Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

6 years after a ‘fake apology’ for the Black priesthood/temple ban, many Latter-day Saints yearn for a real one

Quote

It may be the only way to truly “root out racism,” they say, and bring healing to all members.

"They say." 

And what better way for the Tribune to start talking about "bring{ing} healing to all members" than to include "fake apology" in the title of the article.

Quote

On a balmy May morning in 2018, Latter-day Saints awoke to startling news of a purported document saying that the church’s prophet-president had issued a “full unqualified apology for the error of racism which was taught from this office and in the tabernacle and over the pulpits of our churches the world over.”

Within minutes, the so-called apology went viral.

Black and white church members were thrilled — crying and hugging and sharing widely such a welcome mea culpa — believing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had finally expressed regret for its 126-year-long practice of excluding Black members from the Utah-based faith’s temples and its all-male priesthood until 1978, when the racist prohibition ended.

Trouble is, the document was fake, invented by a former church member, who said he wanted to “start a conversation.”

A "conversation" where the "former church member," Jonathan Streeter, initially defended his ruse, and then - to his credit (?) - apologized for it:

Quote

After spending four days defending his fake apology for the LDS Church’s past racial ban as “satire” or a discussion starter, former Mormon Jonathan Streeter issued his own mea culpa Tuesday.

“I caused tremendous pain for black Mormons who have patiently waited for so long,” Streeter wrote in a letter to The Salt Lake Tribune. “I am deeply sorry.”

LaShawn Williams, a member of the grass-roots Black LDS Legacy Committee, noted the prankster did not, to her knowledge, offer his contrition personally to black Mormons.

After all, they were the ones — men and boys, women and girls — who were barred from the Utah-based faith’s all-male priesthood and its temples from the mid-1800s until 1978, when the prohibition ended.

Streeter, who lives in Texas, launched his deception May 17, the day LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson and top executives from the NAACP issued historic — and real — statements about working together to promote civility and racial harmony.

The hoaxer posted a document on his website that purported to be from the church’s governing First Presidency, falsely quoting Nelson as saying, “I offer a full unqualified apology for the error of racism which was taught from this office and in the tabernacle and over the pulpits of our churches the world over.”

At the time, Streeter said he initiated the ruse as a way to “start a conversation” about what he sees as the Mormon church’s need to apologize for its past.

About an hour or two before the landmark LDS/NAACP news conference, the fake release went viral. Many in the black Mormon community had been hoping and praying for such an official apology and were devastated when they learned it was a fraud.

They felt “retraumatized” by Streeter’s deceit, Zandra Vranes, co-author of “Diary of Two Mad Black Mormons,” said in a tear-filled Facebook Live video. “We are not pawns in your game of white people fighting the white church.”

The Black LDS Legacy Committee, which includes Vranes and Williams, issued this statement Friday: “This website was created to provoke a response from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members. ... The most profound response came from many of its black members — many of whom have prayed for such an announcement.”

The dialogue on “racism and white supremacy in the LDS Church is a complex one,” the Legacy Committee wrote. “Allyship demands cooperation and consultation between the group affected and those on the outside who seek to make a positive change. …[but Streeter’s approach] was nothing short of manipulative, self-centered and disingenuous.”

In Tuesday’s concession, Streeter acknowledged that his prank was “very shortsighted, hurtful and ultimately wrong.”

”I am responsible for the unintended consequences of my actions,” he wrote. “.I have listened to many powerful expressions of the pain I caused and have been humbled further by my own ignorance.”

Streeter has removed “the satire apology Web page,” he said. “I understand that I cannot remove the deep wounds that I have reopened. … The [phony] apology reflects my sincere desire for healing and progress in the church.”

The Legacy Committee found little solace in Streeter’s words.

It is “a performance common to many white progressives,” the group wrote in an email, “particularly those affiliated with the LDS Church.”

The group also had harsh words for “media publications that gave Mr. Streeter a platform for his harmful rhetoric,” the statement said. “It exacerbated the harm already experienced by members of the black Mormon community.”

The committee remains committed to “stand with those affected by [his] actions,” it said, “and to those who are doing the work of building Zion.”

Back to the first article:

Quote

Six years later, as the country celebrates Juneteenth, commemorating the end of slavery in the United States, an increasing number of Latter-day Saint believers want to see a real apology from top church leaders.

It’s way past time, they say, and would be especially crucial to the faith’s millennial and Generation Z members.

Perhaps so.  

Or perhaps this call is, like Streeter's noxious stunt above, a pretext for doing something else.

Quote

An apology was needed “a long time ago,” says Rachel Weaver, co-founder of the Black Menaces group at church-owned Brigham Young University. “It’s always been necessary.”

To her, it is ever more urgent.

As the world becomes “more progressive, more accepting and more aware of the way we’ve been an exclusionary society,” Weaver says. “it’s becoming more and more unacceptable that there hasn’t been an apology while other institutions are recognizing their own racist culpabilities.”

I think there are serious flaws in the notion that we can or ought to import into the Church tactics and rhetoric designed to affect political change and influence in secular government (such as America's constitutional republic form).  These may have some utility in that sphere, but not in the Church of Jesus Christ.

It looks like the Black Menaces folks are attempting to do this at BYU.

Quote

Indeed, more than a decade ago, the Southern Baptist Convention expressed profound remorse for its involvement in slavery and continued racism. And just this past week, U.S. Catholic bishops apologized for inflicting a “history of trauma” on Native Americans, including at church-run boarding schools.

It would be interesting to see an evaluation of the positive effects of the SBC's apology.  Were there any?  Or are calls for such public apologies more along the lines of virtue signaling and posturing?  Might these calls even be pretextual?

Quote

An official Latter-day Saint apology “would validate experiences that Black members have had,” Weaver says, and “allow white members to see and acknowledge the harm the ban has done and continues to do to Black members.”

Did this happen in the SBC?

Quote

It would be “instrumental in fostering a healing and reconciliatory climate,” says Provo mother Tamu Smith, thinking of her own young adult children.

