Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[Tacenda]

There's this petition to remove the Brigham Young statue. https://www.change.org/p/lt-gov-spencer-cox-petition-to-remove-racist-brigham-young-statue-in-salt-lake-city-utah/sign?original_footer_petition_id=21248849&algorithm=promoted&source_location=petition_footer&grid_position=10&pt=AVBldGl0aW9uAMZBWgEAAAAAXt6kz4taPbplNWI1MTgzZQ%3D%3D

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

You have argued this whole time that our understanding and discipline of love would be no different. 

My point is we can accomplish all of the good principles of religion without religion.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Religion amounts to a "childish thing" that needs to be put away?  I hope I am misunderstanding you here.  Religion is "good for people", in one breath.  In the next, it is "childish" and "needs to be put away"? 

It's been good, but people can get the same level of good in life without religion.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Which came first, the racism or the justification?  I'm not claiming religion is innocent.  It seems every culture justifies their racism in one way or another, religious or not - but the racism seems to always come first.  Calling for an end to religion to stop racism is a joke!  

How would we know what came first?  They are both religion and divisiveness based on things like race are as old as time as far as we know.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Then what are we arguing about here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing much other than religion is easily replaceable.  

[rodheadlee]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There's this petition to remove the Brigham Young statue. https://www.change.org/p/lt-gov-spencer-cox-petition-to-remove-racist-brigham-young-statue-in-salt-lake-city-utah/sign?original_footer_petition_id=21248849&algorithm=promoted&source_location=petition_footer&grid_position=10&pt=AVBldGl0aW9uAMZBWgEAAAAAXt6kz4taPbplNWI1MTgzZQ%3D%3D

Are we going to burn the history books too?

[CA Steve]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I would assume that skin color (by looking at someone) would have be used first unless someone was in an area where many were of mixed race and paranoid so they automatically asked and then someone would be asked where they were from, parents from, heritage, etc to determine if their genealogy included black African or not.  I am also guessing that a number of members didn't care about the distinction and would have acted like blacks/darker skinned individuals with a heritage from Australia or iTaukei from Fiji should be excluded as well, though they were not.

Anyone older here ever get instructions on their mission.  I will have to ask my husband who went to South America in 76 iirc if he remembers.

Of course the first indication was skin color, which we know is about as reliable as a Trump tweet. After that, one just asked what heritage the person in question had, which was another wholly unreliable test, but even then if the person was certain they had African lineage, what the heck did that even mean? There are multiple lines of DNA that can be traced back to Africa; North East African, West African, Congolese & Southern East African or African Hunter-Gatherer, each of which can be further subdivided. Which of these was "the lineage" forbidden to posses the priesthood and why? The whole lineage defense is just a silly attempt to avoid what was obviously a very racially enforced policy. White people like me, whose DNA actually show some roots back to sub Saharan Africa, were  automatically without question given the priesthood because we looked white.

The reality is, if we could trace  DNA back to when this "lineage" that was supposedly excluded from the priesthood occurred, we would all share in it. Trying to divide people by lineage from that far back is a pipe dream, similar to a literal gathering of the lost ten tribes. If those tribes ever actually existed, today their DNA would be spread throughout the world, and every person in the world would have some of the DNA from lineage denied the priesthood. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by CA Steve

[mgy401]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think the Gospel Topic essay left room (in my opinion, purposefully) for people to continue to believe the ban was God's will, even if the reasons for it were not, or to believe that the ban was completely manmade.  I think it's time for the church to remove all ambiguity.  

Either unequivocally state that the ban was a mistake or embrace that the ban was God's will for whatever non-racist reasons, (or I suppose state that they don't know what it was, though that option seems untenable from my perspective).

I think the more likely approach the Church might take, is that it was a divine policy that allowed the church to pragmatically negotiate the challenges posed by prejudice and wickedness outside as well as within the Church; rather like the Church’s failure to build the New Jerusalem in Jackson County and its subsequent removal to Illinois and then Utah. 

But frankly, even that approach is problematic.  Re-affirming the idea that God would subordinate the interests of black Church members to serve a greater good (or just to accommodate white wickedness) isn’t going to earn us lot of popularity points in today’s culture.  

And the alternative—to suggest that Brigham Young, due to his own baser instincts, imposed a wholly unauthorized and unmitigatedly harmful church-wide policy, and/or that David McKay misrepresented his instructions when he said God had specifically told him to leave the ban in place—strikes deeply at the Church leadership’s moral authority and the notion that, as President Uchtdorf put it, “God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.“

For those of us who believe the LDS leadership have special insight into the mind of God and a special commission to relay that insight to the rest of us—if God had anything revolutionary to say on the matter that the Church or the world was ready to hear, He’d very likely have said it by now.

