Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Has it ever been actually discussed as a realistic possibility in the past?  If not, why would someone waste energy on something that is not changing?

As far as racism at church, I think those most likely to experience it are more likely to be aware of it than those who would be most likely observing it in passing. 
 

There are other forms of racism besides hatred.  

 

Good one , Calm. I want to post it on FB. There is a penis joke though, lol. 

Sadly, I learned recently why my niece wanted out of my neighborhood and ward so bad a couple of years ago. She moved in my neighborhood like I mentioned, and I had told her it was a great one, along with the ward. Too bad they let her down, she and her husband have two adopted black children, and recently I found out part of the reason. I guess people had wanted to touch her children's hair, and maybe a few other things, I'm unaware of. Here's her comment:

One incident with our kids happened at our church. 🙁 Loved your explanation in the comment above about racism is not just hating a race so bad you want them all to die. It is all the microaggressions too. People sticking their hands in my daughter's hair because they want to feel it just to name one.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Tacenda

[CA Steve]

So what's wrong with renaming it:

"THE University of Jesus Christ"?

Seems like a huge upgrade.

Our mascot could be an old white bearded white guy in long robes who could do as many push ups as the football team could score. Not a difficult task given the current state of our football program. At basketball games he could dust of his feet in front of the opposing team's bench.

Edited June 15, 2020 by CA Steve

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So what's wrong with renaming it:

"THE University of Jesus Christ"?

Seems like a huge upgrade.

Our mascot could be an old white bearded white guy in long robes who could do as many push ups as the football team could score. Not a difficult task given the current state of our football program. At basketball games he could dust of his feet in front of the opposing team's bench.

People already accuse Jesus of being racist...so that won't work either. 

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

People already accuse Jesus of being racist...so that won't work either. 

The white bearded guy could be a black person so that would solve the problem.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Question though: Do you think all stereotypes based on race are, by definition, racist? 

Stereotypes...and what I mean by “stereotypes” is more caricature than reality, stereotypes that are based on race are inherently racist.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think we are perhaps working with differing understandings of the term.

Original Sin (see AoF 1:2) is perhaps the most obvious example of Latter-day Saint rejection of (what I am calling) "collective guilt."

The horrible invocations of "Christ-killer" against the Jews is another example of the concept that I reject.

That sounds logical and I like it but I do not believe it. Original sin is not the only kind of collective guilt. I also think the term “collective guilt” is a bad term. It is reactionary and puts people on a “not my fault” trajectory. I would prefer something more like “collective sin”. I do not believe it in the sense of inherited sin like the Jewish example.

When I speak of collective sin I mean sin that a lot of people get a little credit for. I am talking about social and economic and political and judicial injustices that are collectively upheld by many. Many they did not start but they support. I think this is what the New Testament means when it talks about the battle not being against “flesh and blood” but against the dark powers of the world.
 

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.“

Of course it means devils but we do not fight them directly. It is not a battle against people but against institutions and pervasive wickedness. In a sense we all contribute to this injustice by upholding it. Usually it is not intentional. Sometimes it is done in ignorance. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Savior talks about cleansing us of the blood of this generation. Not our own sins but the sins that are pervasive. I would suggest that these errors should be rooted out and fought as we can. I also think this is what the scriptures mean when they talk about exposing evil. It is not internet weirdos finding secret conspiracies. It is the stuff in plain site we dismiss because we are used to it. When our society oppresses widows and orphans can we really be part of society and be blameless. Yeah, ignorance is taken into account in terms of sinfulness but we also cannot be saved in ignorance.

Now this is not a manifesto to ignore individual sins we actually commit and there are plenty that have nothing to do with society or culture. In fact many who see these injustices sometimes seem to fixate on them as a distraction from their individual sins. I am guessing most of us have known sinners that have blamed everything around them for their current state. Many revolutionaries and extremists have broken all the laws of God believing the ends justify the means.

C.S. Lewis says it better than I on another way it can go wrong which is “repenting” of things you have not done: http://merecslewis.blogspot.com/2011/05/dangers-of-national-repentance.html

The solution to this kind of sin is not usually sorrow but understanding and then (if possible) trying to correct the error.

On 6/14/2020 at 3:02 PM, smac97 said:

Then, of course, we have the abhorrent vilification of all Muslums because of 9/11.  And, more recently, the unfortunate disparagement of police generally for the killing of George Floyd.  I came across this earlier today:

Yep.

I am not culpable for the sins of others.  I have no need to repent of the sins of others.  

Thanks,

-Smac

If you defend someone’s sinfulness though you might. That is what a secret combination is.

As to your obvious political bait pretending that a smaller regimented organization entrusted with power from a (classically) liberal government is somehow comparable to an international religion in terms of policing itself is ridiculous. To put it in our church’s terms if ward leadership were corrupt and other people in that ward leadership cover it up and protect the corrupt they are not “just a few”. If the corruption was happening in another ward on the other side of the country which is comparable to an American Muslim somehow supposed to be responsible for a terrorist cell financed from the other side of the world expecting them to “stop it” is silly. Police departments are not vast international organizations with millions of members.

The irony of claiming it was a few bad people when there was a clumsy coverup already in progress to justify the murder that started the protests speaks to a deep level of corruption and not a few bad actors no one knew about.

