Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess it's like the mountain meadow massacre catastrophe, no apologies from our current leaders because they weren't there and apart of it, but have we caused the death of someone's loved one when we say "sorry for your loss"? Maybe not a good comparison, but slightly the same. We've had this conversation or debate before about if the church should apologize. I think they should say sorry that the institution harmed the way they have, all it does is make the recipient of the hurt feel better. 

I also think that am "I am sorry this happened" is a nice thing to do.  I don't think it has any impact on the choices of the past but it can be good to say "it shouldn't have happened and we don't agree with or support those choices." 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

Using what we know about someone can help us understand their actions and motives better when something isn't clear.  

Does what we know about Pres. Nelson suggest that he would implore people to do something that he knows he isn't doing (which is the definition of a hypocrite)?

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

As in what?  Love and obedience first, morality follows?

Reconciliation through Christ first and love, obedience, and morality all follow. Of course you do not get all of the Reconciliation before the other stuff shows up.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

This assumes that these things are universally viewed as respectable.  If you argued to some that turning the other cheek brings happiness, they would laugh you to scorn.  It is not a natural instinct.  It must be taught.  Maybe you can point me to a secular discipline before Christ that teaches these things.

The key word here is “religion”.  What does a Roman religion have to do with a-religionists?

My argument is not that secularists are amoral or lack discipline.  My argument is that Christ/religion elevated the discipline of love.

The goal posts seem to have run down the field.

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

In terms of doctrine, I reject the notion of institutional sin / guilt.  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  (AoF 1:2.)

Then the church didn't follow their own articles of faith!

Well, perhaps, and perhaps not.

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why did blacks suffer for their ancestors, like the curse of Cain?

Again, from the Race and the Priesthood essay (emphases added) :

Quote

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

When AoF 1:2 speaks of a person being "punished for their own sins," I think that's more in an eschatological sense.

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess they're the exception to the rule of not having to be punished for someone else's transgression. This has always puzzled me. 

Because the priesthood ban lacks any known revelatory provenance, and in light of foregoing considerations, as well as the various - and now disavowed - "theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else," I am of the present opinion that the priesthood ban was not revelatory, and was instead a policy arising from unfortunate - and what we today call "racist" - 19th-century attitudes toward people of black African descent.

I am reminded here of Mormon 9:31: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

I'm not really into condemning past generations for their errors when we have so many of our own to worry about (speaking cumulatively, of course).  Elective abortion.  Gross sexual immorality.  Racial animus.  Substance abuse.  Wanton violence.  Greed.

So yes, there was racism in the early days of the Church, and vestigial elements of it continue today.  We can improve.  Earlier today I came across this article about Joseph Freeman, the first black man to be ordained to the priesthood in 1978.  He has some insights on this topic:

Quote

Forty-two years ago this week, the world of Joseph Freeman took a drastic turn that he believes will affect his eternity.
...
Freeman, now 67, was the first black man of African descent, since the time of Joseph Smith, to be ordained as an elder in the church. The office of elder allows him to officiate in all the sacred sacraments or covenants in the church.

“I received the priesthood on June 11, 1978,” Freeman said. “My bishop (ecclesiastical leader) worked for the church. He invited me to be interviewed to become an elder and to go to the temple.”

Freeman said that Sunday morning he felt angels were in that meeting.
...
Freeman was born July 24, 1952, in Vanceboro, North Carolina, to Rose Lee Smith and Joseph Freeman Sr. His paternal great-grandparents William and Ellen Freeman were slaves and escaped to freedom during the Civil War.

Freeman grew up in the countryside where his parents and he farmed land for one of the area land owners. By the time he was 14 his family left the farm and moved to the city.

In high school he worked at a number of jobs, but his favorite was working for Sears Roebuck on the loading docks.

“I loved my boss. He was white,” Freeman said. “I know he liked me. I asked when I could be a boss like him. He shook his head and said, ‘It can’t be.’ ”
...
Freeman joined the Army when he was 19. He was stationed at Schofield Barracks Army base on Oahu in Hawaii. During that time Freeman said he had the spirit moving within him. He was attending and preaching in the Holiness Faith.

Freeman had been preaching in Hawaii for a time, but was also looking for more. He tried several religions but none seemed to answer his questions.

“I had been praying and fasting trying to be more spiritual,” Freeman said.

Then a vacation for a few days from military duties found him staying at a YMCA and he went on a tour to the Polynesian Culture Center, owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“I hadn’t met a Mormon before,” Freeman said. “The people were so nice. They were white people and they were so nice, I was blown away. I didn’t feel prejudice there. Their niceness attracted me.”

