Apostle of Color

[Dunamis]

I can't quite figure out what is going on here but stop it.

koakaipo and God_is_my_refuge, would you like to make a new thread that we can keep under control? I think your perspectives are very valuable.

[wenglund]

He [Dr. King] was fighting not only for equality, but FOR BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA TO BE SEEN!!!!

...I ask for us to be seen helping, seen leading, SEEN...

I am guessing that this has more to do with being valued and loved, than simply being SEEN--which ties back into your feelings of rejection on a number of levels.

Often, this need to be seen is born of a desire for external validation of waivering positive internal sentiments, or even more so, external over-ruling of pronounced negative internal sentiments. We want the world to convince us that the self-defeating tape we keep playing in our heads is wrong. We want the world to value and love us when we don't value and love ourselves.

Sadly, though, the world will typically reflect back to us our self-perceptions. We see in the worlds eyes what we loath or dislike about ourselves.

I think the rose can teach us a thing or two on this matter. There are two ways that it may make others aware of its existence: either through the prick of its thorn, or through the wondrous beauty of its blossom. Each of these ways of being SEEN, however, will likely leave entirely different impressions upon others. The thorn will have a repelling way of getting noticed, whereas the blossom will have an endearing way of getting noticed.

It may be wise to ask which side of us we are showing to others? Which side of us is being SEEN? The thorn or the blossom?

Also, it may behoove us ask:

[Refuge]

Being black in this church IS ONE HELL OF A JOURNEY.

I'm reminded of the scene in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", when Sidney Portier is talking with his father and tells him the difference between him and his father is his father sees himself as a black man, but Sidney sees himself as a man.

The problem of society in general is people tend to think in terms of color rather than in terms of humanity and the human race.

Being any color or ethnic background is a journey in all walks of life. Being a parent and divorced is no less a journey in a Church that is single minded in its belief on marriage and family.

Everyone has their crosses to bear, the question becomes do we bear those crosses with humility, with an eye single to following the Savior or do we cause as much dissent and discord with our fellow man?

I'm reminded of the scene in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", when Sidney Portier is talking with his father and tells him the difference between him and his father is his father sees himself as a black man, but Sidney sees himself as a man.

I have not seen this movie, but it is one that I would like to. Perhaps when I can stay awake on a weekend, it would be a good pasttime.

The problem of society in general is people tend to think in terms of color rather than in terms of humanity and the human race.

Unfortunately, with this particular issue, it did not start with the people who are asking for restitution. But their pleas are met with "don't see color" diatribes, and it's really annoying. We were seen as a color, now we're asking to be seen as family....REAL family. Why is this wrong?

Being any color or ethnic background is a journey in all walks of life. Being a parent and divorced is no less a journey in a Church that is single minded in its belief on marriage and family.

But the GAs have given many talks telling these people that they are valued. The issue of how blacks were (and still are in many cases) portrayed has not been very much at all.

Everyone has their crosses to bear, the question becomes do we bear those crosses with humility, with an eye single to following the Savior or do we cause as much dissent and discord with our fellow man?

It hurts that people think that asking for complete acceptance is causing dissent. I'm sorry, but if I cannot be human in this church, I don't want to be in this church. Either have the church face the issue, or be forever deemed as racist by the outside world.

We're behind.

If I were to say that as a black woman I was better or of more worth than another, that would be lack of humility. But I feel it is self-degredation to asked to in essence, sit back and shut up, because this church will not face it's history with regards to how it has treated my race, the things said about it. It's wrong.

But those who wish to ignore, and chalk it up to "not practicing pure religion", "not being humble", "trying to counsel the Lord" will stand before Him come judgement day and explain why they chose to ignore the plight of their brothers and sisters of any and all colors in this church that are mistreated because of who they are, including African Americans who have been called so many names, and had so many "less than valiant" labels attatched to them over the pulpit.

[koakaipo]

Haha, Dunamis, sure thing. I'm just not sure what I should start a thread about exactly..maybe you could give me a good reference point-I see you are a monitor, so feel free to direct my newbie self correctly on this board. I just started yesterday.....

[Refuge]

I started one for those who wish to discuss, not just blame, downplay, and try to divert the subject. I put in ANYONE who is different, not just African Americans. Let's see if people can actually behave.

[Refuge]

Wade my friend, a rose is not a feeling human being. I refuse to be kept in the background to be pulled out whenever the NAACP comes a-calling.

That's what's happening. It's not fair.