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, stemelbow said:

None of the examples you gave pretended to be prophets who claimed to speak for God.  On the matter of race, Brigham claimed he was speaking God's will.  I think that represents the main issue here.  If someone who is Mormon and black goes to BYU, what is that person to make of the name?  That one legacy of the person who the school is named for is racism.  And that racism was not just a result of him being stuck in his day, embracing popularly held views.  Nope.  His taught racism was said to be from God.  And much of the Church believes Brigham was right.  They defend Mormon racism of the past by saying things like, "it was GOd's will to implement the priesthood ban" or something.  In this way, his legacy of racism lives on in Mormonism--it was at one time God's will (that grand fickle one).  

Keeping Brigham's name leaves doors open that should be shut.  Taking his name off the school, speaks loudly the words the Church wishes to embrace but fails too--we condemn racism in all it's forms.  As it is, any member can look back and say, "Racism is God's will".

We call those who look to Brigham Young as justification for racism as apostates who are garnishing the coffins of dead prophets while ignoring the living ones. Racism has been condemned by every prophet since I have been alive. Pretending it is ambiguous and you can choose to support racism is silly.

As to the hypothetical person who might be offended would they also throw a fit over going to a Jefferson High School or living in the state of Washington? No, because neither of them are honored for owning slaves. We do not honor Brigham Young for his racism. I wish it never happened. He was wrong. It happens. Making it the centerpiece of his life is unfair to him and to the amazing things he accomplished. I am also convinced that he no longer holds those views.

This is not unique to Brigham Young. We will completely cease to be nourished by the past if we are not allowed to honor those who did good and evil in the past. We also end up condemning ourselves. Who knows what the next generations will decide we had completely and utterly wrong?

[smac97]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I think we are perhaps working with differing understandings of the term.

Original Sin (see AoF 1:2) is perhaps the most obvious example of Latter-day Saint rejection of (what I am calling) "collective guilt."

The horrible invocations of "Christ-killer" against the Jews is another example of the concept that I reject.

That sounds logical and I like it but I do not believe it. Original sin is not the only kind of collective guilt.

But it's illustrative of why I reject the concept overall.

Quote

I also think the term “collective guilt” is a bad term.

I object to what it describes.

Quote

It is reactionary and puts people on a “not my fault” trajectory.

Imputing fault onto innocent persons is gaslighting and false.  That's not good.

Quote

I would prefer something more like “collective sin”.

I wouldn't.  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  (AoF 1:2)

Quote

I do not believe it in the sense of inherited sin like the Jewish example.

That sounds an awful lot like special pleading.  "The Jewish example" demonstrates the ugliness of the concept.  I don't think you can sidestep that ugliness by saying "Yes, I believe in 'collective sin,' but not that sort."

Quote

When I speak of collective sin I mean sin that a lot of people get a little credit for. I am talking about social and economic and political and judicial injustices that are collectively upheld by many.

What does it mean to "uphold" an "injustice?"

Quote

Many they did not start but they support. I think this is what the New Testament means when it talks about the battle not being against “flesh and blood” but against the dark powers of the world.

Okay.  Like tolerating elective abortion?  Is that a "collective sin?"

Quote

Of course it means devils but we do not fight them directly. It is not a battle against people but against institutions and pervasive wickedness. In a sense we all contribute to this injustice by upholding it. Usually it is not intentional. Sometimes it is done in ignorance. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Savior talks about cleansing us of the blood of this generation. Not our own sins but the sins that are pervasive. I would suggest that these errors should be rooted out and fought as we can. I also think this is what the scriptures mean when they talk about exposing evil. It is not internet weirdos finding secret conspiracies. It is the stuff in plain site we dismiss because we are used to it. When our society oppresses widows and orphans can we really be part of society and be blameless. Yeah, ignorance is taken into account in terms of sinfulness but we also cannot be saved in ignorance.

I think this stretches "sin" into unfamiliar territory.  It makes "sin" infinitely malleable.

Quote

Now this is not a manifesto to ignore individual sins we actually commit and there are plenty that have nothing to do with society or culture. In fact many who see these injustices sometimes seem to fixate on them as a distraction from their individual sins. I am guessing most of us have known sinners that have blamed everything around them for their current state. Many revolutionaries and extremists have broken all the laws of God believing the ends justify the means.

C.S. Lewis says it better than I on another way it can go wrong which is “repenting” of things you have not done: http://merecslewis.blogspot.com/2011/05/dangers-of-national-repentance.html

This seems to materially undercut your argument.  Let's see what the good Clive Staples has to say.  But first, let's take a look at this article about "False Apology Syndrome":

Quote

I’ve heard priests remark about the disconcerting tendency of penitents to confess other people’s sins. “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. My spouse got angry because I misplaced the car keys . . . ” Then, there’s our curious compulsion to confess offenses that are long past—the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Columbus and Cortez. It’s a way of acknowledging the sins of our heritage, atoning for the atrocities of our unenlightened ancestors.

That seems to fit what you are describing.  A bit more:

Quote

And yet, like the words of the finger-pointing penitent, there’s something decidedly imperfect about these comfortably distanced acts of contrition. “False Apology Syndrome,” Theodore Dalrymple calls it in the Templeton Foundation’s In Character journal. Under the guise of assuming the guilt of the past, it sets the righteous present apart in self-congratulatory humility:

Quote

There is a fashion these days for apologies: not apologies for the things that one has actually done oneself (that kind of apology is as difficult to make and as unfashionable as ever), but for public apologies by politicians for the crimes and misdemeanours of their ancestors, or at least of their predecessors. I think it is reasonable to call this pattern of political breast-beating the False Apology Syndrome . . . .