Freeman broke away from the tour and walked around by himself. He said he came across a young lady, Toe Isapela Leituala, a Samoan.

He met up with her at the end of the day and they talked for two hours. Isapela had just returned from serving an LDS Mission.

It took a month to find her again, in the meantime he started reading the Book of Mormon.

“It took three months. I prayed about it and met the local church people.” Freeman said. “For the first time, I really listened. I had a desire, I wanted to know more.”

Freeman said he spent five days and nights fasting about the church and he said he knew God was watching over him.

After taking the missionary discussions and knowing he really wanted to be a part of the church, Freeman was baptized in September of 1973.

“It didn’t register about blacks not getting the priesthood,” Freeman said. “I wanted to join and the spirit told me.”

Eventually, Freeman also married Isapela. On July 23, 1978, they were sealed in the Salt Lake Temple, Elder Thomas S. Monson, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, performed the ceremony.

Freeman has had several callings in the church over the years and for a while served as a bishop. The Freemans live in West Valley City.

Race relations

While being black in a church that restricted him, Freeman believed there would be change. That same change was happening in the secular world.

About that same time Freeman joined the LDS Church in 1973, the Army began having race-relation classes. Freeman said they all had to listen to lectures of breaking down prejudices. The classes were mandatory.

“I was in line to be promoted. Me and another black man. We were never put in charge,” Freeman said. “But we were all equal.”

Freeman said he could tell the conversation on blacks and equality was changing, but it was not easy. There were two trains of thought moving to bring about change.

Freeman noted Malcolm X and Martin Luther King had both been working for change.

“Malcolm X believed in violence,” Freeman said. “King was the peaceful protester. The violent black and the peaceable black were both making a change.”

Freeman added, “Sometimes life doesn’t change until you get hit in the face.”

When the LDS Church announced that blacks could receive the priesthood, Freeman noted it was the right time. It was a spiritual change.

“Jimmy Carter was president. He was a man of God. I believe the most religious president since Lincoln,” Freeman said. “Spencer W. Kimball was the prophet (LDS Church president) and he was a man of God.”

Freeman said it was Carter that stepped out as a president who wanted change and said the country must help people.

“Carter promoted a change in America. Women and blacks were put in supervisor jobs,” Freeman said.
...
Freeman reflected on King’s philosophy.

“Martin Luther King was trying to get schools and jobs integrated,” Freeman said. “It is easier to accept each other because of association. I can love, because they are human beings. Then we become one.”

Conditions throughout the world are rapidly changing, Freeman noted. The coronavirus has spread rapidly around the world, we’ve had earthquakes and all kinds of events. The protesting following George Floyd’s death has spread just as quickly, but Freeman says this time it’s different.

“This time, something has united all America,” Freeman said.

In 1979 Freeman wrote a book about his conversion as a black man, about the changes he has seen and the future. He titled it “In the Lord’s Due Time.” Freeman believes things will happen, they will change and they will get better. Now is the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There's nothing in there, even with your bold, that indicates the church has to spend money. That is your own interpretation and one that I disagree with.

You can disagree with whatever you like. It doesn't do anything to change what is pretty clearly being implied - especially when he gets on about the whole "stature and magnitude of what the LDS Church can do" business.

I would love to have Mr. Colom specifically state what "material" changes the NAACP has asked the church to make which we have refused. 

 

Quote

The Church has been clear in denouncing racism today. 

I'm confused. I thought you said President Nelson needed to take his own advice about rooting out racism today, but here you are admitting that the church is clear in its denunciation of racism today. 

What else do you want?

 

Quote

It has not been so clear in denouncing it's past racism and identifying those teachings as wrong. 

I disagree. I think the church has been pretty clear about denouncing previous teachings regarding race as being wrong. 

 

Quote

If racism has always been wrong, then the racist temple and priesthood restrictions were wrong and ought to be identified as such rather than continuing to allow members and others to believe that they were of God.

And do you honestly think that is contributing to racism among members of the church today?

Because, I've got to be honest - I'm not seeing it.

When I look around at my congregation, the overwhelming majority of the members I see aren't old even enough to remember the priesthood ban ever being a thing. It's one of those topics you learn about during church history, kind of like polygamy, but it isn't anything you have any sort of lived experience with. As such, it has pretty much zero impact on your life. 

 

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The goal posts seem to have run down the field.

 

That's interesting.  When you are done chasing goal posts, maybe we can finish our discussion back here on the ground I have always stood on  

His claim was that the world doesn't need the bible to live these principles because non-religious already innately love.  My point was that Christ/religion elevated our understanding and discipline of love.  He seems to deny that.  I asked for examples of such love disciplines outside of religion....silence.   

