Jump to content

Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That's what I earlier referred to as a pipe dream mentality.  the idea that people should settle for nothing less than perfection, that small incremental steps are not enough and that we should fix everything as it should be fixed all in one shot.  Think some more about how Lincoln responded to Thaddeus Stevens who wanted to completely abolish slavery, upholding the idea that people with black skin should be treated as equal to people with white skin.  Our representatives in Congress just would not have voted for such a large move at that time.  The people weren't ready for it. It's perfectly fine to feel as Thaddeus Stevens felt if that's how you feel but not enough people were willing to go along with that in 1850 or 1900 or even 1963.  That was still just a dream to people like Martin Luther King Jr.

I wouldn’t be comfortable making these subjective judgments which impact the real lives of people and significant individual suffering with the excuse that I somehow think my perspective of timing is the optimal one.  Honestly it scares me that anyone might feel so confident that they could justify horrendous practices under the guise of waiting for the right timing.  
This strikes me as evil, and I’m retracting my utilitarian example from earlier, even though I placed a caveat on the whole thing saying that you’d have to be able to know for a surety that your timing was optimal.  The more I think about it, it’s impossible for flawed humans to ever know the optimal timing for something like this, and even discussing the example feels worse the more we exchange words on this.  No, I’m sticking with my comment that you just do the right thing, never justify immoral behavior because you think timing isn’t right.  That’s just evil.  

28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There is enough variety and diversity in things that are good without having to go to Hell to look for some more variety and diversity.  Heaven includes all the places where all good things are even if it is divided into 3 different categories of glory. Hell is for bad things and bad people, IMO.

I don't agree.  I like to think that we're just scratching the surface of what we know about this world, let alone the entire universe.  The variety that exists is incomprehensible to our small and finite minds.  

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I wouldn’t be comfortable making these subjective judgments which impact the real lives of people and significant individual suffering with the excuse that I somehow think my perspective of timing is the optimal one.  Honestly it scares me that anyone might feel so confident that they could justify horrendous practices under the guise of waiting for the right timing.  
This strikes me as evil, and I’m retracting my utilitarian example from earlier, even though I placed a caveat on the whole thing saying that you’d have to be able to know for a surety that your timing was optimal.  The more I think about it, it’s impossible for flawed humans to ever know the optimal timing for something like this, and even discussing the example feels worse the more we exchange words on this.  No, I’m sticking with my comment that you just do the right thing, never justify immoral behavior because you think timing isn’t right. That’s just evil.  

What we're taking about here is our leaders giving priesthood blessings to some people before they made them available to everybody else, and there is nothing evil about that.  Not fair, maybe, but that wasn't something they needed to be fair about at that time.  The blessings would be given to everybody else later, eventually, and there was no good reason to wait until those blessings could be given to everybody before giving them to only some other people.  You don't seem to be considering this issue in the proper perspective.

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 I don't agree.  I like to think that we're just scratching the surface of what we know about this world, let alone the entire universe.  The variety that exists is incomprehensible to our small and finite minds.  

Good stuff is associated with good places, though.  I don't think anything good is associated with Hell.  If there were a lot of good stuff in Hell  then we would probably think of Hell as being an extension of Heaven, with good things in Hell just as there is good in Heaven.

Off the top of your head, can you name anything that you think would be good about Hell?   Can you see yourself enjoying yourself in Hell?   I mean, do you really want to go there and try to find something that is good there?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, longview said:

All people of different cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, station, etc have varying kinds (combinations) of prejudices to some degree.  It is human nature, not necessarily racism.  It was surprising for me to read in Clarence Thomas' book (My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir. Harper. ISBN 978-0-06-056555-8) that he was subjected to razzing from fellow black students in college about his ebony skin tone while others were not so dark.