What is this all about, and what does it signify? Does it mean that at long last the powerful are making a genuine effort to see things from the point of view of the weak, or is it, on the contrary, a form of moral exhibitionism that subverts genuine moral thought and conduct?

Let us examine briefly the apology for the Crusades as an example of the whole genre. It is not exactly a new discovery that the Crusaders often, perhaps usually or even always, behaved very badly. It is not in the nature of invading armies to behave well, even when discipline is strong, morale is high, and control of the foot soldiers is firm; it is no secret that these conditions did not exist during the Crusades, to put it rather mildly.

They were, however, rather a long time ago. The Crusades were an attempt to recover for Christendom what had been lost by force, with all the accompanying massacre, pillage, and oppression that the use of force in those days implied. No one, I think, expects an apology from present-day Arabs for the imperialism of their ancestors, either as a matter of moral duty or political likelihood. We are all born into the world as we find it, after all; we are not responsible for what went before us.

False Apology Syndrome is a way of judging others to avoid judging ourselves—of shrugging moral responsibility. It fosters a perpetrator–victim mentality: “For what can I do wrong to compare with the wrongs that my ancestors suffered at the hands of your ancestors? How dare you even mention it, you hypocrite!” For that matter, what could I do wrong to compare with the wrongs my ancestors committed? I must say, it’s a reassuring mode of thought.

"Self-congratulatory humility."

"{A} fashion these days for ... public apologies by politicians for the crimes and misdemeanours of their ancestors."

"False Apology Syndrome is a way of judging others to avoid judging ourselves—of shrugging moral responsibility."

Yep.

I find it strongly ironic that the imposition of "collective guilt" can - and usually does - function as a way to evade personal responsbility, rather than accept it.

Now on to what Mr. Staples had to say:

Quote

The year was 1940, and it was the thing among young British intellectuals and Christians—”last-year undergraduates and first-year curates”—to denounce England’s involvement in World War II, blaming their country for the war and themselves for their country. A nice thought, but in his essay collection God in the Dock, Lewis points out the still-timely “Dangers of National Repentance”:

Quote

Men fail so often to repent their real sins that the occasional repentance of an imaginary sin might appear almost desirable. But what actually happens (I have watched it happening) to the youthful national penitent is a little more complicated than that. England is not a natural agent, but a civil society. When we speak of England’s actions we mean the actions of the British government. The young man who is called upon to repent of England’s foreign policy is really being called upon to repent the acts of his neighbor; for a foreign secretary or a cabinet minister is certainly a neighbor. And repentance presupposes condemnation. The first and fatal charm of national repentance is, therefore, the encouragement it gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing—but, first, of denouncing—the conduct of others. If it were clear to the young that this is what he is doing, no doubt he would remember the law of charity.

Unfortunately the very terms in which national repentance is recommended to him conceal its true nature. By a dangerous figure of speech, he calls the government not “they” but “we.” And since, as penitents, we are not encouraged to be charitable to our own sins, nor to give ourselves the benefit of any doubt, a government which is called “we” is ipso facto placed beyond the sphere of charity or even of justice. You can say anything you please about it. You can indulge in the popular vice of detraction without restraint, and yet feel all the time that you are practicing contrition. A group of such young penitents will say, “Let us repent our national sins”; what they mean is, “Let us attribute to our neighbor (even our Christian neighbor) in the cabinet, whenever we disagree with him, every abominable motive that Satan can suggest to our fancy.”

 

"It gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing--but, first, of denouncing--the conduct of others."

Yep.

Quote

The solution to this kind of sin is not usually sorrow but understanding and then (if possible) trying to correct the error.

You presuppose that which has yet to be demonstrated.  I reject the concepts of collective guilt and collective sin.

Quote

Quote

I am not culpable for the sins of others.  I have no need to repent of the sins of others.  

If you defend someone’s sinfulness though you might. That is what a secret combination is.

I don't know what this means.  But even assuming "defend{ing} someone {else's} sinfulness" is wrong, then I am culpable for that wrongful act by me, not for the wrongful acts of others.

Quote

As to your obvious political bait pretending that a smaller regimented organization entrusted with power from a (classically) liberal government is somehow comparable to an international religion in terms of policing itself is ridiculous.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Quote

To put it in our church’s terms if ward leadership were corrupt and other people in that ward leadership cover it up and protect the corrupt they are not “just a few”.

Covering up wrongful conduct is itself a separate and additional wrongful act, for which culpability lies.

I guess I sort of see your point about "accessory after the fact"-style wrongful conduct.  But boy, this seems like a huge stretch.  And one prone to much abuse.

Quote

If the corruption was happening in another ward on the other side of the country which is comparable to an American Muslim somehow supposed to be responsible for a terrorist cell financed from the other side of the world expecting them to “stop it” is silly.

I quite agree.  Let's not inculpate all Muslims for the actions of a few.  Let's not inculpate all Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus.  Let's not inculpate all Japanese for the Rape of Nanking, nor all Germans for the Holocaust, nor all white people for antebellum slavery.

