Pres. Nelson to Speak at NAACP Convention

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' top leader has been invited to speak at the NAACP convention in Detroit, marking the latest sign of a burgeoning partnership between the two organizations.

The Utah-based faith said in a news release Wednesday that president Russell M. Nelson will speak Sunday. A lower-level church leader spoke at the NAACP convention last year.

The two organizations had their official meeting between national leaders in May 2018, calling afterward for greater racial harmony.

Very cool!  

He will be speaking there on Sunday.  More here:

Quote

President Nelson will speak during the convention's public mass meeting Sunday evening at the Cobo Center, where he will join the keynote speaker, Leon Russell, the influential chairman of the NAACP's national board of directors, the church announced Wednesday.

"I'm honored to have The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stand in unity with the NAACP to advance equality and justice for all," NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson said in a statement. "We must recognize and accept the importance of creating amity with those that are raising the consciousness of this nation — the church is committed to doing just that."

...

"Our unified vision is not only equality of education and income, but, perhaps more importantly, equality of influence," Elder Jack N. Gerard told the Deseret News immediately after he made the announcement. A General Authority Seventy of the church, Elder Gerard is executive director of the Public Affairs.

...

NAACP leaders sought to calm wary conventioneers concerned about the church's past ban on blacks holding the faith's priesthood, which ended in 1978.

"We're saying, notwithstanding anything that's happened in the past with the LDS Church, this is the relationship we're going to have. That's a major statement for us," Wil Colom, special counsel to Johnson, told the Deseret News last year.

That message was conveyed mostly strongly by the vice chair of the NAACP's national board of directors, Karen Boykin-Towns.

"I was definitely one of those folks wondering, why are we going to Utah?" she told 8,000 people in the convention hall after Elder Gerard's announcement of the joint initiative. "But in the days that followed ... I learned we were going to Utah because change cannot happen in a vacuum. We were going to Utah because inclusivity is important in this next-level fight. And I learned there was common ground to be had in partnering with the Mormons around social justice issues."

The collaboration holds promise for people in both the NAACP and the church, Boykin-Towns added.

"For the approximately 500,000 black Mormons in their church, our visit and our meeting was surprising, impactful and groundbreaking," she said. "Despite our reservations, we left that meeting with a better understanding of each other's history and desire to acknowledge the past and to move forward for the common good."

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Very cool!  

He will be speaking there on Sunday.  More here:

Quote

"I was definitely one of those folks wondering, why are we going to Utah?" she told 8,000 people in the convention hall after Elder Gerard's announcement of the joint initiative. "But in the days that followed ... I learned we were going to Utah because change cannot happen in a vacuum. We were going to Utah because inclusivity is important in this next-level fight. And I learned there was common ground to be had in partnering with the Mormons around social justice issues."

The collaboration holds promise for people in both the NAACP and the church, Boykin-Towns added.

"For the approximately 500,000 black Mormons in their church, our visit and our meeting was surprising, impactful and groundbreaking," she said. "Despite our reservations, we left that meeting with a better understanding of each other's history and desire to acknowledge the past and to move forward for the common good."

........................................

Having marched with the NAACP and SCLC back in 1964, I am very proud of this rapprochement.  Its been a long time coming.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Having marched with the NAACP and SCLC back in 1964, I am very proud of this rapprochement.  Its been a long time coming.

That's cool, Robert.  

[HappyJackWagon]

A Special NAACP Conference Featuring Pres. Nelson? Cool.

This is a smart, strategic relationship for the church. Well done.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A Special NAACP Conference Featuring Pres. Nelson? Cool.

This is a smart, strategic relationship for the church. Well done.

I agree.

I will be curious to see if critics can find it within themselves to grant that the Church is acting in good faith in partnering with the NAACP.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

I definitely agree that the Church is acting in good faith.

Prayers for President Nelson that his remarks will be well received.  Given the Church's history (and even some of what is in the Book of Mormon), this will be a challenging group to address.

I also honor the NAACP for inviting him.  Again, given the history, this is a significant out reach by them.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I agree.

I will be curious to see if critics can find it within themselves to grant that the Church is acting in good faith in partnering with the NAACP.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm sure you might peg me as a critic, and I'm happy to report I almost always think the church is acting in good faith.  This included.  The issue though is, like the rest of us humans, the church and it's reasons for anything get pretty complicated.  I'd suggest it is quite possible that any one of us could be both acting in good faith and perhaps not so good faith on any given action we do.  I think it's possible, for instance, to be acting in both good and and perhaps not so good faith when say giving money to the poor.  Good, in that I might really want to help someone.  Bad in that I might also like the feeling of people noticing my efforts, and get some motivation for that.  

But with that said, I'm happy enough to leave it as the Church is acting on good faith.  If further light and knowledge suggests that its more complicated than that, I might re-evaluate.  I reserve that right.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I agree.