Did this happen in the SBC?

This same "Tamu Smith" was quoted in the Trib back in 2017: Black Mormons applaud as LDS Church condemns white supremacy as ‘morally wrong and sinful’

Quote

Black Mormons celebrated — some even wept for joy — as their church updated an earlier anti-racism statement Tuesday and pointedly disavowed groups that promote white supremacy.

“It has been called to our attention that there are some among the various pro-white and white supremacy communities who assert that the church is neutral toward or in support of their views,” according to a statement posted on the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ official newsroom website. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

After citing verses from the Bible and the faith’s foundational scripture, the Book of Mormon, the church goes on to say, “White supremacist attitudes are morally wrong and sinful, and we condemn them.”

Mormons who “promote or pursue a ‘white culture’ or white supremacy agenda,” the statement said, “are not in harmony with the teachings of the church.”

This comes on the heels of LDS officials’ condemnation Sunday of racism in the aftermath of the deadly clashes in Charlottesville, Va.

“People of any faith, or of no faith at all, should be troubled,” read a statement on the official website that day, “by the increase of intolerance in both words and actions that we see everywhere.”

Calling for “greater kindness, compassion and goodness,” that news release resurrected the words of a recent Mormon prophet to reaffirm the faith’s stance against racism.
...

Tamu Smith, a black Mormon in Utah County, cried when she heard her church’s words.

“I am overwhelmed,” Smith said through her tears. “For the first time, it brings us out of the margins. For those who have wanted to speak up, this gives them permission. We don’t have to stand alone — the church is now standing with us.”

With these words, the activist said, her church can be “a safe haven for all of God’s children.”

Sis. Smith said this in 2017.  Seven years ago. 

Back to the first article:

Quote

“This generation, having survived a deadly pandemic, has witnessed and participated in protests against racial injustice and political unrest,” says Smith, co-author of “Diary of Two Mad Black Mormons” (later changed to “Can I Get an Amen? Celebrating the Lord in Everyday Life.” “They’ve developed a strong sense of social justice and are prepared to stand up to injustice wherever they see it. Today’s youth expect the church to align its actions with its teachings, especially regarding repentance.”

As individuals, we can choose whether or not to follow the doctrines of the Church, including policies and practices and interpretations of doctrine presented to us by those who preside.  I don't think activism and other pressure tactics are the way to go.  See, e.g., Brother Corbitt's talk, How activism against the Church can blind, mislead ‘valiant’ souls, and Elder Oaks' article, Criticism.

Quote

The church has a responsibility “to lead by example,” she says, “to do the difficult things it expects of its members and to demonstrate that true repentance can bring restoration.”

Repentance is a deeply personal thing.  I reject the notion of collective guilt/sin.  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  (AoF 1:2.)

Quote

Smith’s daughter, Jalyn Briggs, agrees.

The 27-year-old grew up repeating the church’s 13 Articles of Faith, including the second one, which says that “men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.”

The temple/priesthood ban “contradicted that,” says Briggs, who has a child of her own. “Either the ban nullified that statement, or Black members were ‘different’ because of some ‘curse.’ But that contradicted the scripture that ‘all are alike unto God.’”

Oddly, the call for "the church" to "repent" also seems to contradict the 2nd Article of Faith.  

Quote

None of it, she says, “added up.”

I agree with this, which is part of why I have concluded that the ban was not revelatory.

Quote

An apology could change “how a lot of members view that history,” Briggs says, “and it would teach people that the church is a perfect organization led by imperfect people. That reality doesn’t register with a lot of members.”

Hmm.

Quote

One of Briggs’ “biggest disappointments,” she says, was hearing apostle Dallin H. Oaks state at the 2018 “Be One” gala — celebrating the 40th anniversary of the ban’s end — that he had prayed about the reasons for the temple/priesthood exclusion “but could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them.”

Without a divine directive, Oaks, first counselor in the governing First Presidency, determined that the best path would be to remain “loyal to our prophetic leaders.”

If members just “follow the prophet when they don’t get answers,” Briggs says, “it’s important that the prophet now issues an apology” to help followers abandon any racist thinking.

I don't understand the attempted syllogism here.

Quote

It would give young Latter-day Saints a way to reject the reasoning of BYU religion professor Brad Wilcox, who apologized for the way he described the policy, but not for what he saw as “God’s timeline.”

Hmm.  So Bro. Wilcox's repeated apologies regarding his own statements were, in some quarters, deemed insufficient.

Kinda makes you wonder if the Church's apology would be treated the same way.

Quote

Many of Briggs’ mission-serving devout — Black and white — friends have left the church over this issue.

"{T}his issue" being . . . what?

Quote

“I get their disillusionment,” she says. “The church wants me as an individual to stand up and stand alone, but it is not willing to stand up for minorities in their church.”

This despite all the Church's efforts to explicitly condemn racism.

Quote

If leaders would offer a public apology, it could end “a lot of the backbiting, passive aggressiveness and political misconduct toward Black members,” she says. “They could no longer use their religion as an excuse for it.”

I am curious what she is referencing here.

And since Bro. Wilcox's apologies were ineffectual to bring him back into her good graces, I am curious whether an institutional apology would do anything to elevate the Church's stature in her eyes.

Quote

For years, Darius Gray did not believe a formal apology from his church would make much difference.

Gray, a co-founder of the Genesis Group, a support congregation for Black Latter-day Saints, joined the church in 1964, while the ban was still in force.

When it ended 14 years later, he saw any official church apology as “a well-intended effort but one not addressing the change of heart required as followers of Christ.”

From Gray’s vantage point, “the focus needed to be toward longer-lasting, soul-changing actions. An apology would have served a lesser need, while leaving unchanged decades of negative characterizations targeted directly at Black members,” he says. “Is it possible to demean a people more deeply than by declaring them as representatives of Satan as some Latter-day Saint leaders said? Could any heartfelt apology alone be enough to offset years of divinely attributed damnation and rejection?”