Yes. That’s a product of colorism which is a product of a long history of preferring white and white-adjacent people to darker people in the country. Also has a long and complex history in the US and within the african-american community (as well as several other countries). Including a mix of social privileges and social resentments that at times have artificially divided people of african descent. As a half-white person who is considered light-skinned in black circles, i’m aware that being such often comes with forms of privilege. Said privilege is not a good or bad thing. It just is. It’s what i do with the undeserved privileges i have that matters. 
 

with luv, 

Bd

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Yes. That’s a product of colorism which is a product of a long history of preferring white and white-adjacent people to darker people in the country. Also has a long and complex history in the US and within the african-american community (as well as several other countries). Including a mix of social privileges and social resentments that at times have artificially divided people of african descent. As a half-white person who is considered light-skinned in black circles, i’m aware that being such often comes with forms of privilege. Said privilege is not a good or bad thing. It just is. It’s what i do with the undeserved privileges i have that matters. 
 

with luv, 

Bd

I wish Smac and Scott would agree since you should know, and neither of them could. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Ahab said:
29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I wouldn’t be comfortable making these subjective judgments which impact the real lives of people and significant individual suffering with the excuse that I somehow think my perspective of timing is the optimal one.  Honestly it scares me that anyone might feel so confident that they could justify horrendous practices under the guise of waiting for the right timing.  
This strikes me as evil, and I’m retracting my utilitarian example from earlier, even though I placed a caveat on the whole thing saying that you’d have to be able to know for a surety that your timing was optimal.  The more I think about it, it’s impossible for flawed humans to ever know the optimal timing for something like this, and even discussing the example feels worse the more we exchange words on this.  No, I’m sticking with my comment that you just do the right thing, never justify immoral behavior because you think timing isn’t right. That’s just evil.  

What we're taking about here is our leaders giving priesthood blessings to some people before they made them available to everybody else, and there is nothing evil about that.  Not fair, maybe, but that wasn't something they needed to be fair about at that time.  The blessings would be given to everybody else later, eventually, and there was no good reason to wait until those blessings could be given to everybody before giving them to only some other people.  You don't seem to be considering this issue in the proper perspective.

We’re on completely different pages.  Let me be clear.  The racist priesthood ban was evil and did immense harm, not only to those who were banned but to the entire church and to the broader culture.  All forms of racism are evil and I’m honestly shocked at the way you’re defending it along these lines of thinking.  I’m grateful to some extent to get a window into someone's thinking that differs so starkly with mine, as I’m sure that I have blind spots in my own thinking on various issues.  

The church needs to apologize for all the damage they’ve done, and they need to apologize explicitly and repeatedly.  They then need to atone for their wrongs by reconciling and putting forth substantial efforts moving into the future to stamp out racism and to preach the gospel of all are alike unto God, all around the world. 

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Good stuff is associated with good places, though.  I don't think anything good is associated with Hell.  If there were a lot of good stuff in Hell  then we would probably think of Hell as being an extension of Heaven, with good things in Hell just as there is good in Heaven.

Off the top of your head, can you name anything that you think would be good about Hell?   Can you see yourself enjoying yourself in Hell?   I mean, do you really want to go there and try to find something that is good there?

I don't really believe in an afterlife, Heaven and Hell are here on earth and are metaphors for suffering.  I was merely trying to say that the concept of a perfected Heaven with a bunch of think alike robots, doesn't sound like Heaven to me.  

 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

That’s a product of colorism which is a product of a long history of preferring white and white-adjacent people to darker people in the country. Also has a long and complex history in the US and within the african-american community (as well as several other countries)

https://www.vox.com/2015/2/28/8116799/white-colorism-racism-study

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/apr/09/colorism-racism-why-black-people-discriminate-among-ourselves

 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We’re on completely different pages.  Let me be clear.  The racist priesthood ban was evil and did immense harm, not only to those who were banned but to the entire church and to the broader culture.  All forms of racism are evil and I’m honestly shocked at the way you’re defending it along these lines of thinking.  I’m grateful to some extent to get a window into someone's thinking that differs so starkly with mine, as I’m sure that I have blind spots in my own thinking on various issues.  

The church needs to apologize for all the damage they’ve done, and they need to apologize explicitly and repeatedly.  They then need to atone for their wrongs by reconciling and putting forth substantial efforts moving into the future to stamp out racism and to preach the gospel of all are alike unto God, all around the world. 

Yep, completely different pages. I agree. I see nothing wrong with our priesthood leaders extending some blessings to people with white skin before extending those same blessings to people with black skin.  Our priesthood leaders were within their rights to extend those blessings to whoever they saw as fit to receive them, even if they had a biased understanding of who was fit to receive them.  The could have said that only descendants of Brigham Young were fit to receive the priesthood, just as in earlier generations of the Church they saw fit to give the priesthood to only descendants of Aaron, and even then it was not the full priesthood that was available to Moses and some other prophets like him.   They were in charge, and put in charge by our Lord, and they were authorized to make those kinds of decisions... unless the Lord specifically tells them to extend all priesthood blessings to all men regardless of the color of the skin.  And since our Lord didn't do that until 1978, they were within their rights to do what they did.  Even if you and some other people do not like what they did.