Then you step in and start confusing the issue with Roman religions (not sure where you were going with that) and Christ as an amoral teacher (again, unrelated). 

Edited June 9, 2020 by pogi

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So, you don't have a real response to the situation.  Okay.

No, I was just chiding you for that bit of self-righteousness in throwing stones while you are in a glass house. 

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Are you sure?

From the Race and the Priesthood essay (emphases added) :

What is "not...so clear" about this statement?

Thanks,

-Smac

That anonymous essay continues to suggest that these were simply theories when they were actually prophetic teachings declared to be doctrine and the log of God, based in scripture.  Many church members that I encounter still believe that God instituted the racist priesthood and temple restrictions.  I don't think the essay meets the standard given by President Nelson in this week's Medium post.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, I was just chiding you for that bit of self-righteousness in throwing stones while you are in a glass house. 

 

It's a discussion board.  If you believe discussing church topics is self-righteously throwing stones, I'm not sure why the board exists.  Should it just be an echo chamber for whatever policy or teaching is currently promoted by President Nelson?

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You can disagree with whatever you like. It doesn't do anything to change what is pretty clearly being implied - especially when he gets on about the whole "stature and magnitude of what the LDS Church can do" business.

I would love to have Mr. Colom specifically state what "material" changes the NAACP has asked the church to make which we have refused. 

You are claiming that Colom is demanding the Church spend money.  You have provided no evidence to support such a conclusion.

 

49 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm confused. I thought you said President Nelson needed to take his own advice about rooting out racism today, but here you are admitting that the church is clear in its denunciation of racism today. 

What else do you want?

See my other posts in this thread.

 

49 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I disagree. I think the church has been pretty clear about denouncing previous teachings regarding race as being wrong.

The Church has referred to theories.  It has not denounced that which was taught as doctrine and law of God.

 

49 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And do you honestly think that is contributing to racism among members of the church today?

Yes.  I've heard members cite the priesthood/temple restrictions and prophetic teachings that supported the ban as justifying racist beliefs.  I even had an actively serving bishop teach me that.

 

49 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Because, I've got to be honest - I'm not seeing it.

When I look around at my congregation, the overwhelming majority of the members I see aren't old even enough to remember the priesthood ban ever being a thing. It's one of those topics you learn about during church history, kind of like polygamy, but it isn't anything you have any sort of lived experience with. As such, it has pretty much zero impact on your life. 

That's fine but it isn't the standard the President Nelson espoused in his Medium post this week.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Using what we know about someone can help us understand their actions and motives better when something isn't clear.  

Does what we know about Pres. Nelson suggest that he would implore people to do something that he knows he isn't doing (which is the definition of a hypocrite)?

I don't think he realizes that he isn't doing it.  I'm confident that he would not implore people to do something that he knows he isn't doing.

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That anonymous essay

C'mon.  The document was reviewed and ratified by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and has been published to the world on the Church's website for years now.

Quote

continues to suggest that these were simply theories when they were actually prophetic teachings declared to be doctrine and the log of God, based in scripture. 

"Log of God?"

And holy cow, is there ever a way the Church can placate its critics?  

Quote

Many church members that I encounter still believe that God instituted the racist priesthood and temple restrictions. 

I doubt that.  Quite a bit, actually.

Unsubtantiated and unlikely hearsay attributed to "many church members," presented by someone I've never met and don't know, and who is doing so under the convenient cloak of online anonymity, doesn't go far with me.

Quote

I don't think the essay meets the standard given by President Nelson in this week's Medium post.

Quelle surprise.

The really pernicious thing about faultfinding is that you will pretty much always be able to succeed at it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 9, 2020 by smac97

[Tacenda]

Watching the funeral of George Floyd. Something the reverend just said struck me, he said that George called out to his mother just before his death. It made me think of Jesus when he spoke about his mother before dying. I'm not placing George as a savior, but his name is known throughout the world most likely and hopefully will change it for the better and his death hopefully will not be in vain. Oh, the reverend is now speaking of the Lord, just as I'm typing, such a beautiful service for us all.

[Tacenda]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That anonymous essay continues to suggest that these were simply theories when they were actually prophetic teachings declared to be doctrine and the log of God, based in scripture.  Many church members that I encounter still believe that God instituted the racist priesthood and temple restrictions.  I don't think the essay meets the standard given by President Nelson in this week's Medium post.

Yep! This gets lost on some.

[Islander]

23 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Good move, of course.  