Gray acknowledges earnest progress — noting that church leaders have done much in recent years to make amends, condemning racism in all its forms from the pulpit while teaming up with the NAACP on ongoing projects serving the Black community. And, in a 2020 speech at BYU, Oaks called “Black lives matter” an “eternal truth all reasonable people should support.”

These days, though, Gray and others see in current political and cultural attitudes “more hostility and discrimination toward persons of color, often bolstered by a growing sense of justification rooted in old religious myths.”

So he has amended his position on a church apology. The prominent and respected Black Latter-day Saint believes it is time — past time — for the faith to acknowledge the error of the ban and redress the consequences of now-disavowed teachings.

Without such a “Christ-centered public admission,” Gray says, “those who would divide and disparage become empowered.”

Hmm.  I will give this some thought.

Quote

After discovering the 2018 “apology” document was phony, “many of my white brothers and sisters were saddened, and they reached out to express their disappointment,” Tamu Smith recalls. “This showed me that the apology was not just for one particular group but for all of us. The solidarity and empathy shown by those closest to me in my community during that time of disappointment and hurt continue to serve as a source of strength and unity.”

Any apology “transcends race and benefits everyone,” Smith adds. “We are called to mourn with those who mourn and to stand with our brothers and sisters in their pain, regardless of our own background.”

Until and unless this or that activist publicly deems such an apology insufficient or ineffectual.  Kinda like the above treatment of Bro. Wilcox's apologies.

Quote

When Latter-day Saint historian W. Paul Reeve speaks about the church’s racial history to members in predominantly white Utah and other locations across the United States as well as internationally, inevitably he is asked some version of a question regarding the potential for an apology.

“These are faithful Latter-day Saints who yearn for an open and honest reckoning with the faith’s racial past,” says Reeve, author of the acclaimed “Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness.” “My sense is that an apology would be healthy and healing. It would allow the faith to model the principles of repentance that it teaches and invite Christ’s grace to heal and lift the collective church community.”

I will give this some though as well.

Quote

“I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them,” Oaks told The Salt Lake Tribune in 2015. “We sometimes look back on issues and say, ‘Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve.’”

Though the question focused on rhetoric surrounding LGBTQ members, Oaks, a former Utah Supreme Court justice, generalized it to all of Latter-day Saint history.

“I’m not aware that the word ‘apology’ appears anywhere in the scriptures — Bible or Book of Mormon,” Oaks reiterated in a video chat with The Tribune. “The word ‘apology’ contains a lot of connotations in it — and a lot of significance.”

Christian scriptures are replete, however, with the word and concept of “repentance.” And, Reeve points out, the global church of 17.2 million members has issued “statements of regret” in several cases.

I am curious if such "statements of regret" have had any measurable impact.

Quote

In 2007, apostle Henry B. Eyring, now of the First Presidency, offered words of regret (which a church official termed an “apology”) at a memorial service for victims of the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre in which Latter-day Saint militia members slaughtered scores of men, women and children in a wagon train traveling from Arkansas to California.

Like this one.  Has this "statement of regret" fostered healing?

Quote

The church issued a public apology on behalf of a member who had performed proxy baptism rituals for the parents of Simon Wiesenthal, a Holocaust survivor and Jewish rights advocate.

"The church issued a public apology on behalf of a member..."

Quote

It may be a little trickier for the temple/priesthood ban. It brings into question the church’s belief in prophetic leadership since every church president from Brigham Young until Spencer W. Kimball, who lifted the ban, had defended the exclusion — if not the justifications for it.

To Briggs, the young Black mother in Provo, apologizing shouldn’t be that hard.

“Repentance is a big thing to me,” she says. “If I did something to hurt someone — even unintentionally — I would always say ‘sorry.’”

Why, she asks, won’t the church do the same?

Because we do not subscribe to the notion of collective guilt.

The foregoing article seems to be steeped in "activist" thought.  Tamu Smith is apparently a self-described "activist," and she seems to have passed that on to her daughter, and both are publicly utilizing their activism in (against?) the Church.

Having referenced (and linked to) then-Bro. Corbitt's talk against activism, and also to then-Elder Oaks' talk about addressing disagreements in the Church, and in the spirit of "start{ing} a conversation" about activism in the Church, I submit the following article: The March of Dimes Syndrome

Some excerpts:

Quote

John Tierney
The March of Dimes Syndrome
The better things get, the more desperately activists struggle to stay in business.

This seems to be a common - perhaps inevitable - trend in "activism" (which trend may be part of why Bro. Corbitt's 2022 talk is so relevant and resonant).

Quote

In the spring of 1979, a few weeks after the partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, more than 65,000 people marched on the United States Capitol chanting “No Nukes, No Nukes.” As a young reporter at the Washington Star assigned to cover this new movement, I interviewed march organizers and noticed that all of them had previously organized protests against the Vietnam War. This struck me as curious: How had they suddenly become so passionate and knowledgeable about nuclear power?

I later learned that a term exists for this phenomenon—the March of Dimes syndrome—and that the tendency affects many other movements, too.

Obviously "March of Dimes Syndrome" is a neologism.  Although I have frequently perceived its manifestations in much of today's "activist" stuff, I was not aware of the label.  The earliest instance of it I could find was in 2016:

Quote

In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt founded the March of Dimes to combat polio. You read that right. This piece of trivia is not as widely known anymore, because polio was effectively eradicated in 1955 with the widespread introduction of the Salk vaccine.

So why does the March of Dimes still exist, now as an organization researching, much more famously, birth defects? Put simply, when faced with the prospect of either closing up shop or changing missions, they chose the latter.

An organization changing its mission is hardly surprising. Plenty of foundations and nonprofits whose original purposes or missions have long since been forgotten are still operating. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as an organization that has successfully established itself is likely to be more effective at a new mission. But this phenomenon of organizational self-perpetuation is worth probing. Let’s call it the March of Dimes syndrome.

The March of Dimes Syndrome Writ Large

Now, the basic idea that people or interest groups seek self-perpetuation—we might also call it “continued relevance”—is also nothing new. We are used to thinking of business activity along these lines: in that field the impulse is called planned obsolescence. The idea is that no product should be so desirable or durable that it erases the need for a new product down the road. There is a built-in incentive against a company satisfying its customers too well.

