Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't even know what the sister board is!

 

Social Hall

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Social Hall

Yes, I think charity covers a multitude of sins, no matter what we call them and whether they are personal and intentional or systemic and unintentional.

[bluebell]

22 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I wonder if we were talking about a statue or painting of Lilburn Boggs whether the sentiment would be any different?

From my perspective, I wouldn’t feel differently. I would be so incredibly annoyed if someone decided to remove his picture (just like I am with Pelosi removing paintings of the speakers of the house because they were racist).

What does doing something like that serve?  Those men really did hold those positions. Pretending they didn’t because now we recognize they were immoral jerks is so dumb. 

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, I wouldn’t feel differently. I would be so incredibly annoyed if someone decided to remove his picture (just like I am with Pelosi removing paintings of the speakers of the house because they were racist).

What does doing something like that serve?  Those men really did hold those positions. Pretending they didn’t because now we recognize they were immoral jerks is so dumb. 

I was once walking down the street in a Southern city and saw a public historical marker for the "Eugenics Board" which posted the number of people sterilized (by coercion -- yes, it used that word -- or choice) over its tenure! Very factual, and people can draw their own conclusions about the character of those serving on the board.

With regards to public statues commemorating the Confederacy, I suppose if their plaques had similar factual information only (numbers of enslaved, numbers of soldiers, number killed, years of activity, etc.), that might be somewhat palatable.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I think charity covers a multitude of sins, no matter what we call them and whether they are personal and intentional or systemic and unintentional.

And even imputed or unjustly affixed or  inherited:

Jeremiah 31:29-30 

²⁹ In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

³⁰ But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

The issue of inherited guilt was put to bed 2800 years ago.  We are only responsible for our own sins, not our great, great, great, great, great grandfathers' (the most recent slaveholder in my own ancestry), and we can take credit only for our own virtues, not our great, great grandfathers' (my only non-Mormon [sic] ancestor at that level who fought in and died in the war to preserve Union and Free Slaves).  Moreover, I don't need you to cite your resume to me, and you mustn't ask me for mine:  some things are simply assumed;  Guilty until proved otherwise.  So much judginess these days.  "Systemic and unintentional" is nothing more than judgment, and that unrighteous and without evidence, of another human being's heart.  It is a despicable habit some, far too many, have acquired and revel in.

[USU78]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm an American so calling out the US to be accountable for its institutional role in slavery and the continued oppression of Black people since, is one of my duties. I am a BYU alumnus and was a believing member of the LDS church for 40 years, so calling out the church for its institutional role in perpetuating white supremacy is a moral duty. 

We're all born in a rushing current of history, and we cannot change what has already happened. But...

"There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river.

We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in." -Desmond Tutu

If Tutu is saying (and I think he is) that we are responsible for our ancestors' faults, then he and I part company.  I can only stand where I am, see what I see, and do what I can do.  If you use a shared past to judge those in it and me for what you today uncharitably determine is unforgivable, then you and I part company.  I don't care about your resume.  And I don't care for  judgy prigishness and virtuesignalling.  I do care for charitable assessments of others' hearts and actions, refusal to project immorality upon the moral, and eschewment of presentism.  

No one has the duty to judge others' hearts other than in love and with G-d's guidance.  I submit you lack both in your assessments herein.

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

If Tutu is saying (and I think he is) that we are responsible for our ancestors' faults, then he and I part company.  I can only stand where I am, see what I see, and do what I can do.  If you use a shared past to judge those in it and me for what you today uncharitably determine is unforgivable, then you and I part company.  I don't care about your resume.  And I don't care for  judgy prigishness and virtuesignalling.  I do care for charitable assessments of others' hearts and actions, refusal to project immorality upon the moral, and eschewment of presentism.  

No one has the duty to judge others' hearts other than in love and with G-d's guidance.  I submit you lack both in your assessments herein.

I am not concerned about judging in that sense, only in the sense of recognising enduring harm enough to make the world better. I think that would be an expression of divine love.

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet the institution has not made this clear. It has not unambiguously denounced these horrible things Brigham Young did. A relatively obscure though highly suggestive essay on the website is not enough. I would love it if we could hear frankness like in your post at General Conference and with an apology. But we have not.