Quote

Police departments are not vast international organizations with millions of members.

Just so.  So it would be silly to impute "collective guilt" or "collective sin" onto them.  

Quote

The irony of claiming it was a few bad people when there was a clumsy coverup already in progress to justify the murder that started the protests speaks to a deep level of corruption and not a few bad actors no one knew about.

Conspiracies and "secret combinations" and the like call for some actual measure of intent.  If I join a gang, if I willfully participate in its nefarious activitivies, then I am culpable for that conduct.  Both mens rea and actus reus are present.

By way of illustration:

1. Let's look at this story about Karen Merrick:

Quote

A woman who voluntarily participated in the robbery of a bank was sentenced today to more than two years in federal prison.

Karen Merrick, age 36, from Sioux City, Iowa, received the prison term after a September 10, 2019, guilty plea to being an accessory after the fact to bank robbery.

Information provided by the United States at Merrick’s change of plea, detention, and sentencing hearings, revealed Merrick knew Phillip White had just robbed the Iowa State Bank in Le Mars, Iowa on December 12, 2018, when she chose to help him escape the crime scene.  Merrick, despite driving a U-Haul, led officers on a dangerous, 20-mile, car-chase, that reached speeds of 70 miles per hour.  She ran an intersection, endangered other motorists and pedestrians, and was only brought to a stop, when officers used stop-sticks to destroy her wheels.  In fact, even after her tires were deflated, she continued to flee in the vehicle for a couple more miles until she lost control of the van.

2. Now let's look at this story about Cecil J. McWatters and William Wayne Whaley:

Quote

While the police converged on the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas and doctors at Parkland Hospital began working on the mortally wounded President in Emergency Room No. 1, Lee Harvey Oswald was briskly walking the seven blocks from the depository to the bus stop at Elm and Murphy. At 12:40 p.m. he boarded a bus driven by Cecil J. McWatters.
...
With all of the police activity in the area around Dealey Plaza, traffic had come to a standstill. At 12:44 p.m., Oswald asked for a transfer, got off the bus, crossed in front of it, and started walking to the Greyhound bus station three-and-a-half blocks away.
...
At 12:47 p.m. Oswald entered a taxi driven by William Wayne Whaley at the Greyhound bus terminal. Whaley opened the back door for his passenger, but Oswald said he wanted to sit in the front seat—a common practice in the Soviet Union, where the former U.S. Marine had defected in 1959. Oswald told him to take him to the five hundred block of North Beckley. While Oswald was riding in the cab, police once again broadcast a description of the shooter to all cruisers. Whaley, who had not yet heard news of the shooting, asked his passenger about all the police sirens. Oswald did not respond. He rode the entire way in silence. The driver later told investigators he thought Oswald was “a wino two days off the bottle.”

Karen, Cecil and William all helped wrongdoers flee the scene of the crime.  So do you think Cecil and William are as culpable for helping Lee Harvey Oswald as Karen was for helping Phillip White?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 16, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

On 6/14/2020 at 7:46 PM, The Nehor said:

I do not think that there is a credible argument that President Young was the most successful white supremacist in American history. Those titles belong to those who created slavery, fought to maintain it, changed to systematic oppression politically and socially, and fought to maintain it. Giving the title to a guy who taught racist stuff in a pretty isolated area that consisted almost entirely of white people and native Americans seems very forced.

A compelling argument can be made that Brigham Young was the single-most influential white supremacist in America, as not just a religious leader but a political leader for decades. Regardless of whomever merits this distinction, Brigham Young helped build and solidify white supremacy in Utah and surrounding areas. Joanna Brooks has written extensively on it in The Possessive Investment in Rightness: White Supremacy and the Mormon Movement:

Quote

More than that, what emerges across these three instances of reversal and discontinuity is active and intentional privileging of white relationships, loyalty, solidarity, and “rule” over Black lives and Black testimonies at the expense of theology, integrity, and ethics but to the benefit of institutional growth and dominion. This is the definition of white supremacy. White supremacy guided the formation of key LDS institutions—the theocratic territory of Utah, the modern correlated orders of the priesthood, even Brigham Young University, whose founding trustee and major funder bore false witness and influenced others to do the same in order to block Black Mormons from full access to priesthood and temple rites. The fact that each of these decisive moments takes shape around a reversal, a break, a contradiction underscores that these were not simply unintentional or unconscious concessions to dominant power structures. These were intentional decisions to advance white over black.

 

[Meadowchik]

23 hours ago, Amulek said:

Changing to be in alignment with God's will is the most important part. And when it comes to race issues the church has changed - significantly; especially over the last 50 years. 

What else do you want? 

 

This is from Joanna Brook's essay, The Possessive Investment in Rightness: White Supremacy and the Mormon Movement. I find it very helpful especially because it features a list of possible changes compiled by Black LDS church members:

Quote

In June 2017, Salt Lake Tribune religion reporter Peggy Fletcher Stack
published a list compiled by Black LDS Church members of additional
changes the LDS Church could make to effect “movement from the top”:

Cast a Black Adam and Eve (or an interracial couple) in the film shown
to faithful members in LDS temples.

Use more African American faces in Church art and manuals and
display more artwork depicting Christ as he would appear: as a Middle
Eastern Jewish man.