This logic has also often been applied to government, with commentators noting the ease with which lawmakers and bureaucrats start new programs but the difficulty in getting them to end any programs. Milton Friedman’s famous quip that “nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program” neatly encapsulates the idea.

It’s somewhat less familiar to claim this same logic and set of incentives—an organizational impulse to “stay in business” and to never quite solve the problem—applies to the philanthropic (or academic) worlds. But the logic applies here too, and here are a few examples other than the March of Dimes itself.

A similar label I have previously encountered is "Mission Creep," described here:

Quote

Mission creep is the gradual or incremental expansion of an intervention, project or mission, beyond its original scope, focus or goals, a ratchet effect spawned by initial success.  Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to how each success breeds more ambitious interventions until a final failure happens, stopping the intervention entirely.

I think "activism" these days is often quite susceptible to the March of Dimes Syndrome / Mission Creep phenomenon.  This includes activism in the Church.

Back to the Tierney article:

Quote

Why, last year, did the Human Rights Campaign declare a “national state of emergency” for LGBT people? Why was the election of the first black American president followed by the Black Lives Matter movement? Why have reports of “hate groups” risen during the same decades that racial prejudice has been plummeting? Why, during a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America, did academics, federal officials, and the #MeToo movement discover a new “epidemic of sexual assault”?

These supposed crises are all examples of the March of Dimes syndrome, named after the organization founded in the 1930s to combat polio. The March helped fund the vaccines that eventually ended the polio epidemics—but not the organization, which, after polio’s eradication, changed its mission to preventing birth defects. Its leaders kept their group going by finding a new cause, just as antiwar activists did after achieving their goal of ending the Vietnam War. The Three Mile Island accident offered new fund-raising opportunities and a new platform for veterans of the antiwar movement such as Jane Fonda and her husband Tom Hayden, who both addressed the crowd at that first antinuke rally.

For career activists, success is a threat. They can never declare mission accomplished.

I wonder if activist calls for an apology from the Church are borne of this "March of Dimes Syndrome" mindset.  Any progress/success the Church has made/had relative to condemning racism, fostering goodwill, etc. is a threat.  In the minds of some activists, they can never declare "mission accomplished."  Mission Creep happens.

Quote

Consider the current cultural conflicts over gender and sex. As the gay rights movement achieved its initial goals from the 1970s, overturning antisodomy laws and destigmatizing homosexuality, the movement expanded to include so many new causes that it required an acronym, LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, and more). Its leaders declared a new cause, same-sex marriage, which vanished after the Supreme Court legalized it nationally in 2015. Five years later, the Court extended civil rights protections to people’s sexual preferences.

What were activists to do? Gays could marry in every state, and the whole LGBTQIA+ alphabet was a protected class—what more could groups like the Human Rights Campaign or the National LGBTQ Task Force possibly demand from the government? What would get the attention of crusading journalists? An antigay hate crime would generate a brief publicity and fund-raising burst, but even progressive journalists struggled to sustain the groups’ narrative that America was a homophobic society.

The laws against homosexuality had been toppled. The culture that produced those laws has been overthrown, too. Most Americans now support same-sex marriage. The Pride flag flies at corporate headquarters, churches, schools, city halls, and the White House. Uttering once-common antigay slurs is now career suicide. Gay characters, long taboo in television scripts, are now practically obligatory. Gays once felt overwhelming social pressure to stay in the closet, but now many young adults are reluctant to admit to being heterosexuals, as reflected in the surge of young women classifying themselves as bisexual despite never having had sex with a woman.

So activists have moved the goalposts once again. It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for **** sex. Public schools must encourage prepubescent students to explore the many possible gender identities without their parents’ knowledge. Biological males self-identifying as females must be allowed to compete against females in sports. These new causes have been wildly unpopular, arousing opposition from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement. But however much the backlash has hurt the original cause, the controversies keep activists in business.

"So activists have moved the goalposts once again."  Yep.

If the Church were to issue a formal institutional apology, would self-appointed "activists" accept it and move on?  Or would they deem it insufficient, move the goalposts, and demand more?

Quote

Civil rights activists have responded to their movement’s great successes by setting new goals that directly contradict the original mission of integration and “complete equality before the law,” as the NAACP’s 1911 charter declared. After Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, black leaders pivoted from demanding equality to demanding special treatment. In 1966, Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King launched Operation Breadbasket, a boycott campaign against companies that failed to meet quotas for hiring blacks. The NAACP, whose original mission was to provide blacks with “employment according to their ability,” fought for affirmative-action programs that its own constituents disdained, as Gene Dattel recounts in Reckoning with Race. Bayard Rustin, who in 1963 had organized the historic March on Washington, criticized the movement’s new priorities by pointing to a poll in 1969 showing that the vast majority of blacks—“proud Negroes,” as he described them—rejected affirmative action in hiring or college admissions as reparation for past injustices. Rustin also criticized university activists’ creating departments of black studies, correctly foreseeing that the trend would result in a faculty chosen by “race, ideological purity, and political commitment—not academic competence.”

Affirmative action was originally supposed to be a “temporary measure,” as the Supreme Court put it in 1979, but it has become a permanent cause for civil rights activists. So have demands for government money, first for antipoverty programs and later for direct reparations to descendants of slaves. King and other leaders followed up their successes in the 1960s with calls for a “domestic Marshall Plan” and were rewarded with the Great Society programs of the 1960s, the start of a long-running “war on poverty” that has since cost an estimated $20 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars. King predicted that these antipoverty programs would cause a “spectacular decline” in the welfare rolls, but they had the opposite effect and eventually aroused bipartisan criticism.