Quote

I don't really believe in an afterlife, Heaven and Hell are here on earth and are metaphors for suffering.  I was merely trying to say that the concept of a perfected Heaven with a bunch of think alike robots, doesn't sound like Heaven to me.  

I hope you'll end up in someplace good.  And if Hell has anything good in it, or at least something you think you might like, I hope you at least get to visit so you can find out for yourself whether or not you would like to live there.

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yep, completely different pages. I agree. I see nothing wrong with our priesthood leaders extending some blessings to people with white skin before extending those same blessings to people with black skin.  Our priesthood leaders were within their rights to extend those blessings to whoever they saw as fit to receive them, even if they had a biased understanding of who was fit to receive them.  The could have said that only descendants of Brigham Young were fit to receive the priesthood, just as in earlier generations of the Church they saw fit to give the priesthood to only descendants of Aaron, and even then it was not the full priesthood that was available to Moses and some other prophets like him.   They were in charge, and put in charge by our Lord, and they were authorized to make those kinds of decisions... unless the Lord specifically tells them to extend all priesthood blessings to all men regardless of the color of the skin.  And since our Lord didn't do that until 1978, they were within their rights to do what they did.  Even if you and some other people do not like what they did.

I hope you'll end up in someplace good.  And if Hell has anything good in it, or at least something you think you might like, I hope you at least get to visit so you can find out for yourself whether or not you would like to live there.

Thank goodness there are many different perspectives that can be held.  If this was the only perspective, there is no way I'd be interested in participating.   

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yep, completely different pages. I agree. I see nothing wrong with our priesthood leaders extending some blessings to people with white skin before extending those same blessings to people with black skin.  Our priesthood leaders were within their rights to extend those blessings to whoever they saw as fit to receive them, even if they had a biased understanding of who was fit to receive them.  The could have said that only descendants of Brigham Young were fit to receive the priesthood, just as in earlier generations of the Church they saw fit to give the priesthood to only descendants of Aaron, and even then it was not the full priesthood that was available to Moses and some other prophets like him.   They were in charge, and put in charge by our Lord, and they were authorized to make those kinds of decisions... unless the Lord specifically tells them to extend all priesthood blessings to all men regardless of the color of the skin.  And since our Lord didn't do that until 1978, they were within their rights to do what they did.  Even if you and some other people do not like what they did.

I hope you'll end up in someplace good.  And if Hell has anything good in it, or at least something you think you might like, I hope you at least get to visit so you can find out for yourself whether or not you would like to live there.

I’m in an entirely different chapter. 
It was a problem, still is a problem.  We were all more racist back then, many of us still racist now, I admit I’m racist and have work to do.  The church leaders were as racist as the rest of us were, else they’d have preached against it.  God never was and never will be racist.  It was a human error to keep brown skinned people out of anything.  The church will never concede.  Moving on. 
IMO. 

Edited by MustardSeed
Link to comment
1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m in an entirely different chapter. 
It was a problem, still is a problem.  We were all more racist back then, many of us still racist now, I admit I’m racist and have work to do.  The church leaders were as racist as the rest of us were, else they’d have preached against it.  God never was and never will be racist.  It was a human error to keep brown skinned people out of anything.  The church will never concede.  Moving on. 
IMO. 

Try reading what you wrote while defining racism as a preference for one color of skin compared to another color of skin, or hair color or religion or sexual preference or any other kind of personal preference.  From that perspective, as I read what you wrote, I wondered why you might have such a problem with such an idea.  I have no problem admitting that I like one color of skin more than another.  Not because I think another color of skin is wrong or evil or inherently inferior to another color of skin but because I just prefer that particular color of skin, or at least what is often thought of as a color.  Next in line regarding my preference for skin color would be brown or tanned skin, and then the color of skin most Asian people have which is often referred to as yellow.  Black is simply my least favorite skin color, but I like them all at least a little bit.  And still, according to how some people define racism, they would consider me to be racist.  And I would too except not by that same definition. And there is nothing wrong with me choosing my definition in preference to somebody else's definition, either.

