this board that stated i was moved to tears.  I did not assume that that was the spirit.  Lots of things can make me cry and I haven't ever believed that tears and the spirit were the same thing. 

Were there members who specifically claimed that they felt the spirit while reading the fake apology, or are you assuming that's what they believed they felt (sincere question, I'm just trying to figure out if you are speaking in generalities or are talking about actual incidents)?  

[Marginal Gains]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've been thinking about this over the last several days. The incident with the fake website and fake transcript and falsified letters on letterhead, links, articles, etc. has illustrated the difficulty and pitfalls in discerning inspiration and the Holy Ghost from our own wants and inclinations. I think what he did was a jerk move, and the pain and anger he caused people makes me angry. Par for the course with activist ex-members. But I also found it interesting that several members (some on this board, some in our wards, some who have commented online) were moved to tears and felt that they felt the Spirit as they read it and before they knew it was a fake. And it was a fake. Thus, what they felt to be inspiration and confirmation through the Holy Ghost was really their hopes and wants, given expression through the hoax. This reminds me of something President George Q. Cannon said: 

 

A bit like Paul H Dunn?

Was the Priesthood Ban, given it caused significantly more hurt and anger over the years than the hoax apology, also a jerk move? If not, why not?

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've been thinking about this over the last several days. The incident with the fake website and fake transcript has illustrated the difficulty and pitfalls in discerning inspiration and the Holy Ghost from our own wants and inclinations. I think what he did was a jerk move, and the pain and anger he caused people makes me angry. Par for the course with activist ex-members. But I also found it interesting that several members (some on this board, some in our wards, some who have commented online) were moved to tears and felt that they felt the Spirit as they read it and before they knew it was a fake. And it was a fake. Thus, what they felt to be inspiration and confirmation through the Holy Ghost was really their hopes and wants, given expression through the hoax. This reminds me of something President George Q. Cannon said: 

 

 

This is a good insight.

And perhaps it has application to the principle of councils in Church administration. By that I mean that members of councils on any level of Church administration, be it local or general, need to work toward true unity through shared inspiration/revelation, not merely a go-along-to-get-along attitude when one's own initial views or positions don't end up holding sway.

This was illustrated in 1978 when longtime members of the Quorum of the Twelve who previously had not favored lifting the priesthood ban were earnestly in favor of doing so when each and every member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve received and recognized pure revelation.

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Just to clarify since I was one of the posters on this board that stated i was moved to tears.  I did not assume that that was the spirit.  Lots of things can make me cry and I haven't ever believed that tears and the spirit were the same thing. 

 

I appreciate your candor.

Quote

Were there members who specifically claimed that they felt the spirit while reading the fake apology, or are you assuming that's what they believed they felt (sincere question, I'm just trying to figure out if you are speaking in generalities or are talking about actual incidents)?  

That's a fair question.

 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Just to clarify since I was one of the posters on this board that stated i was moved to tears.  I did not assume that that was the spirit.  Lots of things can make me cry and I haven't ever believed that tears and the spirit were the same thing. 

Were there members who specifically claimed that they felt the spirit while reading the fake apology, or are you assuming that's what they believed they felt (sincere question, I'm just trying to figure out if you are speaking in generalities or are talking about actual incidents)?  

I'm assuming. I haven't heard anyone specifically say that they felt like the Spirit was testifying to them. Given that it was a hoax, I doubt anyone would say that after the fact  , and it is also complicated sorting out the difference between between the Spirit and our own thoughts even under the best of circumstances. 

I have found myself in the shoes described by President Cannon before, and may again. We are all in jeopardy of that. 

The closest thing that's readily at hand is the phenomenon of people being what they regarded as spiritually moved by some of Elder Dunn's stories that ended up not being true (or were heavily embellished). It's a complicated thing and not something that people want to be put through. 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

A bit like Paul H Dunn?

Quite a bit.