I will be curious to see if critics can find it within themselves to grant that the Church is acting in good faith in partnering with the NAACP.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the "call for racial and ethnic harmony and an end to prejudice ("equality of influence")" takes the relationship beyond civil rights and social issues and into the moral realm: "[The theme] also highlights [NAACP's] continued efforts to fight against the growing climate of racism and hate that threatens the moral fabric of our society in ways we haven't seen in generations". This justifies the Church's prioritization of this relationship, consistent with her mission, and I think helps emphasize that her past positions on these and other political issues. and internal policy, in terms of morality.

[blueglass]

What were Russell Nelson's views <1978 on racial equality, brown v board of education, loving v va, and the priesthood/temple ban? 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, blueglass said:

What were Russell Nelson's views <1978 on racial equality, brown v board of education, loving v va, and the priesthood/temple ban? 

Out of curiosity, why do you think that is relevant?  Or perhaps you are also just curious?

I think what is important is how people view things in the here and now.  And if anyone has changed their views, that can in many cases be a very good thing and should in those cases be applauded.

I am not sure how you could find out given he was Sunday School General President in 1971 and apparently a regional rep after that.  Probably had few documented opportunities to speak until an apostle ('84) and less likely to have spoken on that subject prior to 78.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Calm

[SettingDogStar]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Out of curiosity, why do you think that is relevant?  Or perhaps you are also just curious?

I think what is important is how people view things in the here and now.  And if anyone has changed their views, that can in many cases be a very good thing and should in those cases be applauded.

I am not sure how you could find out given he was Sunday School General President in 1971 and apparently a regional rep after that.  Probably had few documented opportunities to speak until an apostle ('84) and less likely to have spoken on that subject prior to 78.

I would just want to know his thoughts in general I would think. I agree people can change or see that they were in error, so I don’t really care what his views were. However it’s interesting to see what or how people’s views changed or if they ever did agree with the ban.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

However it’s interesting to see what or how people’s views changed...

I agree, I like to see how people think and encountering changes gives insight into what people see as important or persuasive.

[SettingDogStar]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree, I like to see how people think and encountering changes gives insight into what people see as important or persuasive.

Talking to some of my family who were adults during the 1978 priesthood lift many of them just thought it was cool but didn't think much else about it. They just thought that essentially "the prophet lifted it so that's all we need to hear." This approach is decent in some cases simply because sometimes there isn't a good answer, but I was surprised they didn't do a total 360 spin around in their chairs when they heard it. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

30 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

However it’s interesting to see ... if they ever did agree with the ban.

I think those who 'disagreed with the ban' would be very few and far between, even now. As I've mentioned on this forum before, I have a current housemate from West Africa, and I had a different one in the past. Both of them are adult converts to the Church, and both of them are fine with past priesthood restrictions, almost to the point of being defensive.

That doesn't mean, of course, that people had to enjoy it in practice. In fact, I strongly suspect that not enjoying the restrictions -- including retroactively -- was and still is a part of our education as a people. (The Lord does seem to like inspiring laws that act as 'schoolmasters' when His children need it.) I currently have two housemates, and all three of us are separate 'races'. Where I live, this is not normal at all. But it is in the Church. Last weekend I travelled with two mates to a third mate's temple wedding. All four of us are different 'races' to one another, and two of us took an extra three days after the wedding to just enjoy being tourists. Again, this is not normal, and we saw no other 'mixed-race' men around us. But it is completely normal in the Church, and in fact we talked about how grateful we are for the Church because it's what actually brings all of us together and gives us a sense of common brotherhood.

When I go to church on Sunday, I walk into a melting pot of languages and 'colours' that simply doesn't exist anywhere else that I'm aware of. I love it. Before starting my PhD program, I worked on an island in the Caribbean that was heavily segregated by race, right down to what churches people attended, but on Sundays, I walked into a simple branch chapel that was black and brown and white all mixed up together. It was such a relief. Personally, I've never seen another group of people so thoroughly embrace and revel in the concept that 'all are alike unto God' and that we are one big family. I know we can all probably think of individual exceptions, but contemporary Church culture is a miracle in my mind, especially when one considers the restrictions we were chafing under as a people just a few decades ago.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Talking to some of my family who were adults during the 1978 priesthood lift many of them just thought it was cool but didn't think much else about it. They just thought that essentially "the prophet lifted it so that's all we need to hear." This approach is decent in some cases simply because sometimes there isn't a good answer, but I was surprised they didn't do a total 360 spin around in their chairs when they heard it. 

I was 20, I think the lack of spinning might have been due to just being relieved it was gone.  I was surprised because the view of most I knew was it would happen in the Millennium, but I don't remember anyone I knew thinking it would never happen.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Calm

[SettingDogStar]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was 20, I think the lack of spinning might have been due to just being relieved it was gone.  I was surprised because the view of most I knew was it would happen in the Millennium, but I don't remember anyone I knew thinking it would never happen.