I really do like how religion has, to some extent, learned to adapt and embrace the secular elements that are forcing our archaic and unhelpful religious notions formerly inspired by God into the dustbin.  I mean its odd they want or need to promote God without acknowledging his role in the problem itself.  I know they don't think God is the problem, but the problem was those who claimed to be inspired by God, they were mistaken.  Or else God allowed the wrongness and allowed them to pretend it was because of Him, because He knew people, in their carnal state, couldn't be nice.  

I mean whatever.  I don't know that we adequately resolve our issues if we continue to promote the very cause of them.  

Evil men seized the flock of Christ and drove the original Church into the ground. The Savior warned about "wolves in sheep's clothing" as to those that would seek to mislead the faithful. The Apostle Paul faced significant opposition in his own time when some proposed that he was in chains because of secret sin and as punishment by the Lord. He said in Phil 1:15: "It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry,..." As early as AD 200, the church at Ephesus was pretty much gone. And so, one by one, most of the churches in the crib of early Christianity faded from existence. 

For nearly two millennia, evil men used the name of God in vain to justify the evil desires of their hearts, in complete opposition and disregard to the words of Christ. By the 4th century AD, the Romans injected their pagan religious practices into Christianity and called it a Church. One can not judge the Gospel of Christ and the Christian worldview by the conduct of some of its proponents. Most Christians deplore the tactics of the Westboro Baptist Church of Arkansas, for example. To showcase them as a paragon of Christianity would be a complete mischaracterization of the faith.  

[stemelbow]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

Now who is attributing words to me that I did not use?  "Good and nice"?  Umm, not what I said. 

I summarized the mostly universal principles you mention in the BIble as good and nice.  I certainly didn't offer it as a quotation.  

19 hours ago, pogi said:

Is it a universal moral/"good" to turn the other cheek.  Is it a universal moral/"good" to love your enemy and hope/pray for their benefit.  Why are you suggesting that it is?  What would prompt someone to see those things as "good" and practice the unnatural discipline?  I asked you to point to a non-religious reference for this discipline (which it is) outside of religion. 

Nearly every society on earth has found ways to love enemies, and to turn the other cheek.  There is nothing unique about these things.  

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

Um...because of what you said.

Remember how you claimed that "since the dawn of time, as far as we can tell, religion has been with us, inspiring us to annihilate, subjugate, or at the very least be suspicious of the other, and defeat those whom God has told us are outside the pale of Hs chosen.  I mean that's the BIble, but basically all religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian and Islamic ones, hurt us today."

Seems pretty clear to me that you are saying religion is what inspires violence and conquest, and that it is responsible for creating this sense of 'otherness.' 

Only that's ridiculous. Because absolutely all of those problems exist in the absence of religion. Ethnic tribalism is what results from thousands and thousands of years of evolution; it isn't a byproduct of religion. 

It's like someone trying to blame violence and ill-will on church basketball. True, the sport can potentially be an avenue for those things to be expressed, but those things exist independent and apart from the activity itself, so blaming the game is just weak sauce. 

 

What society has been absent religion?  Oh welll, doesn't matter.  I've always felt if it weren't for religion creating the divisiveness something else would.  I"m just point out that religion has always been with mankind in some form or another, at least as far as we know.  

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I summarized the mostly universal principles you mention in the BIble as good and nice.  I certainly didn't offer it as a quotation.  

Love your enemy and pray/hope for those who persecute you.  Turn the other cheek.  If a man sues you for your shirt, hand over your coat also...  these are "mostly universal principles" outside religion  CFR.  I highly doubt that.  It is hard enough to find disciples of these principles within Christianity. 

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Nearly every society on earth has found ways to love enemies, and to turn the other cheek.  There is nothing unique about these things.  

CFR.  I don't doubt that you might find examples of singular instances...maybe.   What I doubt is a systemic discipline of aligning ones life and practices of love to these principles and values that you somehow think are universal.  Show me a non-religious "discipline" before Christ that taught these things.  They may be fairly universal NOW as Christ's teachings were so influential across the globe, but show me non-religious cultures uninfluenced by Christ that teaches/practices these things as disciplines.  

Edited June 9, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

As an update to this story, I don't know if it's been shared.  The NAACP is rebuking the Church for essentially not doing anything at all.  It appears the Church loves the photo ops, giving the impression they are doing good, but refuse to actually do anything.  Some quotes:

Quote

The NAACP is “looking forward to the church doing more to undo the 150 years of damage they did by how they treated African Americans in the church,” Colom said, and by their “endorsement of how African Americans were treated throughout the country, including segregation and Jim Crow laws.”

I think many have called on the Church to address this, yes.  

Quote

But there seems to be “no willingness on the part of the church,” Colom said, “to do anything material.”