For those who don’t recognize any special divine insight or authority by the LDS leadership—from a PR standpoint, there is absolutely *nothing* they could say that would lead to a net improvement of the status quo (as the Church’s supposedly uninspired leadership would be inclined to see it).

Edited June 10, 2020 by mgy401

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Please. The church has been clear about this for (quite literally) decades now.

Here's what Bruce R. McConkie said later that same year (1978):

 

I have heard that, and quotes similar to the ones smac posted previously, throughout my entire life. I'm sorry, but the only way you get to today without knowing better is if you honestly don't care about the topic or if you are purposefully avoiding it. 

 

Or if it isn’t near enough. And McConkie continued with racist statements in his books. Which is the best example ever of why “sweet words” can be worthless. 
 

It’s not about “quotes.” It’s about the things we say, do and don’t do  that drive black people away. 

[USU78]

When "we" means "the rest of you creeps."

[Duncan]

One thing for me about this whole issue is probably no one who posts on here or who reads the Medium article is a racist. The people that need to read it probably aren't on the internet and MAY have racist tendencies. My parents generation probably wouldn't even know it exists. I think they should say something at Conference, that would have maximum effect-hopefully

Edited June 10, 2020 by Duncan

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, cacheman said:

In Bruce R. McConkie's talk,  he reiterated the theory that the restrictions were based on our premortal faith and devotion.   He also mentioned that the lifting of the restrictions were on God's timeline, and that certain nations were prioritized in regards to the spreading of the gospel.  The only 'theory' he specifically shot down was the one contradicted by the revelation. ...that the restriction wouldn't be lifted in this mortal life. 

Did any leaders, in the late 70's or 80's disavow the theories linking premortal actions to the ban?  Or any of the other theories? I honestly don't know. 

Well, the context of him "reiterat[ing]..premortal faith and devotion" was in the matter of where that notion originated - from supposition and reasoning (i.e., trying to make sense of the disparity between what the scriptures said and what was the case).

And, I don't know about you, but the following seems to speak quite clearly to every bit of 'folk doctrine' pertaining to race which should all be tossed as well:  

Quote

 

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

 

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Or if it isn’t near enough.

Not near enough in what way?

 

Quote

And McConkie continued with racist statements in his books. Which is the best example ever of why “sweet words” can be worthless. 

Which post-1978 books are you referring to?

 

Quote

It’s not about “quotes.” It’s about the things we say, do and don’t do  that drive black people away. 

Fair enough. Though, honestly, I have lived pretty much my entire life in the South, and I really haven't seen any evidence that the church does anything to "drive black people away." 

 

[Islander]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe if Pres Nelson came out publicly in the news or in our SS classes or Gen Conf and said that the PH ban was not divinely instituted and someone is old enough to have heard or read statements from prophets that it is from God, then there would be a host of people that might reconsider that a prophet speaks for the Lord or is God's mouthpiece. It will have a negative outcome or will cause many to leave. I have read where people started doubting the church after reading the church essay on the PH ban. So that might be Pres Nelson's reason for restraint.

Prophets make mistakes. And colossal ones. Read the scriptures. They are also prone to failures and shortcomings like any other men. The scriptures are full of them. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

In the past, when this topic has been raised and I've shared the thread with my West Africa-born housemate, his responses have been unpublishable. He's a generally laid-back bloke, but few things set him off more than a bunch of white Americans who think they need to be anguished on his behalf. He finds it the worst kind of infantilising behaviour.

I know that's one man's lived experience, but it's worth remembering, and from what I have seen, the Church is full of black Saints of like mind. We have ten members of our ward from West Africa alone (one of them a former housemate, one a current housemate), and all of the adults (all converts) have shared similar feelings with me at some point.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[CV75]

On 6/8/2020 at 1:35 PM, smac97 said:

Here:

I add my meager voice to these. 

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it significant that they acknowledge that systemic change follows personal change, and that governments and agencies only reflect and reinforce those deeper changes.

"Unitedly we declare that the answers to racism, prejudice, discrimination and hate will not come from government or law enforcement alone. Solutions will come as we open our hearts to those whose lives are different than our own, as we work to build bonds of genuine friendship, and as we see each other as the brothers and sisters we are — for we are all children of a loving God."