That's probably because that's what we were told! (not me obviously, i wasn't born). All the speeches/talks that pushed theories (some agreeing with each other, some way off the back wall) both officially in conference and in various other meetings never made mention of a potential future before the millennium where it would happen. I believe one big mention was Brigham Young saying that they would receive the priesthood after all of Abel's seed/children got their blessings first.

It's interesting how all this worked out though. I see the lifting of the band as a good thing of course but I haven't made up my mind about whether it was revelation or more accidental/product of it's time yet.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Again, this is not normal, and we saw no other 'mixed-race' men around us.

In Calgary, we lived in an area that had a number of immigrants...mostly Chinese and Koreans, but also knew individuals from India, Pakistan, several countries in the Middle East, South America, and us of course, from the US.

In elementary school, the kids all mixed pretty seamlessly in terms of races.  Did split over who were being taught French immersion (French fries) and English (which most immigrants took, so my daughter's class was 1/3 immigrant; English speaking kids were English muffins).  Some fun teasing, but some nasty as the English kids were more an afterthought than the main focus of a French immersion school, so hard feelings and privilege created conflict at times.

When walking the halls of the junior high, still a lot of mixing as friendships continued, but in high school, races had split off again with a small minority still mixing it up.  And there was tension between groups.  Some kids were also by then often parroting racist remarks  of their parents, whether European or Asian heritage (not enough blacks or Spanish speaking in the school to group up).  It was depressing to me to see so many kids 'revert' to typical cultural standards as they grew up.  Made it clearer why racism persists.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I believe one big mention was Brigham Young saying that they would receive the priesthood after all of Abel's seed/children got their blessings first.

This is the one that was always cited in my memory.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

What were Russell Nelson's views <1978 on racial equality, brown v board of education, loving v va, and the priesthood/temple ban? 

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

.................................

I am not sure how you could find out given he was Sunday School General President in 1971 and apparently a regional rep after that.  Probably had few documented opportunities to speak until an apostle ('84) and less likely to have spoken on that subject prior to 78.

Hes' been around a long time, and surely people he has met have heard him give his views on some of these questions.  Fellow LDS physician Lester Bush held some very strong and public opinions.  Did Dr Nelson at least express some views on race privately?  When Nelson was teaching cardiac surgery at Harvard Medical School, he probably knew Dr Lester Bush personally.  I have a brother in law who was a physician on the East Coast then and who knew Lester Bush personally.  Why would we think that he had no opinions at all?  Pres Nelson's wife speaks as though her husband has just been waiting his chance to act boldly.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why would we think that he had no opinions at all? 

I am just saying it would be hard for us on this message board to find out his previous opinions because of limited access to documents, not in anyway suggesting he didn’t have them. I assume someone may have access to journals or memories, but google isn’t likely to yield much for us. 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

...  Pres Nelson's wife speaks as though her husband has just been waiting his chance to act boldly.

Perhaps, but "there will be no boldness before its time."  See Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps, but "there will be no boldness before its time."  See Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I am just saying it would be hard for us on this message board to find out his previous opinions because of limited access to documents, not in anyway suggesting he didn’t have them. I assume someone may have access to journals or memories, but google isn’t likely to yield much for us. 

He may indeed have expressed his own opinions on these matters to associates in the 60s and 70s.  He has been a demonstrably compassionate man all along.  These were big issues then on the East Coast among the Saints.  If so, we will eventually hear about it.

[smac97]

17 hours ago, blueglass said:

What were Russell Nelson's views <1978 on racial equality, brown v board of education, loving v va, and the priesthood/temple ban? 

He was a practicing surgeon at the time.  From Wikipedia: 

Quote

Nelson was honored nationally by being elected president of the Society for Vascular Surgery for the year 1975.^[27] He was also a director of the American Board of Thoracic Surgery.^[26] Nelson traveled extensively as a medical doctor and addressed conferences in many parts of Latin America and Africa, as well as in India and China.^[28]

He's been a prominent leader in the Church for decades.  If he had a history of racism, I think we would have known about it by now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

Talking to some of my family who were adults during the 1978 priesthood lift many of them just thought it was cool but didn't think much else about it. They just thought that essentially "the prophet lifted it so that's all we need to hear." This approach is decent in some cases simply because sometimes there isn't a good answer, but I was surprised they didn't do a total 360 spin around in their chairs when they heard it. 

In 1978 I was two years off my mission and enrolled at BYU as a journalism student. The general reaction among the membership of the Church was not nearly as blasé as you seem to think it was. To us, it was an event of epic proportions like the moon landing of 1969 or the JFK assassination of 1963. We remember precisely where we were and what we were doing when we heard the news. Moreover, there was a general euphoria that lasted for days and weeks afterward. 

If you’ve ever read Dallin H. Oaks’s account of his reaction when he heard the news, you can a flavor of how the vast majority of the membership felt. He was BYU president then. As I mentioned, I was a student on campus then, and I’m telling you his sentiment was typical.