Pick more Blacks for highly visible leadership positions—if not an
apostle, at least in the First Quorum of the Seventy (members of which
are General Authorities) or in the general auxiliary presidencies.
Repudiate and apologize for the faith’s past priesthood and temple ban
on Blacks, which the Church lifted in 1978.

Show the documentary film Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black
Mormons to every all-male priesthood quorum, women’s Relief Society
class, and Young Men and Young Women groups.

Quote from the Church’s Gospel Topics essay “Race and the Priesthood”
regularly at LDS general conference and translate it into all the languages
that the Church uses to communicate with its global membership.

Direct that the essay be read from the pulpit in every Mormon congregation and mission in the world.
Have the Book of Mormon scripture found in 2 Nephi 26:33—“all are
alike unto God”—be a yearlong Young Women or Primary theme and
make it part of the curriculum to talk about the sin of racism.

Bring more Blacks to LDS Church–owned Brigham Young University as
students and faculty, while providing sensitivity training for all students
about racial issues and interactions with people of color.

Teach children about heroic Black Mormon lives, such as LDS pioneers
Jane Manning James and Elijah Abel.

Expand the LDS hymnbook to include more diverse songs and styles.

Enlist more people of color in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

Invite the choir from the Genesis Group—a longtime Utah-based
support organization for Black Mormons and their families—to sing
at general conference.

Use the Genesis Group to assist in improving relationships with the
African American community.

Give the Genesis Group greater authority to exist in all states and to visit
wards and assist lay bishoprics in how to avoid and overcome racism
in their congregations.

Create a Church-sponsored Mormon and Black website akin to the one
found at mormonandgay.org.

Treat the members of the Genesis Group’s presidency as an auxiliary,
seating them on the stand with other high-ranking authorities during
general conference—and invite at least one of them to speak during
the sessions.

Provide training on racial issues for newly-called mission presidents.

Include a mandatory class at missionary training centers that teach the
“Race and the Priesthood” essay so missionaries are better prepared
when they go out to preach.

Other steps to address past wrongs committed by LDS people could
plausibly follow the model of the Church’s response after 2007 to the
Mountain Meadows Massacre, which included collaborative efforts
with descendants of massacre victims and local Paiute tribes blamed
for the massacre, an explicit statement of responsibility and regret, and
a physical memorialization of the wrongs at the massacre site, later
designated a National Historic Landmark.57 It is possible to imagine
similar efforts including reparations to descendants of slaves owned
and traded by LDS Church leaders and an incorporation of materials directly exploring the racist human origins of the ban and calling
members to take responsibility for divesting from justifications for it
in Church curricula and in general conference talks. It is also possible
to imagine a rigorous, scholarship-supported conversation about
LDS Church–owned institutional commemorations of individuals
like Abraham Smoot who owned slaves and decisively and intentionally obscured truth to maintain the supremacy of white over black in
Mormonism and exclude generations of Black people from what LDS
people would understand as the blessings of temple rite participation,
including ritual “sealings” that would have secured Black family relationships in the eternities. LDS Church–owned institutions like BYU could
enter the national conversation about their history of institutionalized
racism, privilege, accountability, responsibility, and restitution that can
serve as a powerful learning experience for the thousands of future
LDS Church leaders guided by trained historians who are committed
Latter-day Saints. This might start by considering the way the institution honors men who were slaveholders or promoted racist views. For
example, Brigham Young University has a building named after Smoot
(the administration building) and Joseph F. Smith (the College of
Family, Home, and Social Sciences), who also obscured truth to secure
Black priesthood exclusion, as well as other LDS Church leaders like J.
Reuben Clark (law school), Harold B. Lee (library), David O. McKay
(School of Education) and George Albert Smith (fieldhouse) who are
on record as advocates of anti-Black racial segregation, along with
Ezra Taft Benson (chemistry building) and Ernest Wilkinson (student
center), who opposed the civil rights movement and sought to evade
responsibility for institutional segregation. It would also place Brigham
Young University among leading educational institutions who have
elected to undertake productive scrutiny of their institutions’ formative
historical intersections with slavery and white supremacy.

 

[Storm Rider]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's certainly a fair point.  Perceived racism is a problem sitting amongst us, I think.  how much it is so, is hard to say.  

Do you know many people that hate blacks or any other race? I have known some, but I don't have anyone right now. Yet, as I write that I will admit that I have heard negative comments about Islam, but not actual Muslims people. It gives me pause that it is the kind of thinking that can turn into hateful words. 

[Amulek]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

This is from Joanna Brook's essay, The Possessive Investment in Rightness: White Supremacy and the Mormon Movement. I find it very helpful especially because it features a list of possible changes compiled by Black LDS church members:

Several of those seem like perfectly fine ideas. Others, however, seem like they would be rather problematic in terms of implementation - though I appreciate the underlying motivation / desire for them.

Thanks for sharing. 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Good one , Calm. I want to post it on FB. There is a penis joke though, lol. 

Sadly, I learned recently why my niece wanted out of my neighborhood and ward so bad a couple of years ago. She moved in my neighborhood like I mentioned, and I had told her it was a great one, along with the ward. Too bad they let her down, she and her husband have two adopted black children, and recently I found out part of the reason. I guess people had wanted to touch her children's hair, and maybe a few other things, I'm unaware of. Here's her comment:

One incident with our kids happened at our church. 🙁 Loved your explanation in the comment above about racism is not just hating a race so bad you want them all to die. It is all the microaggressions too. People sticking their hands in my daughter's hair because they want to feel it just to name one.