[Thinking]

On 6/9/2020 at 8:23 AM, smac97 said:

By way of clarification: 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.  But to reduce this to "based on the color of their skin" is a bit misleading.  There was more to it than that.

The theories about why the ban existed were disavowed and even if the ban was not revelatory, the ban still was "based on the color of their skin."

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In the past, when this topic has been raised and I've shared the thread with my West Africa-born housemate, his responses have been unpublishable. He's a generally laid-back bloke, but few things set him off more than a bunch of white Americans who think they need to be anguished on his behalf. He finds it the worst kind of infantilising behaviour.

I know that's one man's lived experience, but it's worth remembering, and from what I have seen, the Church is full of black Saints of like mind. We have ten members of our ward from West Africa alone (one of them a former housemate, one a current housemate), and all of the adults (all converts) have shared similar feelings with me at some point.

There are a few characteristics of recent public discussions about race and racism that trouble me:

First, the equivocating element.  "Racism" is a highly charged word, yet is often being used to described relatively harmless, even wholly benign, behaviors.  "Racism" seems to be infinitely malleable, such that can be attributed to whatever anybody (except, I guess, for a white person) unilterally and subjectively feels like.  This has the effect of erasing qualitative and quantitative differences in words and behavior, differences which should be preserved.  Innocuous words/actions may come across as insensitive or weird, but the better way would be to either shrug off such trivialities, or else use kindness and persuasion to help the individual understand how he can improve.  Throwing reflexive - and often highly arguable - accusations of "Racist!" at such minor transgressions just ratchets up tensions, puts people on the defensive, and makes them less inclined to interact with other racial groups.

Second, the presumptuous element.  Presumptions abound.  Presumptions that all white people are inveterate racists; that the absence of objectively racist words/actions can always be explained away with hugely subjective - and empirically untestable - theories like "implicit bias" and "microaggressions" and "systemic racism;" that guilt can be attributed to a person not because of what he has said or done, but solely because of his membership in a particular category ("white males" being the worst of the lot); that no meaningful progress has been made in "righting the ship" relative to race relations; that racism is solely and entirely responsible for all problems afflicting (some) minority communities; that cultural influences and individual choices have essentially no role in perpetuating such problems, and so on.

Third, the infantilizing element.  See Hamba's remarks above.

Fourth, the coercive element.  Much of protest rhetoric/behavior I've been seeing is based on threats.  We are, or should be, attempting to persuade through logic, reasoning and evidence.  Instead, massive systemic changes are being arbitrarily demanded through threats to reputations, livelihood, property, even social order and physical well-being.  

Fifth, the disingenuous element.  Much of what is being discussed seems to be much less about actually improving relationships between peoples and communities of differing racial groups, and much more about appropriating the tension and anxiety of the moment in order to advance particular political (and often financial) objectives of self-appointed arbiters of "how to fight racism."  I think there are some small elements of our society who feign concern about racial injustice, when in fact they want it to continue.  They have livelihoods based on racial tensions, which occasionally must be stoked.  Racebaiters and groups that trade on fomenting violence based on racial grievances (BLM and Antifa being the two most obvious examples) need racial discord in order to be relevant.  In order to have influence.  In order to have their ideologies tolerated/accepted.  In order to have their sociopolitical objectives coercively imposed.  And, of course, money is pretty much always a big factor.  Similarly, anarchists are stoking racial hatred and animosity, perhaps because, as Alfred in The Dark Knight put it, "{s}ome men just want to watch the world burn."

Finally, the toxic element.  I think the protests and the rhetoric are doing real damage to the fabric of our society.  This article, by a Chicago pastor, has some useful insights:

Quote

Martin Luther King famously noted that violence “destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue.” This week’s violent looting has produced a deafening monologue.

On the south side of Chicago, where I pastor a church and lead a ministry, Project H.O.O.D., we are in the business of building dialogue as the way of rebuilding our community. We help build community leaders and we equip our neighbors—especially young black men who are exiting gangs—to build their own character and to help rebuild the streets. We build self-esteem and respect for our fellow man. And we build stronger families with firmer foundations.

The destructive violence, rioting, and looting of the last few days, however, have quickly erased years of our dialogue.

When I began New Beginnings Church on the south side of Chicago, the neighborhood held the sad distinction of having one of the nation’s highest homicide rates. Over the years, we have changed that statistic. We have built a thriving church with an average of 600 to 750 people at our services each Sunday. We have a community center with a free gym, a career center that offers advice and assistance with interviews, and a high-impact jobs training program that has helped people build successful careers in fields such as construction or landscaping.