[heavymental]

But I feel it is self-degredation to asked to in essence, sit back and shut up, because this church will not face it's history with regards to how it has treated my race, the things said about it. It's wrong.

And I know several African American members of the Church male and female single and married that don't have the same belief they are or were treated wrongly. They are no less proud of their heritage and race as you are.

The Church has not treated your race any differently than any other race, individuals perhaps have, but your statement seems to imply the Church has been at one point or is currently racist to some degree. I've never heard any of my African American friends say or feel the same way you do and none of them is any less vocal in their opinions and ideas.

[Kemara]

Kemara-just for clarification's sake, what I think other posters are alluding to is the yearly Ensign issue of the centerfold(hmmm, that doesn't sound right) picture of the church leadership, where basically everyone, save one Asian or a Latino perhaps, is non-Hispanic Caucasian. While this could be interpreted on a variety of levels(the makeup of the leadership), I don't necessarily think it's wrong to notice that, "hey, they are all white." I remember saying that to my mom when I was a little kid, cause you know, kids sorta just say what's on their minds.

I dont disagree with you, but this is not what Moksha was alluding too in his statement about the whites only section, he was alluding to the fact that the white leadership is purposely white and only whites can join, that it is designed on ideals of segregation, which is blatant baloney. As I have already stated on this thread I am sure that oneday there will be an Apostle of the non-white color but this will come as a matter of course and not as a matter of force as those who propose racial quotas would have.

[koakaipo]

heavymetal-I see where you are coming from, but can I jump in really quickly and say that when someone tells you how they are treated, responding that others don't feel like you is a little disheartening. I mentioned this earlier-as a brownie who grew up in basically a white environment. I can go both ways you can say. And how brownies act alone within the church community and how brownies act with white people are just different. this is the same for outside the church to-it goes to ethnic identities and dynamics with interethnic interactions within the context of American society. It's just a logical thing-I've been in the company of all white friends who say something sorta prejudiced, try to backtrack because they realize I'm present(I'm sorta disarming that way where people may forget I'm a brownie). I've been in groups with brownies where people totally rip on white people---and yet, they've got white friends they love dearly at the same time. Race and identity and interacting with others unlike ourselves ethnically is a very tricky thing is all I"m saying-it's quite complicated, the reality of relations between individuals and ethnic groups.

[Refuge]

a matter of force

Stop demonizing the issue and just admit that you don't understand. Period.

[Refuge]

The Church has not treated your race any differently than any other race

You have not done your homework. Come back when you have. Assignment for tonight...go to the FAIR website, and look under the topics of priesthood ban and racial issues. Then come back and report.

See, this type of ignorance is what burns me up.

[koakaipo]

Kemara-I should have qualified my statement more-I was referring specifically to a reference Moksha made and someone else asking for references or sources to back up the reference.

You know, I don't know Moksha much past having posted with him on another forum, but he is quite a sustaining member in terms of supporting the leadership and I don't see the same antagonism towards the leadership that you are seeing on this thread necessarily. As for racial quotas-I think you and I both would agree that saying we need an apostle of color doesn't

mean it would have to come about so artificially or forcefully really. I think everyone would also agree there are worthy members of color who would make fine apostles. So, I don't think such a choice would be considered window dressing. Window dressin implies there isn't an adequate candidate pool to start with. My feeling is that maybe people can to the thread with different perceptions of eachother and that's where things got out of hand. As a witness to Moksha on the other board, he is a very fine brother who defends Mormonism eloquently and sincerely. I hope you guys get to see that side of him sometime, because you'll be impressed.

[Refuge]

Window dressin implies there isn't an adequate candidate pool to start with.

Perhaps this is what Kemara means. And yet he calls others racist.

See how thigns can get twisted, Kemara? Luckily, I do not believe the above.

[Kemara]

a matter of force

Stop demonizing the issue and just admit that you don't understand. Period.

I would admit to it if it were true but it isnt so I wont. Period.

[koakaipo]

Heavymetal-maybe try blacklds.org too-there's some great papers on that website...

[Refuge]

For those who think the church's history is so spotless when it comes to race...

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2002OlsR.html

The experiences this woman has noted I have been through personally. And many others. It's not in our heads.

Look at the opening message on this page. We're not dreaming.

http://ldsgenesisgroup.org/

Need I bring people of color (many, not just mine) to testify of what is being done in our midst?