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

No one who reads Mustard Seed honestly and openly has trouble with his meaning.

We as a people, including our leaders, still have issues with racism, and those who disagree have every to do so and then to be ignored.

People have different ideas/ definitions for what racism is, though, so MustardSeed isn't the only one who defines what racism is.

I do have some problems with some people's definition of racism, but I have no problem with mine other than the problem that not everybody agrees with my definition, if that can be considered a problem.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I can’t answer all of your post. Said baby now has her first big cold (grateful we got her the flu shots at least...she still hasn’t had a serious fever) and is more than a little unwilling for me to leave her side for long. Lilewise for formatting. Bold are the responses i could make. 
 

with luv,

BD 

Congrats on your little one BD! It's a wonderful, crazy ride! ♥️

Link to comment
6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

No, i’ve watched rooms of people begin to clue into forms of privilege (including racial privilege) that spanned the politcal spectrum. But it took time and took really becoming familiar with minority groups and their perspectives and experiences in the US both past and present.

I still would like to see empirical evidence of "white privilege."  

Fomenting racial discord is almost an industry.  Telling blacks and Hispanics that they are oppressed victims of nefarious white people (*all* white people, no less, based solely on their skin color), is likely to have an effect on "perspectives and experiences."

Quote
Quote

I have yet to see competent evidence of its existence, let alone it having a causal effect ("leaving white people at a general advantage based on race").

that’s not surprising. Smac, you keep moving the target in such a way that there’s little to no chance evidence will hit home and have a bullseye.. For example you want evidence of systemic problems. I give it to you.

I don't think you have given me empirical evidence of "systemic problems" attributable to "white privilege."

I am asking for evidence of causality.  That "white privilege" is an empirically testable and provable thing, that the "system" (whatever that is) gives an advantage to white people at the expense of black people.

And I'm not sure you've given me "evidence of systemic problems."  Again, that 90% of incarcerated persons are male is not, in my view, evidence of "systemic" discrimination against men.  And if the "system" is rigged to give white people advantages, then how do you account for racial minorities who excel in scholastics, medicine, law, STEM fields, etc.?  How is it that "white privilege" creates advantages for white people over some minorities (blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans) but not others (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, Jews)?

Quote

But now it needs to be nationwide....but not simply shown through stats and surveys of said nation. 

Yes, "systemic" problems need to be "systemic."  Isolated incidents of racism here and there are not evidence of systemic "white privilege."  Moreover, most meaningfuly types of racism are illegal, having been deemed as such by the system.

Quote

I can show you other cases, concerns, etc that to me indicate evidence of white privilege but at this point it seems like a waste of time unless there’s a case out there that literally has the supreme court coming down and ordering white privilege to cease. 

Or cases in which "white privilege" have been empirically vetted and demonstrated, such that an impartial assessment of the claim has been rendered (preferably many times over, by many different judges and juries in many different jurisdictions).  Again, there are *huge* incentives for lawyers to track down "systemic" benefits that accrue to white people at the expense of black people, and obtain lucrative judgments against the "systems" that are harboring this "white privilege."  And yet that doesn't seem to be happening.  I am curious as to why.

Quote

Which couldn’t happen anyways because white privilege is meant as an umbrella term for varying form and degrees of racism or inherited benefits/securities more available to the white population. 

I'm not sure there is value in re-defining "white privilege" to make it even more vague and ill-defined than it is already.  

Quote
Quote

I think it is a rhetorical gimmick used to foment racial hatred, to impose blame and shame and guilt on white people based solely on the color of their skin, and to procure unearned and unfair leverage and advantage in difficult discussions about race.

yeah, it’s not. 

Well, reasonable minds can disagree about that.

 

Quote

the white privilege is baked into who is seen as suspicious. 

I don't know what that means.  And I don't know how individualized and subjective notions of "who is seen as suspicious" amounts to a "systemic" problem.

There are plenty of white people who, through their dress and behavior, could be and are "seen as suspicious."  That's not a problem with "the system," though.  

Quote

A black man with money is more suspicious than a white man and more likely to not receive excessive scrutiny. He isn’t inherently more safe...but our culture has bred this idea over the years. 

I don't know what this means.  What "systems" treat "a black man with money" as "more suspicious than a white man"?

Quote

Discrimination in everyday settings is not a one-off nebulous experience, it’s usually grown and cultivated in a mariad of cultural and structural factors.