Civil rights groups tried but failed to stop President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress from enacting welfare reform, and they struggled during the 1990s with declining membership, lower revenues, and staff layoffs. The movement had lost its sense of urgency. After all, by then it had succeeded in its fight to eliminate the legal barriers facing blacks, and popular attitudes about race had undergone a sea change. The Cosby Show was the most popular program on television for five years in the 1980s. Oprah Winfrey and Colin Powell were two of the most respected figures in America. Back in the 1950s, 96 percent of whites opposed interracial marriage, and a majority opposed integrating schools and neighborhoods. By the 1990s, the vast majority had rejected such views.

As the civil rights movement searched for new causes, no group shifted as adroitly as the Southern Poverty Law Center. The group launched in the 1970s to offer legal representation to individual victims of discrimination but then switched to filing lawsuits against chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. In 1986, the SPLC’s entire legal team resigned in protest—they’d signed up to help poor people, not sue an organization whose national membership barely eclipsed 10,000. But the Klan made an ideal villain for fund-raising appeals to northern liberals, and the SPLC prospered from the publicity about lawsuits that bankrupted chapters of the Klan.

By the 1990s, virtually nothing was left of the Klan to sue, so the SPLC pivoted again. It changed the name of its “Klanwatch” project to “Hatewatch,” and began issuing reports listing a growing number of “hate groups” and “extremists” across America. Scholars, journalists, and nonprofits have repeatedly denounced SPLC’s blacklists, noting that its tallies include many “hate groups” that don’t exist, or are harmless (such as a Confederate memorabilia shop that made the list), or are mainstream conservative and Christian organizations that simply oppose progressive policies. The SPLC’s lists of dangerous “extremists” have included respected conservatives such as Charles Murray, Rand Paul, and Ben Carson. As Tyler O’Neil observed in Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the SPLC could itself be called a hate group, given how its irresponsible tactics have smeared political opponents and inflamed partisan rancor. But the organization’s scaremongering, however damaging to public debate in America, has been remarkably lucrative. The SPLC’s appeals to combat a “rising tide of hate” have brought in so much donor money that its endowment has soared above $600 million.

Yeah, the SPLC has really had a lot of mission creep.

I can't help but wonder if some of the activists calling for the Church to issue an apology see Mission Creep not as a bug, but as a feature.  That is, these folks want the Church to issue an apology so that they can, in true "Mission Creep" style and form, deem the apology insufficient, move the goalposts, and demand more.  And the "more" would, in my view, almost certainly - and perhaps almost immediately - take us to demands that the Church "apologize" for the Law of Chastity, for its prohibitions against same-sex behavior, for its past opposition to same-sex marriage, for its current non-recognition (in an ecclesiastical sense) of same-sex marriages, and so on.  And I think the calls would not stop at just an apology, but for alteration of the Church's doctrines, so as to ratify same-sex marriages, to allow temple sealings between persons of the same sex, to allow same-sex behavior, etc.

Additionally or alternatively, I wonder if this is a pretext for calling for women to be ordained to the priesthood.  And perhaps disavowals of claims to prophetic/priesthood authority, the Book of Mormon, and so on.

The Tierney article goes on to explain a third label for this phenomenon (in addition to "March of Dimes Syndrome," mentioned in the article, and "Mission Creep," commented on by me) :

Quote

The March of Dimes syndrome is an ancient social affliction that is especially virulent today and destined to get even worse. Kings, generals, and high priests have always tried to maintain power by declaring new crusades—new enemies to conquer, new sins to extirpate. But it has gotten steadily easier for leaders to rally the public because of another phenomenon, known as Spencer’s Law, named after the Victorian sociologist Herbert Spencer, who observed a paradox in the reform movements of his day to combat poverty, hunger, child labor, illiteracy, and alcoholism.

These problems were widespread in Britain at the end of the eighteenth century. Then, as the Industrial Revolution lifted incomes during the nineteenth century, the working classes saw a dramatic improvement in their diets and living conditions. By mid-century, most Britons were literate because children were going to school instead of being put to work. Alcohol consumption fell dramatically. But it was only late in the nineteenth century, after so much progress had already occurred, that reformers captured the public’s attention with campaigns to help the needy, mandate universal education, and pass temperance laws. “The more things improve,” Spencer wrote in 1891, “the louder become the exclamations about their badness.”

Spencer’s Law has been reformulated by Stephen Davies of the Institute of Economic Affairs: “The degree of public concern and anxiety about a social problem or phenomenon varies inversely as to its real or actual incidence.” Thus, we obsess about racism today more than we did during the Jim Crow era. From 1990 to Obama’s election in 2008, the African American homicide rate fell by 50 percent—and then the Black Lives Matter signs sprouted on lawns across the country. From 1995 to 2010, the rate of sexual violence against women dropped by nearly 60 percent in America—and then began the panic chronicled in The Campus Rape Frenzy, the book by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr., debunking the mythical epidemic of sexual assaults occurring on university campuses. By 2017, corporate America had instituted strict punishments and mandatory training to prevent sexual harassment—and then came #MeToo. Public acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage reached an all-time high in 2023—and then the media breathlessly reported that gay activists had declared a “national state of emergency.”

"'The more things improve, the louder become the exclamations about their badness.'"

Might this be said about the Church since 1978?

Quote

Several factors are responsible for this paradox. First is the negativity effect, or the brain’s innate bias to pay more attention to the negative than the positive. The better that things get, the harder we look to find something bad, a tendency termed “prevalence-induced concept change” by the social psychologists who demonstrated it in 2018, in a study published in Science. In one of the experiments, the psychologists showed people photos of faces and asked them to identify the ones with threatening expressions. As the series of photos progressed, fewer and fewer hostile faces appeared, but the people were so determined to see the negative that they started misclassifying the neutral faces as hostile. “When the world gets better,” explained one of the psychologists, Daniel Gilbert, “we become harsher critics of it, and this can cause us to mistakenly conclude that it hasn’t actually gotten better at all.”