He looks forward “to their deeds matching their words,” he said. “It’s time now for more than sweet talk.”

It does make sense. 

Just to clarify:  

Quote

Derrick Johnson — the NAACP president and CEO, who signed the op-ed with Nelson and who met in Salt Lake City with the Latter-day Saint leader in May 2018 — said Monday that Colom was authorized to speak for the organization.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I don't think he realizes that he isn't doing it.  I'm confident that he would not implore people to do something that he knows he isn't doing.

I'm confident in that as well.  Which is what makes me think that you and he are probably coming at the issue from different perspectives, with different criteria in mind.  Because I don't think he would say what he did if he didn't sincerely believe it applied to him as well as everyone else.

So rather than him not realizing he's not doing it, I think the issue is that his criteria for doing it looks different than your's does.

[Islander]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As an update to this story, I don't know if it's been shared.  The NAACP is rebuking the Church for essentially not doing anything at all.  It appears the Church loves the photo ops, giving the impression they are doing good, but refuse to actually do anything.  Some quotes:

I think many have called on the Church to address this, yes.  

It does make sense. 

Just to clarify:  

 

This is why the Church should not involve itself in politics; and all this, make no mistake, is politics. 

I believe the PR group misled the Presidency in the necessity of issuing any kind of press release. We should be about God's business and let the world deal with its own ills. Let our lives and everyday action speak for itself as to who we are and what we believe as a people.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Love your enemy and pray/hope for those who persecute you.  Turn the other cheek.  If a man sues you for your shirt, hand over your coat also...  these are "mostly universal principle" outside religion  CFR. 

CFR.  I don't doubt that you might find examples of singular instances...maybe.   What I doubt is a systemic discipline of aligning ones life and practices of love to these principles and values that you somehow think are universal.  Show me a non-religious "discipline" before Christ that taught these things.  They may be fairly universal NOW as Christ's teachings were so influential across the globe, but show me non-religious cultures uninfluenced by Christ that teaches/practices these things as disciplines.  

I think stoicism sets a pretty good example in terms of each of those concepts.  It feels silly to get into it, since it appears you largely agree.  "They may be fairly universal NOW as Christ's teachings were so influential across the globe"  That's what I was saying.  Are you suggesting if someone didn't write Jesus words into greek after Jesus died, suggesting these things, we'd never have realized we can actually hope and pray for enemies?  

That seems like the outlandish claim to me.  

[juliann]

Quote

 

Wil Colom, special counsel to the NAACP president, said the group "hasn't seen very much progress" on joint projects.

Indeed, the two organisations have collaborated on a handful of employment and educational initiatives. But those were "minor efforts," Colom said. They "do not befit the stature and magnitude of what the church can do and should do."

The NAACP is "looking forward to the church doing more to undo the 150 years of damage they did by how they treated African Americans in the church," Colom said, and by their "endorsement of how African Americans were treated throughout the country, including segregation and Jim Crow laws."

But there seems to be "no willingness on the part of the church," Colom said, "to do anything material."

He looks forward "to their deeds matching their words," he said. "It's time now for more than sweet talk."  Salt Lake Tribune article

And this is where we can start:

1.Stop pretending the priesthood ban was anything but racist to the core. Put the Gospel Topics where people can see them rather than have to know they exist to find them.

2. Remove any equivalency about how the ban started so that members can't hide behind "God did it." There is too much scholarship to play this game anymore.

3. Instruct local units in what racism is and start talking about it. (All one has to do is read Desert News comments to see the problem we have, it's not like there aren't blaring examples in front of our faces.)

4. The biggest force for good, General Conference. Start. Talking. About. Racism. 

I have sat through so many lessons where there have been subtle and not so subtle jabs that people are so used to getting away with they probably don't even realize it. I won't sit through another quietly. Assuming we ever get back to normal....

 

Quote

 

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by juliann

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

And this is where we can start:

1.Stop pretending the priesthood ban was anything but racist to the core. Put the Gospel Topics where people can see them rather than have to know they exist to find them.

2. Remove any equivalency about how the ban started so that members can hide behind "God did it." There is too much scholarship to play this game anymore.

3. Instruct local units in what racism is and start talking about it. (All one has to do is read Desert News comments to see the problem we have, it's not like there aren't blaring examples in front of our faces.)

4. The biggest force for good, General Conference. Start. Talking. About. Racism. 

I have sat through so many lessons where there have been subtle and not so subtle jabs that people are so used to getting away with they probably don't even realize it. I won't sit through another quietly. Assuming we ever get back to normal....

 

 

Excellent recommendation for a start.  I think this would put the Church on the right path.