Then boiling all these "cultural and structural factors" down to "White Privilege!" seems very unwise.  Why foment racial discord and suspicion and grievances by publicly telling blacks and Hispanics "Hey, all your problems are because of white people and their 'privileges'" (when there are "a myriad of cultural and structural factors" in play (presumably including the individual's choices and behaviors)?

Quote
Quote

Imagine the outrage that would arise if such invidious race-based calumnies were publicly pronounced about black people.  Or hispanics.  Or Jews.  Or Chinese.

it wouldn’t  be aggregious to point out colorism/racism problems in mexico or brazil. 

No, it wouldn't.  But we're not talking about Mexico or Brasil.  We're not even talking about racism in the United States.  We're talking about "white privilege."

Quote
Quote

The closing argument of Atticus at the trial of Tom Robinson is a brilliant piece of writing.  Simple.  Concise.  Penetrating.  Honest.  Hard.  An excerpt (from the movie, not the book) :

that’s nice, I’m not sure exactly how that applies exactly. 

It spoke of evil and unjustified assumptions about all black people, based on the color of their skin.

I am proposing that it is likewise abhorrent tomake comparable evil and unjustified assumptions about all white people, based on the color of their skin.

Quote
Quote

"White privilege" is a comparable assumption, only told about white people.  All white people are "privileged."  All white people have "nasty little racist{s} inside them."  All white people are to be resented, even hated.  They are to be publicly maligned and scolded and insulted.  Not because of anything they have done, but solely because of the color of their skin.  They are to be blamed for anything and everything you like.  No evidence required.  No causality need be shown.  To be white is to be guilty.  To be white is to be bad.

this is a strawman. 

I don't think so.

If there is empirical evidence of "systemic" privileging of white people based on the color of their skin, I'd like to see it.  I don't think there is.

Meanwhile, quoting advocates of "white privilege" publicly accuse white people of having "nasty little racist{s} inside them" isn't a straw man.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: Here's a pretty good opinion piece about racism on college campuses: 

Campus leaders couldn't care less about racial progress
Hadn't we already agreed as a nation that racial segregation is morally wrong? Apparently, these schools haven't gotten the memo.

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Ahab said:

Try reading what you wrote while defining racism as a preference for one color of skin compared to another color of skin, or hair color or religion or sexual preference or any other kind of personal preference.  From that perspective, as I read what you wrote, I wondered why you might have such a problem with such an idea.  I have no problem admitting that I like one color of skin more than another.  Not because I think another color of skin is wrong or evil or inherently inferior to another color of skin but because I just prefer that particular color of skin, or at least what is often thought of as a color.  Next in line regarding my preference for skin color would be brown or tanned skin, and then the color of skin most Asian people have which is often referred to as yellow.  Black is simply my least favorite skin color, but I like them all at least a little bit.  And still, according to how some people define racism, they would consider me to be racist.  And I would too except not by that same definition. And there is nothing wrong with me choosing my definition in preference to somebody else's definition, either.

I prefer my skin to be dark,  and I like brown hair on me and on others over blonde hair.   
That’s not a problem, that’s not the problem, that’s not even remotely what is being discussed.  It has zero to do with anything I wrote. 
Eliminating privileges for a group of people based on their group rather than their behavior was a problem then and is a problem for us now to contend with, IMO.   I’m at peace with my assessment. 

 

Link to comment
On 1/27/2020 at 4:40 PM, Ahab said:

Yep, completely different pages. I agree. I see nothing wrong with our priesthood leaders extending some blessings to people with white skin before extending those same blessings to people with black skin.  Our priesthood leaders were within their rights to extend those blessings to whoever they saw as fit to receive them, even if they had a biased understanding of who was fit to receive them.  The could have said that only descendants of Brigham Young were fit to receive the priesthood, just as in earlier generations of the Church they saw fit to give the priesthood to only descendants of Aaron, and even then it was not the full priesthood that was available to Moses and some other prophets like him.   They were in charge, and put in charge by our Lord, and they were authorized to make those kinds of decisions... unless the Lord specifically tells them to extend all priesthood blessings to all men regardless of the color of the skin.  And since our Lord didn't do that until 1978, they were within their rights to do what they did.  Even if you and some other people do not like what they did.

I hope you'll end up in someplace good.  And if Hell has anything good in it, or at least something you think you might like, I hope you at least get to visit so you can find out for yourself whether or not you would like to live there.