So the name and the statue create a permanent moral dissonance. These outer signs to me are secondary to that most essential sin of omission. 

My parents met at BYU and I met my husband at BYU. I don't think I'd exist if it hadn't been for BYU. Yet, I also would not have existed if Europeans hadn't brought a plague that wiped out millions of Native Americans. It's horrible history but we need to learn as much of it in as many facets as we can.

Brigham Young presided over his Utah empire that benefits me today. But the work of millions of slaves also built a country that nested the birth of this American religion. And we mostly do not name universities after them or build monuments to remember them in any comparable way. And they don't even have their own names.

 

None of that (some of which I agree with, some that I don't) has any impact on the topic we've been addressing though--removing statues of BY from the BYU campus because BY was a racist.

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

None of that (some of which I agree with, some that I don't) has any impact on the topic we've been addressing though--removing statues of BY from the BYU campus because BY was a racist.

Ftr that may be a subtopic here but it has not been the only one and it wasn't the theme of my remarks. And I have responded to the statue-related remarks in ways that bring it back toward the general topic of the church's responsibilities.

That said, of course my reply you quoted has to do with the subject of statue removal. The church's inadequate responses to Young's and its white supremacy make statue removal more justified. And it was right in line with your commentary, too, about acknowledging the good and bad of Brigham Young.

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Ftr that may be a subtopic here but it has not been the only one and it wasn't the theme of my remarks. And I have responded to the statue-related remarks in ways that bring it back toward the general topic of the church's responsibilities.

That said, of course my reply you quoted has to do with the subject of statue removal. The church's inadequate responses to Young's and its white supremacy make statue removal more justified. And it was right in line with your commentary, too, about acknowledging the good and bad of Brigham Young.

I think we've reached the point where we are just repeating what we've already said and it's time to agree to disagree.   

[CV75]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

And even imputed or unjustly affixed or  inherited:

I take "systemic and unintentional" to have nothing to do with anyone's heart or about condemning them ("personal and intentional" covers that--and we rightly punish our contemporaries under the rule of law), but with the situation/circumstance at hand. Systems typically follow human intent, which is why they are instituted. Sometimes the real intent is not recognized or is hidden or becomes lost, and it is also good for the heirs to be "quick to observe" and recognize when an inherited system produces unrecognized and unintended consequences that they can correct.

I was reading the Ensign today: "As a historian, I try to follow the advice of a British novelist. He said: “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there” (L. P. Hartley, The Go-Between [1953], prologue). That means when we visit the past, we don’t want to be an “ugly tourist.” We want to try to understand people within their own context and their own culture. We want to be patient with what we perceive as their faults. We want to be humble about the limits of our own knowledge. And we want to have a spirit of charity about the past." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2020/07/church-history-a-source-of-strength-and-inspiration?lang=eng

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think we've reached the point where we are just repeating what we've already said and it's time to agree to disagree.   

Why do you disagree? Isn't an apology from the church in line with your statements? 

 

[Meadowchik]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I take "systemic and unintentional" to have nothing to do with anyone's heart or about condemning them ("personal and intentional" covers that--and we rightly punish our contemporaries under the rule of law), but with the situation/circumstance at hand. Systems typically follow human intent, which is why they are instituted. Sometimes the real intent is not recognized or is hidden or becomes lost, and it is also good for the heirs to be "quick to observe" and recognize when an inherited system produces unrecognized and unintended consequences that they can correct.

I was reading the Ensign today: "As a historian, I try to follow the advice of a British novelist. He said: “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there” (L. P. Hartley, The Go-Between [1953], prologue). That means when we visit the past, we don’t want to be an “ugly tourist.” We want to try to understand people within their own context and their own culture. We want to be patient with what we perceive as their faults. We want to be humble about the limits of our own knowledge. And we want to have a spirit of charity about the past." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2020/07/church-history-a-source-of-strength-and-inspiration?lang=eng

I agree, with the disclaimer that this patience need not be endless to be charitable, especially when the patience is for brutality.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why do you disagree? Isn't an apology from the church in line with your statements? 

 

I disagree with the idea that removing a statue of BY at the school he started because the church's response on his racism isn't "acceptable" is justified.   