[Refuge]

Kemara, the sum of your posts here have been nothing but immaturity. You are showing your pre-pubescent age. When you can return and actually contribute, you might want to. Until then, if you keep trolling, I'm sure Dunamis would be happy to show you the door. You can chalk it up to my not liking you because you're not black.

[Kemara]

Kemara-I should have qualified my statement more-I was referring specifically to a reference Moksha made and someone else asking for references or sources to back up the reference.

You know, I don't know Moksha much past having posted with him on another forum, but he is quite a sustaining member in terms of supporting the leadership and I don't see the same antagonism towards the leadership that you are seeing on this thread necessarily. As for racial quotas-I think you and I both would agree that saying we need an apostle of color doesn't

mean it would have to come about so artificially or forcefully really. I think everyone would also agree there are worthy members of color who would make fine apostles. So, I don't think such a choice would be considered window dressing. Window dressin implies there isn't an adequate candidate pool to start with. My feeling is that maybe people can to the thread with different perceptions of eachother and that's where things got out of hand. As a witness to Moksha on the other board, he is a very fine brother who defends Mormonism eloquently and sincerely. I hope you guys get to see that side of him sometime, because you'll be impressed.

I certainly agree with everything you say. My issue, however, is with racial quotas which is what is being called for by some on this thread. I have no issue with any person on this thread other than I disagree with their insistance on inclusive racism.

[heavymental]

Come back when you have. Assignment for tonight...go to the FAIR website, and look under the topics of priesthood ban and racial issues.

You are making a huge assumption that I haven't studied these issues. You aren't the only minority or person of ethnic background in the Church.

If you are implying the priesthood was somehow related to racism then I would suggest you do some research on religion in general and you will discover many peoples and groups weren't allowed a great deal throughout history. The OT/NT certainly will confirm these claims.

You claim you aren't fond of ignorance, perhaps before you imply everyone is ignorant of the issues you should do some research of your own.

When people have agenda's and axes to grind it's this type of attitude that seems to be common...

[Kemara]

Kemara, the sum of your posts here have been nothing but immaturity. You are showing your pre-pubescent age. When you can return and actually contribute, you might want to. Until then, if you keep trolling, I'm sure Dunamis would be happy to show you the door. You can chalk it up to my not liking you because you're not black.

I dont think Dunamis would be so hasty, I am sure after reading all my posts she will see that I making a legitimate attempt at communicating my thoughts, answering questions and contributing to the discussion. Then again my pre-pubescent immaturity may have blinded me to my trolling.

[heavymental]

maybe try blacklds.org too-there's some great papers on that website...

Been to that site more times than I can count... but thanks for the link

[koakaipo]

See, I think the divide between you and moksha isn't that wide either because it really isn't controversial at all to say we need an apostle of color. There are many needs an apostle of color can fulfill, and I think most members see this. And it's really not that monumental-to me I would liken it to having like, someone who was once of a different religion becoming an apostle. It's simply a different type of orientation that would enhance the counsel within the leadership, that's all. Where people seem to be having trouble is thinking that Mok is somehow degrading the leadership as a result, and I don't necessarily think that's an accurate perception.

I see this happen on the other forum we are on where you have a)newbies who may not understand the pecking order or dynamics of the already inplace board community and you have b)veterans who have a sort of nice comaraderie going between eachother who watch alot of drive-by posters come and go. I think Moksha may have been identified as a drive-by assault poster-when in reality, he's a very thoughtful, earnest brother in Mormonism who really is one of the most effective defenders of Mormonism on the other forum because he's quite kind and open to others unlike him. If you look back at the initial post, I mean really-even though "long over due" may have struck people the wrong way, it's like in multi-colored print! I think it looks more quirky and whimsical really than aggressive and insistent. Maybe Moksha can start a new thread, and we can all try this over again cause it really is a great topic....

[koakaipo]

Heavymetal: I think this assertion:

The Church has not treated your race any differently than any other race,

is what confused me and why I gave the link. But cool if you've gone there.

[Refuge]

Let's not go there with the Levites.

The ban came around during the Civil War, left with the insistence of the NAACP. It was of man.

But if it makes you feel good to tell someone that they're "less than" and God says so, you go right ahead.

[Refuge]

I am sure after reading all my posts

In most of them you called me a racist. Where is this supposed good will?

Yeah. I thought so.

Oh, and you insinuated twice that I would discriminate against YOU when I haven't done any such thing, or shown that I would. You twist my words, and then come back crying about love.

Yes, mature a little.