'The bolded part is a clear example of what racism is. 

Link to comment
On 1/23/2020 at 4:14 AM, Meadowchik said:

Well you just tried some erasing right? In response to this:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/issues/fall-2019/?fbclid=IwAR1XA7h_E9OtpV4zFrS9q-8X5nmkjiOTm5z6qXsjx8J1PcFRDYGKYzxwWDc

Excerpt from "Listening for a Change", by Deborah Alexis:

"I am not a follower of Christ first, or black first, or woman first; these are all things that I am simultaneously. I cannot be in alliance with people who do not acknowledge all of me."

You said this:

"I have a better idea. How about we just acknowledge people by the content of their character as Dr. King would want us to do? " 

She was specifically saying that she needs to be acknowledged as a black female follower of Christ, because she is all three simultaneously, and you said you had "a better idea..." and dismissed all three.

I didn’t dismiss anything.  How do you not acknowledge that that someone is black and female?  Anybody who isn’t blind can plainly see that a black female is a black female.  I’m just saying that we shouldn’t get too caught up in things like race and sex.  Acknowledge these things yes.  But don’t get too carried away with it.  I’m sure we can meet in the middle on this one.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

'The bolded part is a clear example of what racism is. 

I agree.  I wish I can sweep this stuff under the rug and pretend it’s not racism.  But I just can’t do that.  It’s something with which we need to wrestle.  We need to have a mature and nuanced perspective on our church leaders and all historical figures in general.

Link to comment

I'll share a post that has been made public, the author, "Dr. LaShawn Williams studies relational teaching as pedagogy & the experiences of Black LDS families."

Here it is, with Facebook link below:

 

Quote

 

Long post.

Gist: Start talking about racism at church and stop running away, thinking it will go away if left alone. Make Psalm 139:23 your prayer about you and anti black racism.
—-
As we get closer to our 2020 Black LDS Legacy Conference, I wanted to share a few thoughts about the “Come Follow Me [aka we printed a million copies of alternative facts] Error” discussions folks are having and will be having the week of February 3-9 before we gather in DC together on February 15th.

Between the Hardcopy of “CFM Original Racism” & the online “CFM: Racism Lite” versions - if you want to get a real pulse read of your congregational family, see if folks will truly engage the texts as a test of your hearts and minds towards racism, anti-blackness & colorism.

Can you identify, explore, discuss and articulate how your hearts and minds have changed from believing in racism as you were probably taught at Church? How did you get from what you were taught and who you were then, to what you teach today and who you are now? What were the experiences and confirmations from God that helped you let go of racist thinking in your holy text? Are you still struggling to let go of the racism? How can your ward help you? What work can y’all engage together?

Pro-Tip: You covenanted at your baptism to do so. (ref: Mosiah 18:8-9)

Sure, it’s easy to remove the language, clean the pages up, & post a revision online but that’s not where the seeds have ever been planted.

Folks with “faith like a mustard seed” in the belief that The Book & The Brethren were right that dark skin is a curse are sitting next to you and leading music and teaching primary and serving missions. That seed has been watered.

Folks with “faith like a mustard seed” in the belief that The Book & The Brethren misinterpreted some verses because hypercolor-esque color changing humans sounds like a petty God authoring eternal confusion.... are also serving in the church but lack the internal and external leadership and support to speak up against racist indoctrination on Sundays. This seed needs water.

Everybody’s scared to engage each other for fear of someone’s feelings getting hurt (usually theirs) so they say that “contention is of the Devil” which is used to silence and shame people from speaking up and speaking out against injustice.

Let’s be clear: Anti-black Racism is of the Devil.

If you’re more worried about the notion of disagreeing in Church or somebody feeling bad for believing racist teachings and being called a racist for it more than you’re worried about being able to confidently pray Psalm 139:23 to God about your own heart and your own beliefs in racism, then what are you doing on Sunday besides showing up to a building on time for bread and water yet ignoring the symbolism of sacrificing your racist indoctrination as an atonement? How can you be in service of gathering God’s family into each other for love and safety if you have not done your racial healing work?

Do I believe that God is racist, colorist and full of anti blackness towards black people? Absolutely not.

God is no respecter of persons although God is consistently weaponized disrespectfully against persons by people who think they’ve earned the title “Brother” or “Sister” or “Leader” just because we share a faith foundation on Sunday. That’s not my testimony.