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I disagree with the idea that removing a statue of BY at the school he started because the church's response on his racism isn't "acceptable" is justified.   

Not saying BY's statue but the ones being torn down elsewhere maybe replace them with good and worthy people of note individualized where pertinent? I'm sure there are many females that contributed as well. That would be such a worthy thing to do, and maybe take polls on what individuals deserve a statue throughout the country. It'd be a shame to have a statue removed and not replaced with someone who is worthy of it.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not saying BY's statue but the ones being torn down elsewhere maybe replace them with good and worthy people of note individualized where pertinent? I'm sure there are many females that contributed as well. That would be such a worthy thing to do, and maybe take polls on what individuals deserve a statue throughout the country. It'd be a shame to have a statue removed and not replaced with someone who is worthy of it.

Yes.  Like I said in an earlier post, if the monument is irrelevant to society today--if it does not celebrate any benefits currently being enjoyed by society--then I have no problem with removing it from the public and putting it in a museum (or not even that if it's truly irrelevant).

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not saying BY's statue but the ones being torn down elsewhere maybe replace them with good and worthy people of note individualized where pertinent? I'm sure there are many females that contributed as well. That would be such a worthy thing to do, and maybe take polls on what individuals deserve a statue throughout the country. It'd be a shame to have a statue removed and not replaced with someone who is worthy of it.

I categorically object to tearing down statues, monuments, etc. by lawless means.

I likewise categorically object to entering into any discussion about removing such statues, monuments, etc. under threat of riots, violence, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I agree, with the disclaimer that this patience need not be endless to be charitable, especially when the patience is for brutality.

Whom do you accuse of brutality?  Whom do you judge?  Who is unentitled to forgiveness?

[USU78]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I take "systemic and unintentional" to have nothing to do with anyone's heart or about condemning them ("personal and intentional" covers that--and we rightly punish our contemporaries under the rule of law), but with the situation/circumstance at hand. Systems typically follow human intent, which is why they are instituted. Sometimes the real intent is not recognized or is hidden or becomes lost, and it is also good for the heirs to be "quick to observe" and recognize when an inherited system produces unrecognized and unintended consequences that they can correct.

I was reading the Ensign today: "As a historian, I try to follow the advice of a British novelist. He said: “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there” (L. P. Hartley, The Go-Between [1953], prologue). That means when we visit the past, we don’t want to be an “ugly tourist.” We want to try to understand people within their own context and their own culture. We want to be patient with what we perceive as their faults. We want to be humble about the limits of our own knowledge. And we want to have a spirit of charity about the past." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2020/07/church-history-a-source-of-strength-and-inspiration?lang=eng

I muse:  If the consequences of others' acts were unintended by them, then they are blameless for them; and if they are blameless, why all the heat in ascribing blame to those not responsible for those unintended consequences?  But if the consequences were foreseeable and inevitable, then they were intentional, and blame attaches to the actual actors affecting those consequences; but, if they are blameworthy for volitional, harmful acts, then where is the proximate causation by and whence cometh the duty and onus upon one class of persons to the exclusion of all other classes of persons to ameliorate those consequences today?  What moral imperative compels assignment of blame as it is presently being assigned?

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I agree, with the disclaimer that this patience need not be endless to be charitable, especially when the patience is for brutality.

No possibility of forgiveness, then, and no statute of repose for inherited guilt.  Got it!

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I categorically object to tearing down statues, monuments, etc. by lawless means.

I likewise categorically object to entering into any discussion about removing such statues, monuments, etc. under threat of riots, violence, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree, only through legal means. Aren't most under this description? Sorry to sound ignorant.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Tacenda

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree, only through legal means. Aren't most under this description? Sorry to sound ignorant.

A number of monuments have been torn down.  A number more are subject to being torn down per the demands of people who have very recently resorted to violence, riots, etc. to get their way.  I think these demands carry implicit, and perhaps even explicit, threats of violence if they are not met.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I muse:  If the consequences of others' acts were unintended by them, then they are blameless for them; and if they are blameless, why all the heat in ascribing blame to those not responsible for those unintended consequences?  But if the consequences were foreseeable and inevitable, then they were intentional, and blame attaches to the actual actors affecting those consequences; but, if they are blameworthy for volitional, harmful acts, then where is the proximate causation by and whence cometh the duty and onus upon one class of persons to the exclusion of all other classes of persons to ameliorate those consequences today?  What moral imperative compels assignment of blame as it is presently being assigned?