Our work has paid off, and we have witnessed the power of a changed life. I have seen the excitement of young men who have turned away from violent gangs to embark on their own new beginning and get fitted for construction boots for their new jobs.

Where despair once reigned, we have replaced it with hope and opportunity.

The riots of this past week, however, have set us back in our ministry work and have done incalculable damage to our community. The physical damage to property pales in comparison to the damage done to our morale.

George Floyd’s death at the hands of a police officer in Minneapolis sparked understandable outrage. How could another black man have died because of police brutality? The protests began as a natural outpouring of grief, as white and black Americans were united in their horror at this senseless act.

But these protests turned violent, and the victims of this widespread looting are often the black community leaders and business owners. How does it advance our cause of racial harmony to wreck the black communities?

We are still surveying the damage on our streets. All of the CVS and Walgreens buildings were looted. The result is that we no longer have a pharmacy in our neighborhood. Church members are shuttling members of our community out to the suburbs to get their prescriptions and basic goods.

The grocery stores were also looted, leaving us without options to purchase local food.

The question lingers on many of our minds: Will these stores and pharmacies—so essential for daily living here—ever come back? It’s challenging enough in normal times to lure stores and businesses to rough neighborhoods; it’s going to be far more difficult to entice business owners to set up shop in our beleaguered communities now.

...

We need justice in the George Floyd case, and we need assurances that these hateful acts will not take place again. At the same time, we need partnerships with the police so they will help us re-establish law and order in our neighborhoods.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

I predict the church will take out the racist comments in the BoM. But then that would change the whole story. 

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I predict the church will take out the racist comments in the BoM. But then that would change the whole story. 

Have you read this yet?  Ethan Sproat, "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon".

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol24/iss1/7/

Changing the way we read the same words by changing the context is another way of changing the story.  It's what Jesus was referring to when he talked of removing the beams from our own eyes first. "Then shall ye see clearly."

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[rockpond]

Black church members call for anti-racism training in the church.

https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/black-members-call-for-anti-racism-training-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/

[Islander]

On 6/9/2020 at 2:12 PM, 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.  

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

Can you be specific and name those "societies" you speak of? None come to mind. 

[Rain]

On 6/9/2020 at 2:03 PM, smac97 said:

Elder Maxwell in 1995:

Elder Alexander Morrison in 2000:

(That last bit about the Church "from its beginnings [standing] strongly against racism" is, I think, indicative that we had, and have, room to improve.)

President Hinckley in 2006:

(This seems to improve on Elder Morrison's remark above.)

Elder Ballard in 2017:

Elder Andersen in 2017:

Darius Gray in 2018 (on the Church's blog): Healing the Wounds of Racism (an abridged version of which was published in the June 2018 Ensign as "Moving Forward Together"😞

(This is, I think, also an improvement on Elder Morrison's comment above.)

From the March 2020 New Era:

Thanks,

-Smac

The church is clear that racism is wrong. The problem comes when people feel the ban is from God then they feel the ban cannot be racist.  So while they can accept that the theories surrounding the ban are racist then they feel all the quotes you mentioned do not apply to the ban since a God given ban cannot be racist. 

Which means until the church comes out and says that it was racist or just policy or whatever then many won't conclude, like you did from the lack of providence etc, that the ban was anything but law/doctrine.

 

[Rain]

I keep hearing that racism is a political issue on this board. There are many things that become political issues (example:same sex marriage), but are not inherently governmentally political.  

There are definite religious issues that go with racism - do unto others, we are all God's children, love one another etc.  The fact that church leaders, as Smac pointed out, have spoken on it several times shows that our leaders feel it is not only a political issue.

On Sunday afternoon I read a post here that said something to the effect that the topic was political giving the impression we shouldn't speak about it because politics is not allowed.

That night I heard a woman speak (Kimberly something, I didn't catch her last name) and she mentioned she has noticed we often label racism as politics because we don't want to speak about it. The timing was so perfect.

President Nelson speaking about it is a great example of showing that racism doesn't have to be "political".  It's still ok to talk about here.

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Islander said:

Can you be specific and name those "societies" you speak of? None come to mind. 