So, I suggest we engage the text in such a way that folks can lean on the Comforter and lean into the Atonement and activate those intentional baptismal covenants to be in spaces with each other where we see with eyes to see and listen with ears to hear.

We cannot keep running from a past we refuse to engage. Instead we’ve got to incorporate it into the fabrics of our faith journey. The other ways are not working. Let them go because we are sacrificing relationships at the cost of dismantling white supremacy.

See y’all on the 15th!  https://www.facebook.com/lashawnws/posts/3103843679627855?__tn__=K-R

 

I really like the gist of talking it through so we can get better at combatting racism.

 

Link to comment
Quote

Gist: Start talking about racism at church and stop running away, thinking it will go away if left alone. Make Psalm 139:23 your prayer about you and anti black racism.

I guess the concern I have here is that "talking about racism," without more, runs the risk of becoming Person A hectoring and berating Person B for Person B's thoughts.

Racist conduct can be discussed.  Racist words can be discussed.  But "racism" is, by itself, a state of mind.  A set of thoughts.  So in the absence of racist conduct/words, Person A has to become a mindreader.  That's just not right.  Person A has to impute improper motives and thoughts to Person B.  Such a discussion would be predicated on Person A's moral authority to judge the Person B's unexpressed thoughts.  I question that.

Quote

As we get closer to our 2020 Black LDS Legacy Conference, I wanted to share a few thoughts about the “Come Follow Me {aka we printed a million copies of alternative facts} Error” discussions folks are having and will be having the week of February 3-9 before we gather in DC together on February 15th.

"We" didn't print the manual.  The error in the manual is not attributable to 16 million Latter-day Saints.  Collective guilt is not appropriate.

Quote

Between the Hardcopy of “CFM Original Racism” & the online “CFM: Racism Lite” versions - if you want to get a real pulse read of your congregational family, see if folks will truly engage the texts as a test of your hearts and minds towards racism, anti-blackness & colorism.

I don't know what that means.

Quote

Can you identify, explore, discuss and articulate how your hearts and minds have changed from believing in racism as you were probably taught at Church?

Actually, I've never been taught racism in Church.  So "you were probably taught {racism} at Church" isn't a safe or reasonable presumption.

Quote

How did you get from what you were taught and who you were then, to what you teach today and who you are now? What were the experiences and confirmations from God that helped you let go of racist thinking in your holy text?

The counsel we have been receiving from prophets and apostles, very consistently, for decades, has helped me understand and contextualize scriptural texts that may be construed as "racist" in some sense.

Quote

Are you still struggling to let go of the racism?

See?  Mindreading.  

"Let go of the racism" assumes too much.

Quote

How can your ward help you? What work can y’all engage together?

Pro-Tip: You covenanted at your baptism to do so. (ref: Mosiah 18:8-9)

Sure, it’s easy to remove the language, clean the pages up, & post a revision online but that’s not where the seeds have ever been planted.

Folks with “faith like a mustard seed” in the belief that The Book & The Brethren were right that dark skin is a curse are sitting next to you and leading music and teaching primary and serving missions. That seed has been watered.

Again, racism has been condemned, repeatedly and explicitly, for decades.  In General Conference talks.  In the Church's published materials.  

Quote

Folks with “faith like a mustard seed” in the belief that The Book & The Brethren misinterpreted some verses because hypercolor-esque color changing humans sounds like a petty God authoring eternal confusion.... are also serving in the church but lack the internal and external leadership and support to speak up against racist indoctrination on Sundays. This seed needs water.

I don't know what this means.

Quote

Everybody’s scared to engage each other for fear of someone’s feelings getting hurt (usually theirs) so they say that “contention is of the Devil” which is used to silence and shame people from speaking up and speaking out against injustice.

More mindreading.

I condemn racism.  I am concerned that racism is being imputed and presumed.  I am concerned that "talking" about racism often ends up as a heavily politicized hectoring.

If there are instances of racist conduct and/or communications, I think such instances can and should be addressed.  Otherwise, I think Person A presuming to lecture Person B about Person B's undemonstrated and presumed racism is deeply problematic.

Quote

Let’s be clear: Anti-black Racism is of the Devil.

Yes.  The Church has been clear about that.  For decades.

Let's also be clear that there is no need to modify "racism."  All racism is "of the devil."