As the world gets better—as people become richer, better educated, and longer-lived—we find new things to worry about and have more disposable income and free time to spend curing humanity’s woes, real or imagined. Our instinct to save others is noble, but it risks being corrupted. “As society grows wealthier,” the economist Donald Boudreaux observes, “the need to be saved by others from earthly misfortunes grows steadily less frequent and less dire while the itch to save others from earthly misfortunes grows steadily more frequent and more intense.” This itch explains why journalists and the public keep falling for hoaxers like the actor Jussie Smollett: the demand for racism vastly exceeds the supply. It’s not easy to meet the growing demand from saviors, given a shrinking supply of victims, but the potential rewards have inspired remarkable creativity—and there’s every reason to expect more in the future.

"First is the negativity effect, or the brain’s innate bias to pay more attention to the negative than the positive."

Might this be in play relative to how some folks treat the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  

"As the world gets better—as people become richer, better educated, and longer-lived—we find new things to worry about and have more disposable income and free time to spend curing humanity’s woes, real or imagined."  Again, are black people in the Church better off now than they were in 1978?  If so, why is it that folks of an "activist" bent seem fixated on characterizing the Church in the worst possible ways?

Any other thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Posted

I'm looking forward the new insights in the new book that is going to be available in the next couple of weeks, because the author had access to the journals of members of the Quorum of the Twelve.   But I think the problem with an apology is that we don't know whether or not BY got spiritual confirmation that the ban was the only way to discourage interracial marriage and that the Church could not simultaneously withstand both the pre-civil war slavery issue AND interracial marriage --- the son of the most prominent black priesthood holder in the NE having married a white woman as soon as his state allowed, which BY learned of within the same time frame that he learned of black member William McCrary establishing his own church outside of Winter Quarters and making a condition of joining that women spend the night with him.    (I think the evidence supports that it was unlikely to be His will after the first Church investigation of the issue in which Abraham Smoot, a slaver and Zebedee Coltrin who was present when Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel to the priesthood, both lied about it.  And apology or not, BYU  should change the name of the Smoot building.)

If God at least approved the original ban, then how do we apologize it?    We don't even know the leaders' who looked at it and kept it hearts or intent.  Some could have been desire to follow God no matter how hard, after all.   Any apology of we're sorry at least since the 1880's wouldn't resolve the issue for many if any.   But we simply cannot know and therefore can't say,  "It might have been okay with God for the first 30 years, because the priesthood ban was the only way that white woman would be discouraged from marrying black men at a time where the church couldn't survive public backlash on those issues, but when the prophet conducted the first investigation, it should have been removed.  And so  we apologize for the suffering of our people for the last 100 years"    We just don't know enough to get any apology 100% correct.

Posted
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If it was wrong and it hurt people (and continues to cause harm) then an apology makes sense.

An apology by whom?  To whom?  For what?

If I were to find out that I had an ancestor who was a slaveholder, should I "apologize" for that?  If so, to whom, and for what?

As Pres. Oaks noted: “The word ‘apology’ contains a lot of connotations in it — and a lot of significance.”  I think one such connotation is that of culpability/responsibility, which I think in this context involves adopting some notion of collective guilt, which I think incompatible with the 2nd Article of Faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted
41 minutes ago, rpn said:

And apology or not, BYU  should change the name of the Smoot building.)

Could you elaborate?  What did Smoot do that merits the name change?  From Wikipedia:

Quote

Smoot's southern ancestors were slaveholders,[24] and he later became a slaveholder in the Utah territory. However, as a Latter-day Saint missionary, he actively supported Joseph Smith's presidential platform, which called for the gradual elimination of slavery. On a mission to Tennessee, Smoot tried to have 3,000 copies of Smith's presidential platform printed, but the printer refused, since it was illegal to distribute abolitionist literature in the state.[25] While proselyting with Wilford Woodruff in July 1836, Smoot read the April issue of the Messenger and Advocate to refute accusations of their being abolitionists.[26]

In Utah Territory, Abraham and Margaret Smoot owned at least two men and one girl—Tom,[27] Jerry, and Lucy.[28] Tom died in 1862, still a slave.[27] Modern historians have called Smoot, along with Brigham Young, Charles C. Rich, and William H. Hooper, a "respectable minority" of Utah Territory citizens "in favor of slavery."[29]

Smoot was later involved in the 1879 discussions among church leaders about the origins of the priesthood and temple restrictions for black Latter-day Saints.[30] He hosted a gathering at his home in Provo, Utah, with John Taylor, Brigham Young Jr., Zebedee Coltrin, and L. John Nuttall. Smoot remembered that when Patten, Parish, and Thomas B. Marsh were missionaries in the South in 1835 and 1836, they took the question of ordaining black men to Joseph Smith. Southern slave codes limited the ability of enslaved people to assemble or preach.[31] Smoot recalled, "his decision as I understood, was that they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their Masters. In [later] years ... I became acquainted with Joseph myself in Far West about the year 1838. I received from Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him what should be done with the Negro in the South as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by the consent of their Masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them."[32] Pertaining to this statement, professor Gordon C. Thomasson has remarked: "It is extremely difficult to imagine [Smoot] inventing his oft-cited testimony, nor is it likely that the statements can be attributed totally to prejudice acquired or reinforced while serving as [a missionary]."[33]

 

41 minutes ago, rpn said:

If God at least approved the original ban, then how do we apologize {for} it?

Even if God allowed its perpetuation, I don't see how an apology could or should work.

41 minutes ago, rpn said:

We don't even know the leaders' who looked at it and kept it hearts or intent.  Some could have been desire to follow God no matter how hard, after all.   Any apology of we're sorry at least since the 1880's wouldn't resolve the issue for many if any.

I tend to agree.  And yet the calls for an apology continue.  Hence my comments about "March of Dimes Syndrome," "Mission Creep" and "Spencer's Law."

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted

BTW, did critical FoSBC's go streaming back into the Convention after the mea culpa, or did they just find something else to focus on and complain about?

The adjusting goal posts of the dissatisfied are not worth punting at.

charliebrownmiss.jpg.005a3d18b66127746226532e9b72de00.jpg

Posted
34 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If your church were to apologize for its racist past, I would hope and actually assume the apology would be sincere and not virtue signaling, posturing, or pre textual.