Remember some of the great historic atrocities committed on others were meted out by our western Christian societies.  The bar is not necessarily all that high  (and very well may be surpassed by many).  I'd wager a good study would produce that nearly all societies tend to fall into a similar camp in terms of the degree to which they have learned to love another.  It'd be tough to measure.  I figured the notion would largely be accepted on the face of it.  I do get the tendency for myopic favoritism here, though.  Look at the grandness of our magnificent society now!  (Oh wait...It appears we're a bit in tatters to some degree at present).  But come on, in nearly every way, more, as a percentage are richer and better off.  We live long lives, and seem pretty damn happy.  But that's not say we're not better off than we've been.  

[Islander]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Remember some of the great historic atrocities committed on others were meted out by our western Christian societies.  The bar is not necessarily all that high  (and very well may be surpassed by many).  I'd wager a good study would produce that nearly all societies tend to fall into a similar camp in terms of the degree to which they have learned to love another.  It'd be tough to measure.  I figured the notion would largely be accepted on the face of it.  I do get the tendency for myopic favoritism here, though.  Look at the grandness of our magnificent society now!  (Oh wait...It appears we're a bit in tatters to some degree at present).  But come on, in nearly every way, more, as a percentage are richer and better off.  We live long lives, and seem pretty damn happy.  But that's not say we're not better off than we've been.  

But you still can not bring yourself to name some of those "societies" you previously touted. I'll save you the trouble; there isn't any.

In the Western world people, even those that reject Christianity, enjoy a way of life, orderly societies and social and political protections that are totally counter intuitive in other cultures. You may reject the Judeo-Christian worldview, but you certainly benefit and fully enjoy the byproduct and fruits of it. It is almost like having a conversation about oxygen's chemical composition, typical compounds, their uses and applications, its importance for the sustaining of life while refusing to mention the trees. Nothing new. Atheists have tried that for a millennia.

The claims of Jesus are unique an exclusive and so is His doctrine. One may find practical reasons to live an orderly, moral and peaceful life in the West. It does not work so smoothly anywhere else. There are no practical reasons to love your neighbor and pray for those that hate you and those that persecute you and  spitefully use you. I've been to 28 countries in my lifetime and can attest to that. 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Islander said:

But you still can not bring yourself to name some of those "societies" you previously touted. I'll save you the trouble; there isn't any.

In the Western world people, even those that reject Christianity, enjoy a way of life, orderly societies and social and political protections that are totally counter intuitive in other cultures. You may reject the Judeo-Christian worldview, but you certainly benefit and fully enjoy the byproduct and fruits of it. It is almost like having a conversation about oxygen's chemical composition, typical compounds, their uses and applications, its importance for the sustaining of life while refusing to mention the trees. Nothing new. Atheists have tried that for a millennia.

The claims of Jesus are unique an exclusive and so is His doctrine. One may find practical reasons to live an orderly, moral and peaceful life in the West. It does not work so smoothly anywhere else. There are no practical reasons to love your neighbor and pray for those that hate you and those that persecute you and  spitefully use you. I've been to 28 countries in my lifetime and can attest to that. 

So are you saying in every nation where Christianity resides in some majority form, people are better off than in every country where it does not?  I don't think I can disagree with what you've said above more.   I am suggesting, as Steven Pinker does, we're all better off today.  But its not necessarily because of religion.  It seems to be so in spite of religion.  Religion, historically, just happens to be a necessity.  I think that necessity is disappearing more and more.  

[Islander]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So are you saying in every nation where Christianity resides in some majority form, people are better off than in every country where it does not?  I don't think I can disagree with what you've said above more.   I am suggesting, as Steven Pinker does, we're all better off today.  But its not necessarily because of religion.  It seems to be so in spite of religion.  Religion, historically, just happens to be a necessity.  I think that necessity is disappearing more and more.  

You keep ignoring the argument. You still are not able to point to those "societies" you previously mentioned.

And yes, the Judeo-Christian worldview was the foundation of the Western societies that are, by far, more developed, free and enjoy greater social, political and economic protections than the rest of the world. You may not be able to see it because, you either ignore the impact of the worldview in thought and behavior or, you are so invested in your own paradigm that you refuse to be confused by the facts. 

We have been trying to rip God out of the public square in this country now for five or six decades. The outcome is that in every possible meaningful key indicator of social wellbeing, we are worse today than in the 1960's. Simple. Without God and beyond some "practical reasons" there is no moral compass. And most people, given the opportunity, will behave in an amoral way and seek after their own interests and pleasures. And without an absolute standard of right and wrong, separate from the whims and selfishness of men, societies sink into chaos and decadence.