When I served as a missionary in Taiwan there was a sister missionary with a veritable mane of the longest, thickest, curliest, reddest hair you ever saw (she also had very pale skin).  I walked into the church  building one Sunday morning to find her seated on a folding chair reading her scriptures.  She was surrounded by four young girls (6-11 years old, IIRC) who were stroking her hair and talking excitedly to each other about it.  I approached her and asked, "Sister ________, how can you stand to having those girls pet your hair like that?"  She responded, "Oh, Elder, I gave up my sense of personal space a long time ago."

I had somewhat similar experiences.  As a 6'2 blond white guy of Scottish extraction, I was rather easy to spot in a crowd in Taiwan.  I had several experiences of children coming up to me and petting my forearms, apparently fascinated at how hairy they were (not that hairy in my mind, but compared to the average Chinese guy . . . yeah).  I even had several make comments about my arms ("Wow.  You're like a 猩猩!" (Xīngxīng - Orangutan or Gorilla)).  

On balance, Person A touching Person B's hair is, depending on context, somewhere on the "Socially Awkward/Weird" to "Socially Inappropriate" to "Eww, that's just creepy" end of the spectrum.  Nevertheless, I think it is usually less a manifestation of racial animus, and more the result of A) interest (fascination?) with an unfamiliar physical attribute (not unlike the redheaded sister missionary whose hair was found to be fascinating by young girls who grew up in a milieu where almost everyone has straight, black hair), B) lack of awareness of basic social courtesies (not unlike the weird phenomenon of a stranger or mere acquaintance touching a pregnant woman's belly, which happened to my wife a few times), C) a well-intentioned but nevertheless ill-manifested desire by Person A to get to know Person B, or D) any combination of A, B and C.

I wholeheartedly agree that members of the Church should respect the personal space of others, and should not take liberties with touching their hair.  I also hope our black brothers and sisters can be patient with those of us who need to work on improving our respect for proper social boundaries.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

When I served as a missionary in Taiwan there was a sister missionary with a veritable mane of the longest, thickest, curliest, reddest hair you ever saw (she also had very pale skin).  I walked into the church  building one Sunday morning to find her seated on a folding chair reading her scriptures.  She was surrounded by four young girls (6-11 years old, IIRC) who were stroking her hair and talking excitedly to each other about it.  I approached her and asked, "Sister ________, how can you stand to having those girls pet your hair like that?"  She responded, "Oh, Elder, I gave up my sense of personal space a long time ago."

I had somewhat similar experiences.  As a 6'2 blond white guy of Scottish extraction, I was rather easy to spot in a crowd in Taiwan.  I had several experiences of children coming up to me and petting my forearms, apparently fascinated at how hairy they were (not that hairy in my mind, but compared to the average Chinese guy . . . yeah).  I even had several make comments about my arms ("Wow.  You're like a 猩猩!" (Xīngxīng - Orangutan or Gorilla)).  

On balance, Person A touching Person B's hair is, depending on context, somewhere on the "Socially Awkward/Weird" to "Socially Inappropriate" to "Eww, that's just creepy" end of the spectrum.  Nevertheless, I think it is usually less a manifestation of racial animus, and more the result of A) interest (fascination?) with an unfamiliar physical attribute (not unlike the redheaded sister missionary whose hair was found to be fascinating by young girls who grew up in a milieu where almost everyone has straight, black hair), B) lack of awareness of basic social courtesies (not unlike the weird phenomenon of a stranger or mere acquaintance touching a pregnant woman's belly, which happened to my wife a few times), C) a well-intentioned but nevertheless ill-manifested desire by Person A to get to know Person B, or D) any combination of A, B and C.

I wholeheartedly agree that members of the Church should respect the personal space of others, and should not take liberties with touching their hair.  I also hope our black brothers and sisters can be patient with those of us who need to work on improving our respect for proper social boundaries.

Thanks,

-Smac

We need a lot of patience yes, I'm probably guilty of things as well. But isn't it great that we're getting this out in the open and discussing it, not liking rioting but protest peacefully is needed. And then moving on with our lives and being the change that is needed. Not protest just to protest. 

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Stereotypes...and what I mean by “stereotypes” is more caricature than reality, stereotypes that are based on race are inherently racist.

So what about stereotypes that are based more on reality than caricature? Are those not stereotypes then? If not, what are they?

In the video you shared, there were a couple of instances where it made reference to skin differences. It reminded me of one of the expressions my wife picked up from Oprah back in the day: black don't crack.

It's kind of a cliche' expression used to comment on how black people tend to appear younger, longer. Dermatologists attribute it to the amount of collagen and melanin in the skin which inhibits the appearance of fine lines / wrinkles and (if I remember right) I believe facial bone density plays a roll as well. 

Regardless, it's typically the case that if you're looking at a white woman and a black woman of the same age (especially later in life), the black woman is going to appear to have better skin. So if a white women makes a comment to her black friend about how nice her skin looks, or how she's jealous of how youthful the other looks, or whatever - is that racist? 