Quote

If you’re more worried about the notion of disagreeing in Church or somebody feeling bad for believing racist teachings and being called a racist for it more than you’re worried about being able to confidently pray Psalm 139:23 to God about your own heart and your own beliefs in racism, then what are you doing on Sunday besides showing up to a building on time for bread and water yet ignoring the symbolism of sacrificing your racist indoctrination as an atonement?

Lots of presumption going on here.  Lots of hectoring.

Yuck.

Quote

How can you be in service of gathering God’s family into each other for love and safety if you have not done your racial healing work?

Judgmental.  Who is Person A to presume to judge Person B in this way?  Where does Person A get authority or insight sufficient to warrant such presumption?

Yuck.

Quote

Do I believe that God is racist, colorist and full of anti blackness towards black people? Absolutely not.

What a piece of virtue-signalling nonsense this sentence is.

despise loaded questions.

Quote

God is no respecter of persons although God is consistently weaponized disrespectfully against persons by people who think they’ve earned the title “Brother” or “Sister” or “Leader” just because we share a faith foundation on Sunday. That’s not my testimony.

Oi. 

Everyone in the Church are our brothers and sisters.  There is no sin or error that disqualifies them from "the title 'Brother' or 'Sister'."

I don't think we should withhold fellowship because a person transgresses in some sense.  To the contrary, we should reach out in fellowship and try to help each other, with kindness and love.  

Quote

So, I suggest we engage the text in such a way that folks can lean on the Comforter and lean into the Atonement and activate those intentional baptismal covenants to be in spaces with each other where we see with eyes to see and listen with ears to hear.

This part sounds wonderful.  But I am concerned that "see with eyes to see and listen with ears to hear" is some sort of code for

  • Person A to impute racism onto Person B, for
  • Person A to hector Person B for his undemonstrated and presumed racism, for
  • Person A to position his personal and subjective notions and preferences and demands as an antidote for racism, for
  • Person A to foist these notions/preferences/demands onto Person B, and for
  • Person A to stand ready to condemn Person B for being racist (for lacking "eyes to see" and "ears to hear") because Person B didn't hop to and immediately and uncritically kowtow before and unquestionably accept each and every pronouncement of Person A as the unvarnished Way of Things.

I'm quite willing to discuss racism.  I'm quite willing to speak and act against it.  What I'm not willing to do, though, is surrender my own thoughts and observations on the subject, and to instead uncritically and reflexively accept Person A's self-appointment as arbiter and explicator of all things pertaining to "racism" (particularly where Person A presumes to read my mind, and tell me what my thoughts and motives are).

Quote

We cannot keep running from a past we refuse to engage. Instead we’ve got to incorporate it into the fabrics of our faith journey. The other ways are not working. Let them go because we are sacrificing relationships at the cost of dismantling white supremacy.

Hmm.  This sounds like politicial ideology dressed up in religious terminology.

Yuck.

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
On 1/19/2020 at 11:37 AM, hope_for_things said:

You have to connect the dots, and for whatever reason church leaders are unwilling to just explicitly state that those passages in the BoM don’t reflect current church teachings.  They could throw Nephi under the bus and say that this was Nephi’s opinion and it was influenced by his cultural views and was a fallible human like the rest of us.  That’s one option.  
 

Otherwise you’re going to have well intentioned members trying to come up with their own theories about how a literal interpretation of those BoM passages can be true, while at the same time the church teaches that God doesn’t do these curses with skin color.  It’s a conundrum.  Perhaps  a closer reading of the gospel topics essay and the history of racism in the church is needed to flesh these views out.  

I believe that a public retraction or an attempt to address publicly the issue will throw fuel to the fire. Critics are and continue to raise questions about LDS doctrine that seems at odd with other biblical texts. It is not far fetch to  pose the question then: "what else could possibly be wrong in the BoM doctrine then?" It is indeed a delicate issue. Thus the impasse. 

Link to comment
On 1/20/2020 at 4:40 AM, Rivers said:

The Book of Mormon never says that all people with a darker skin tone are that way due to a curse from God.  The quote in the manual doesn't say that either.  This is one specific group of people that we're talking about.  No need to universalize it.

But universalized they did; when ALL people of  African (also Pacific Islanders, Arabs and North Africans) descent were kept from the priesthood for 130 years. Just the facts.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...