Certainly.  My comments along those lines were attributing "virtue signaling, posturing," etc. to some of those calling for the apology, not for the Church in giving it.  I think the Church would be sincere in any such thing.

34 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

What does it matter if other people deem it insufficient or if it doesn't elevate the church's stature?

From the Church's perspective, it probably does not matter.  If I commit a trespass, I should apologize and make recompense even if I know reconciliation or forgiveness is not forthcoming.

My point is that I think some of the people calling for an apology will "deem it insufficient," which speaks to the foregoing "virtue signaling, posturing, or pre textual" motivations which may be involved in calling for the apology in the first place.  Put another way, I think this development might expose a lack of good faith by those seeking the apology. From my first post:

Quote

I can't help but wonder if some of the activists calling for the Church to issue an apology see Mission Creep not as a bug, but as a feature.  That is, these folks want the Church to issue an apology so that they can, in true "Mission Creep" style and form, deem the apology insufficient, move the goalposts, and demand more.  And the "more" would, in my view, almost certainly - and perhaps almost immediately - take us to demands that the Church "apologize" for the Law of Chastity, for its prohibitions against same-sex behavior, for its past opposition to same-sex marriage, for its current non-recognition (in an ecclesiastical sense) of same-sex marriages, and so on.  And I think the calls would not stop at just an apology, but for alteration of the Church's doctrines, so as to ratify same-sex marriages, to allow temple sealings between persons of the same sex, to allow same-sex behavior, etc.

Is this happening at all?  And if so, should a lack of good faith in the request be taken into account? In my view, yes.

34 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

A true sincere apology isn't done because of how other people will take it or react to it.

I agree.  But then, a true sincere apology is typically offered by the wrongdoer to the person(s) who have been wronged.  As I noted previously, I do not subscribe to the notion of collective guilt.

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

An apology by whom?  To whom?  For what?

By the church president.

To the public and specifically the race the ban was imposed against.

For the institutional racism and hurth the ban caused. You know the one that you say was a 120 year mistake.  The one that God was to lazy to tell his alleged representatives on earth to fix. Or they were to hard hearted to hear.  Or God does not talk to them at all really.  You know this is what people and organizations do to mend and heal wounds and the people that were hurt most seem to honestly wish for something like this and think it would be a helpful thing.  

But God forbid the LDS CHurch leadership apologize now for all the garbage that prior leaders taught that with a wave of the hand are relegated to the large Mormonism trash heap of speculation and unofficial teachings.  

Posted

It would be odd and ignorant if someone were to wrongly conflate the institution with God/Jesus. Almost as if to say that the Lord need not apologize for what the institution places responsibility on God/Jesus. That is a major red flag. Furthermore, it makes absolutely no sense that Jesus, a brown skinned Middle Eastern man, would favor white people in some way over black people involving holy sacraments. That is also a major red flag. What an untrustworthy god or institution those would be.

Posted
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The current leader of the institution that perpetrated the wrong, apologizing on behalf of the institution.

The people who were and/or are harmed by the wrong.

The harm done.

First, there is a difference between a person and institution.

Secondly, are you benefiting from your ancestor's actions? I have a friend who grew up in Birmingham Alabama and said that there are families that are generationally rich because their ancestors owned plantations. I would feel very awkward knowing that my current riches and lifestyle is because an ancestor enslaved people. But these situations are murky because there is a difference between a person and institution.

An institution is not a person, so I don't see how an institution apologizing is incompatible with your 2nd article of faith, which deals with people.

Well said. See how simple this is?

Posted
55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:
Quote

An apology by whom? 

The current leader of the institution that perpetrated the wrong, apologizing on behalf of the institution.

Collective guilt/sin is not a part of our ethos.  

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:
Quote

To whom?

The people who were and/or are harmed by the wrong.

Could you elaborate?  Who are these people?  Who today would be a recipient of an apology for the priesthood ban that ended in 1978?

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The harm done.

By whom?  To whom?

If I harm another person, I should apologize, repent, seek forgiveness, and make recompense if possible.  I am responsible for my own wrongful conduct, not the misconduct of others.  Conversely, I will not apologize for something some in my affinity group did 150+ years ago.  I am not morally culpable or responsible for such acts, and any apology I could offer would not have substantive meaning or efficacy.

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:
Quote

If I were to find out that I had an ancestor who was a slaveholder, should I "apologize" for that?  If so, to whom, and for what?

First, there is a difference between a person and institution.

Some differences, yes.  But the principle remains.  

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Secondly, are you benefiting from your ancestor's actions?

This is an infinitely regressive question.  Let's say that I could trace my lineage back to someone who escaped slavery by Barbary Coast pirates?  Do the pirates' direct or "community" descendants in North Africa owe me an apology for what their ancestors did to mine?

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I have a friend who grew up in Birmingham Alabama and said that there are families that are generationally rich because their ancestors owned plantations.

And there are likely living descendants of the Barbary Coast pirates who can trace some benefit to their ancestors' enslavement of (white) Europeans (and even some Americans, hence the "Shores of Tripoli" reference in the Marines' Hymn).

What limiting principle is there here?  Any at all?  

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I would feel very awkward knowing that my current riches and lifestyle is because an ancestor enslaved people.

I think reducing the causality of your current circumstances to "because an ancestor enslaved people" is way too reductionist.

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But these situations are murky because there is a difference between a person and institution.

True.  People repent.  Institutions house the people who need to repent.  

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

An institution is not a person, so I don't see how an institution apologizing is incompatible with your 2nd article of faith, which deals with people.

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

I interpolate to add clarity: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for {the sins and misconduct of others, whether an individual or group}."

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted
9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

By the church president.

To the public and specifically the race the ban was imposed against.

For the institutional racism and hurth the ban caused. You know the one that you say was a 120 year mistake.  The one that God was to lazy to tell his alleged representatives on earth to fix. Or they were to hard hearted to hear.  Or God does not talk to them at all really.  You know this is what people and organizations do to mend and heal wounds and the people that were hurt most seem to honestly wish for something like this and think it would be a helpful thing.  