There is none, of course, if you are talking about blaming unintentional heirs and not intentional actors. There is a better term than “blame” as part of the good-faith, rule-of-law process to punish intentional actors in their lifetime for their deeds. There are also unintentional actors and intentional heirs to consider under the law.

Less personal in approach, the analysis of root causes can be valuable in improving problematic parts of economically rooted, politically maintained legislative/judicial/executive systems within which all types of actors and heirs operate as time rolls on, and which affects each generation differently, and is for each generation to define as to what is problematic. Let your voice be heard!

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Whom do you accuse of brutality?  Whom do you judge?  Who is unentitled to forgiveness?

 

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

No possibility of forgiveness, then, and no statute of repose for inherited guilt.  Got it!

I haven't said anything about forgiveness. But since you have brought it up, I believe that, if God exists, using God to enforce forgiveness would be among the highest forms of blasphemy. So when I avoid prescribing forgiveness, it is because of spiritual caution motivated by charity. It's not motivated by lack of concern and it does not mean that I reject redemption.

I really like what Bluebell said earlier, the blue enlarged portion here:  

  22 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm glad you can see the benefit of keeping history, but my point goes beyond history to some degree, in that I'm saying that it's o.k and even proper to celebrate the difficult and good things that flawed-but-moral-for-their-time people have done that benefit those who came after them.  Even if those flawed people were racist.  I think it's a much healthier attitude than the "this person from a hundred years ago, who's actions we are still currently benefiting from, must have completely agreed with our current social mores or must be expunged from all public edifices meant to celebrate the things we are still currently benefitting from" attitude that we are seeing right now.

It's good to recognize Brigham Young for settling Utah and creating BYU, even though he was a racist.  Millions of people have benefited from him doing those things, and he did them with some sacrifice on his part.  His flaws (which are many) do not negate the good things he did that we are still benefiting from.  

It's also good to recognize BY's flaws.  Let's be accountable for the damage he contributed too/in many ways began, and let's not glorify him or pretend he was someone different.  I completely agree with you on that.  

But we can do both.  We can say, "wow, I'm so thankful that BY recognized the importance of education and created this school that people are still benefiting from today.  He was good and right to do that; he was progressive in his beliefs about education and women." and also say "I'm so sad that BY taught racist things and encouraged others to accept them as being from God.  He was wrong to believe and do what he did.  He has contributed to a lot of harm that we are still working through and dealing with" at the same time.

It's the all or nothing (people were either all good or they must be considered all bad) mentality that a lot of people are currently embracing that I think is unhealthy.  I understand where it comes from but I think it's a perspective distorted by anger and hurt (justifiably so) and also somewhat colored by mob "justice" (unjustifiably so).

Edit to add:  If the monument is irrelevant to society today--if it does not celebrate any benefits currently being enjoyed by society--then I have no problem with removing it from the public and putting it in a museum (or not even that if it's truly irrelevant).

 

Theologically, I think there are ample scriptural  and moral paths to the approach Desmond Tutu described earlier:

Quote

"There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river.

We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in." -Desmond Tutu

My priority is identifying the problems that need to be addressed to prevent more harm. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

We want to try to understand people within their own context and their own culture. We want to be patient with what we perceive as their faults.

Statues depending on where and why they were placed may help or harm that kind of understanding, imo.  There is both the history of the person honored and the history of those honoring them that needs to be understood and sometimes their past causes needs to be publicly repudiated.

If understanding of history is significantly compromised, then I think changing the setting is wise, either by moving the statue to a place where the needed level of information can be shared or adding the info where it stands.  Statues are not teaching our history just by existing. It is not denying our history to move a statue that teaches false context. 
 

I don’t believe statues or the people who first place them have an inherent right to that placement for all eternity. Community needs should govern what is placed in public view where all must see it. And these change and should change over time. Statues can be moved in most cases in the US.