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Do you know many people that hate blacks or any other race? I have known some, but I don't have anyone right now. Yet, as I write that I will admit that I have heard negative comments about Islam, but not actual Muslims people. It gives me pause that it is the kind of thinking that can turn into hateful words. 

Just for the record, (I haven't followed your convo with Stem here so pardon if this is redundant) systemic racism is more than just how individuals feel about Black people. It's about structural problems that tend to target them.

A good historical description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGUwcs9qJXY&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0UALa1G6p9FXDj-bDuyKFm_ccfQYIEjrHuaDCU0F7HIfSwSx00D5RUIdY

 

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

mputing fault onto innocent persons is gaslighting

You are someone who seems to care to use terms accurately. Imputing fault on those who did not act is not gaslighting but a different paradigm for guilt and therefore the use of the term seems inflammatory to me. 

To call the teaching of the religious belief of original sin or anything similar to it as “gaslighting” puts persuasion and teaching into a category it doesn’t belong. 

Quote

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes including low self-esteem. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and misinformation, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs. Instances can range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents occurred, to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

 

Wiki

Edited June 16, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I wholeheartedly agree that members of the Church should respect the personal space of others, and should not take liberties with touching their hair.  I also hope our black brothers and sisters can be patient with those of us who need to work on improving our respect for proper social boundaries.

Your examples are children. If the sister was surrounded by adult men or women doing the same thing, she likely would not have been so tolerant.  Children who do not have the same sense of personal space as adults are understandable in touching. Adults who would not allow someone else to do it to them are not except at best they are unthinking or being childish, especially in this day and age where concerns of abuse are so high.  Now add in communicable disease (always an issue for touching of babies without permission)

Edited June 16, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We call those who look to Brigham Young as justification for racism as apostates who are garnishing the coffins of dead prophets while ignoring the living ones. Racism has been condemned by every prophet since I have been alive. Pretending it is ambiguous and you can choose to support racism is silly.

Can you name anyone labeled as apostate for adopting the position that the ban was divinely inspired?  

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

As to the hypothetical person who might be offended would they also throw a fit over going to a Jefferson High School or living in the state of Washington? No, because neither of them are honored for owning slaves. We do not honor Brigham Young for his racism. I wish it never happened. He was wrong. It happens. Making it the centerpiece of his life is unfair to him and to the amazing things he accomplished. I am also convinced that he no longer holds those views.

This is not unique to Brigham Young. We will completely cease to be nourished by the past if we are not allowed to honor those who did good and evil in the past. We also end up condemning ourselves. Who knows what the next generations will decide we had completely and utterly wrong?

I'd agree with you if it weren't true that BY claimed it was all by revelation.  For a believing member to have to square the former prophet's revelation, words spoken by him attributed to God, with their belief of continuing revelation is clearly a possible cause for consternation.  But, if the Church clearly says BY's instituting of the ban was opposed to God's will, that all of his comments pertaining to race, as he claimed they were from God, were not, then we'd have something.  Simply coming out with a generalized statement that racism is wrong has left many members thinking, as I described, the racism via the ban was revelation.  Indeed, I would think very few actually think the anonymous essay on the topic, where it says the Church condemns all racism, does not in any way apply to the racist ban.  

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Amulek said:

what about stereotypes that are based more on reality than caricature? Are those not stereotypes then? If not, what are they?

I would use typical or average behaviour to demonstrate that it is based on statistics rather that assumptions. 

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Can you name anyone labeled as apostate for adopting the position that the ban was divinely inspired?  

I'd agree with you if it weren't true that BY claimed it was all by revelation.  For a believing member to have to square the former prophet's revelation, words spoken by him attributed to God, with their belief of continuing revelation is clearly a possible cause for consternation.  But, if the Church clearly says BY's instituting of the ban was opposed to God's will, that all of his comments pertaining to race, as he claimed they were from God, were not, then we'd have something.  Simply coming out with a generalized statement that racism is wrong has left many members thinking, as I described, the racism via the ban was revelation.  Indeed, I would think very few actually think the anonymous essay on the topic, where it says the Church condemns all racism, does not in any way apply to the racist ban.  

Joanna Brooks delves into this more when she talks about the church's "investment in rightness" in the context of its "investment in whiteness." That investment in rightness, or inerrancy, has a prolonged effect on the way members interact and talk about racial issues, inhibiting conversations which are necessary for healing and growth in the community.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So if a white women makes a comment to her black friend about how nice her skin looks, or how she's jealous of how youthful the other looks, or whatever - is that racist? 

There are other dynamics going on when one couples a compliment for another with self degradation. Not a good thing.  If the woman would say the same thing to a white woman who has great skin, not racist. If she notices the difference because she notices the black skin...it very well may be. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Imputing fault onto innocent persons is gaslighting

You are someone who seems to care to use terms accurately. Blaming someone for being responsible when they are not is not gaslighting and therefore the use of the term seems inflammatory to me. 

Quote

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes including low self-esteem. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and misinformation, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs. Instances can range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents occurred, to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

Wiki

The dictionary definition of "gaslighting" is "{to} manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."