Was the Priesthood Ban, given it caused significantly more hurt and anger over the years than the hoax apology, also a jerk move? If not, why not?

I would answer "no," because I think it was God's will (inception, duration, and ending). Aside from that, though, there is one big difference between the hoax and the priesthood ban and explanations for it: the intent and knowledge of the "perpetrator." Streeter knew what he was doing, and put a lot of time and effort into counterfeiting First Presidency letters, website material, etc. Those who taught the priesthood ban believed themselves that what they were teaching was true; they were not palming off an intentional fraud. 

That's a really big difference, isn't it? One with a bearing on "jerk move" rankings? 

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've been thinking about this over the last several days. The incident with the fake website and fake transcript and falsified letters on letterhead, links, articles, etc. has illustrated the difficulty and pitfalls in discerning inspiration and the Holy Ghost from our own wants and inclinations. I think what he did was a jerk move, and the pain and anger he caused people makes me angry. Par for the course with activist ex-members. But I also found it interesting that several members (some on this board, some in our wards, some who have commented online) were moved to tears and felt that they felt the Spirit as they read it and before they knew it was a fake. And it was a fake. Thus, what they felt to be inspiration and confirmation through the Holy Ghost was really their hopes and wants, given expression through the hoax. This reminds me of something President George Q. Cannon said: 

The reason they felt the spirit and were moved to tears is because the apology statement had the sentiment of a true apology for all the racism and harm that has been perpetuated by the church.   The spirit of the apology is written in the spirit of gospel principles. 

Unfortunately since it wasn't a real apology from the institution, and was rather a fraudulent apology by a third party, the end result of this stunt was to cause significant additional trauma.  

The spirit is present when things that resonate with our current beliefs are expressed.  People that believe in healing and reconciliation and equality and forgiveness are going to feel the spirit when they read a message like that.  

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Quite a bit.

 

 

I would answer "no," because I think it was God's will (inception, duration, and ending). Aside from that, though, there is one big difference between the hoax and the priesthood ban and explanations for it: the intent and knowledge of the "perpetrator." Streeter knew what he was doing, and put a lot of time and effort into counterfeiting First Presidency letters, website material, etc. Those who taught the priesthood ban believed themselves that what they were teaching was true; they were not palming off an intentional fraud. 

That's a really big difference, isn't it? One with a bearing on "jerk move" rankings? 

Interesting so its far more about the intent of the purveyor than it is about the amount of hurt.  I'm far more concerned about how many are hurt.  It's of course, obvious, I hope, that Streeter sees the need for an apology just as true as the members who support the ban see the ban as true.  

in that sense there's really no difference.  The Church needs to apologize is a true statement and teaching.  

[Glenn101]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

in that sense there's really no difference.  The Church needs to apologize is a true statement and teaching.

Is that a revelation you have received from God for the LDS church?

Glenn

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Interesting so its far more about the intent of the purveyor than it is about the amount of hurt. 

When talking about a hoax versus something that is taught in all sincerity? Of course it is!

I'm far more concerned about how many are hurt.

Of course you are. 

It doesn't sound like you are concerned at all that it was an elaborate hoax. End justifies the means, for the greater good, it's what they should've said, etc. and all that. 

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Interesting so its far more about the intent of the purveyor than it is about the amount of hurt.  I'm far more concerned about how many are hurt.  It's of course, obvious, I hope, that Streeter sees the need for an apology just as true as the members who support the ban see the ban as true.  

in that sense there's really no difference.  The Church needs to apologize is a true statement and teaching.  

I agree.  It seems that this whole situation shows a great deal of misunderstanding.  From my perspective, the church obviously needs to do more work on both past racism and on present racism in the church.  They need to get serious about this topic. 

Streeter also needs to understand why his specific actions were hurtful and find out what is morally problematic about the specific stunt that he pulled.   I also think he needs to apologize, and I think Mormons of all kinds (active, nuanced, former) need to become more informed on racism and do a better job being sensitive to others everywhere.