Honestly, I think the shoe fits here.  See, for example, this article in Psychology Today:

Quote

Gaslighting is a tactic in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality. It works much better than you may think. Anyone is susceptible to gaslighting, and it is a common technique of abusers, dictators, narcissists, and cult leaders. It is done slowly, so the victim doesn't realize how much they've been brainwashed. For example, in the movie Gaslight (1944), a man manipulates his wife to the point where she thinks she is losing her mind. 

In my book Gaslighting: Recognize Manipulative and Emotionally Abusive People - and Break Free  I detail how gaslighters typically use the following techniques:  

1. They tell blatant lies.
...

This is a biggie.  I think much of the rhetoric being thrown around these days about racism is flagrantly, breathtakingly dishonest or misleading.

By way of example, "Black Lives Matter" is an implicit accusation.  It presumes that the American public (particularly white people) thinks that black lives don't matter.

Quote

2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof. 
...

"Defund the police" is a good example here.  

Quote

3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition. 
...

Again, this is a biggie.  No rational, informed, decent, well-meaning American in 2020 wants to be called a "racist."  To be sure, they are quite scared of their reputation being marred, even destroyed, by the allegation.  What is more "near and dear" than one's reputation and good name?

Quote

4. They wear you down over time.
...

Oh my, yes.

Quote

5. Their actions do not match their words.
...

Again, this is a biggie.  Racist things are horrible.  Except that horrible things are being unironically and categorically asserted about white people (past and present), and nobody seems to bat an eye.

Quote

6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you. 
...
7. They know confusion weakens people. 
...

Sowing confusion is part and parcel of notions like "implicit bias," "microaggressions," and so on.

Quote

8. They project.
...

Again, this is a biggie.  Stereotyped race-based caricatures and negative generalizations are horribly bigoted, ignorant and racist, except when white folks are in the crosshairs, then it's all good.  

Quote

9. They try to align people against you.
...

Self-evident, I think.

Quote

10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.
...
11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.
...

Yep.  You're a racist.  And if you deny it, your denial is proof of your racism.  And if you've never said or done anything objectively racist, you are implicitly/subliminally racist, and/or you are racist because of the "system."  And if you are white, you are racist by dint of the color of your skin.  And don't you dare suggest that a black person can be racist, 'cuz that's racist.   And on and on and on.

A few years ago I was watching To Kill a Mockingbird with some of my older children, including an 8-year-old son, "Scott". This son has two cousins whom he is very close to: "Joseph" (the son of my biological brother and has Samoan wife, so he looks rather Samoan - black, wavy hair, brown skin, brown eyes) and "Jack" (the son of my biological sister and her husband, who is totally Caucasian, blond hair, blue eyes, etc.). After the movie Scott turned to me and asked why some of the characters in the movie had mistreated Tom Robinson (the black man on trial for rape in the book/movie). I explained that some people dislike others based on the color of their skin being different, and that this is called "racism." Scott seemed a bit perplexed at this. I asked him, "Think of your two cousins, Joseph and Jack. Can you imagine being really mean to Joseph because he has brown skin, and being really nice to Jack because he has white skin?" Scott was genuinely taken aback and said "No way! That doesn't make sense at all!" And I said, "Well, good. You don't have a problem with racism then."

This was about ten years ago.  During that time, Scott has never exhibited any behavior that I would construe as "racist" in any meaningful sense.  No jokes.  No racial epithets.  No stereotype caricatures.  No differentiation of persons based on their skin color.  And yet by today's reckoning, he is necessarily and presumptively racist.  Because of the color of his skin.  Because of his "privilege."  Because of the "system."  Because of "implicit bias" and "microaggressions."  And so on.

No, I reject that.  I refuse to be gaslighted about him.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I wholeheartedly agree that members of the Church should respect the personal space of others, and should not take liberties with touching their hair.  I also hope our black brothers and sisters can be patient with those of us who need to work on improving our respect for proper social boundaries.

Your examples are children. If the sister was surrounded by adult men or women doing the same thing, she likely would not have been so tolerant.  

My point was not about the tolerance of the sister, but rather the inappropriate - but not necessarily racist - behavior towards her.

I had plenty of Chinese comment about my hairy arms, too.  And my nose (most ethnic Han lack a nose bridge, so they think anyone who has one has a big ol' schnoz).  And my last name.  People would read my name tag and pronounce my last name ("Macdonald") without the c and the ds, so it sounded like "Madonna."  So I ended up with hearing stuff like "Elder Madonna!  Like a virgin!  Papa don't preach!  Are you going to keep your baby?"  They thought it was hilarious.

Nevertheless, while these things were sometimes on the "Socially Awkward/Weird" to "Socially Inappropriate" to "Eww, that's just creepy" end of the spectrum, I didn't attribute these things to racism.  For me, "racism" is a big stick, and not one I'll pick up and swing about unless it's pretty clearly warranted.  

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Children who do not have the same sense of personal space as adults are understandable in touching.

Again, plenty of adults did this, too.

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Adults who would not allow someone else to do it to them are not except at best they are unthinking or being childish, especially in this day and age where concerns of abuse are so high.  Now add in communicable disease (always an issue for touching of babies without permission)

I pretty much agree with you.  I think we should respect personal space/boundaries.  My qualms pertain to unduly attributing transgression of those boundaries to racism.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd agree with you if it weren't true that BY claimed it was all by revelation. 

CFR, please.  I'd like to read what it is you are attributing to Brigham Young.

Thanks,

-Smac