But God forbid the LDS CHurch leadership apologize now for all the garbage that prior leaders taught that with a wave of the hand are relegated to the large Mormonism trash heap of speculation and unofficial teachings.  

You are, I think, proving my observation about the potential in calls for an apology having pretexts and ulterior motives.  For some, the purpose of an apology would not be reconciliation, but humiliation.  Fodder for badmouthing the Church, forever and ever.  Ammo for arguing against the truth claims of the Church.  "God does not talk to them at all really."  "{A}ll the garbage that prior leaders taught..."

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted
23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Certainly.  My comments along those lines were attributing "virtue signaling, posturing," etc. to some of those calling for the apology, not for the Church in giving it.  I think the Church would be sincere in any such thing.

What you think your church does in sincerity and what it actually does are not necessarily the same thing. I'm not suggesting that the church is absolutely insincere.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My point is that I think some of the people calling for an apology will "deem it insufficient," which speaks to the foregoing "virtue signaling, posturing, or pre textual" motivations which may be involved in calling for the apology in the first place.  Put another way, I think this development might expose a lack of good faith by those seeking the apology.

Should the apology be deemed sufficient simply because you and your church say you're being sincere? After all this time? Really? The seeking of an apology is far from a recent topic of discussion. The lack of good faith comes from the institution who will not give an apology, nor does it believe an apology is necessarily deserved. The narcissist will claim that they were right, even if wrong, in doing what they did and then making it worse by not apologizing. Narcissists don't apologize. 

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I noted previously, I do not subscribe to the notion of collective guilt.

The church isn't a collective. It is an institution. No guilt is being ascribed to you, Smac. You don't owe an apology. However, those who have the attitude of "Is offering an apology even worth it?" perpetuate the sin therefore acting in no kind of faith at all. 

Posted
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

hat did Smoot do that merits the name change?  From Wikipedia:

He kept slaves in Utah territory.  He told those assigned to investigate in the 1880's that JS did not authorize Elijah Abel to receive the priesthood, which was either a known falsehood, at least a careless one which personnally benefitted him.   If he had not perpetrated that lie, the initial investigation would likely have resulted in removing the ban --- it was the 1880's when black people  had made huge strides in the Reconstruction, after all.

Posted (edited)

Does anyone have a link to Streeter's fake website/fake apology?  After familiarizing myself with how powerful many black folk took it, and how hurt and distressed they were after learning it was fake, I'd like to get a sense for what it actually said.   After googling around for a while, I can only find a video of someone reading it, and this screen grab:

Hoax-NAACP-Apology-300x143.jpg 

 

 

Institutional apologies for their pasts are interesting things.   Folks interested can look at the Planned Parenthood 2021 apology by it's President and CEO for the many sins of it's founder Margaret Sanger.   For decades, PP defended and idolized Sanger, until they finally stopped and admitted the truth (at least some of it). 

The open letter published by the New York Times: 

Quote

Sanger spoke to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan at a rally in New Jersey to generate support for birth control. And even though she eventually distanced herself from the eugenics movement because of its hard turn to explicit racism, she endorsed the Supreme Court’s 1927 decision in Buck v. Bell, which allowed states to sterilize people deemed “unfit” without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge — a ruling that led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of people in the 20th century.

The first human trials of the birth control pill — a project that was Sanger’s passion later in her life — were conducted with her backing in Puerto Rico, where as many as 1,500 women were not told that the drug was experimental or that they might experience dangerous side effects.

 

And also on the Our History page of the Planned Parenthood website: 

Quote

Sanger believed in eugenics — an inherently racist and ableist ideology that labeled certain people unfit to have children. Eugenics is the theory that society can be improved through planned breeding for “desirable traits” like intelligence and industriousness. In the early 20th century, eugenic ideas were popular among highly educated, privileged, and mostly white Americans. Margaret Sanger pronounced her belief in and alignment with the eugenics movement many times in her writings, especially in the scientific journal Birth Control Review. 

At times, Sanger tried to argue for eugenics that was not applied based on race or religion. But in a society built on the belief of white supremacy, physical and mental fitness are always judged based on race. Eugenics, therefore, is inherently racist. She held beliefs that, from the very beginning, undermined her movement for reproductive freedom and caused harm to countless people. 

Sanger was so intent on her mission to advocate for birth control that she chose to align herself with ideas and organizations that were ableist and white supremacist. In 1926, she spoke to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) at a rally in New Jersey to promote birth control methods. Sanger endorsed the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit” without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge. The acceptance of this decision by Sanger and other thought leaders laid the foundation for tens of thousands of people to be sterilized, often against their will.

As a result of these choices, the reproductive rights movement, in many cases, deepened racial injustice in the health care system. The field of modern gynecology was founded by J. Marion Sims, who in the mid-1800s repeatedly and forcibly performed invasive experiments on enslaved Black women without anesthesia. 

In 1939, Sanger began what was called the “Negro Project” — alongside Black leaders like W.E.B. DuBois, Mary McLeod Bethune, and Rev. Adam Clayton Powell. The mission of the Negro Project was to put Black doctors and nurses in charge of birth control clinics to reduce mistrust of a racist health care system. Sanger lost control of the project, and Black women were sent to white doctors for birth control and follow-up appointments, deepening the racist and paternalistic problems of health care in the South. Continuing to this day, Black women’s experiences and pain are too often dismissed or ignored by doctors and other health care providers, which, alongside historical dehumanization of Black people, contributes to staggering and avoidable disparities in health outcomes. 

Planned Parenthood believes that all people — of every race, religion, gender identity, ability, immigration status, and geography — are full human beings with the right to determine their own future and decide, without coercion or judgment, whether and when to have children. 

Margaret Sanger’s racism and belief in eugenics are in direct opposition to Planned Parenthood’s mission. Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics. Further, Planned Parenthood denounces the history and legacy of anti-Blackness in gynecology and the reproductive rights movement, and the mistreatment that continues against Black, Indigenous, and other people of color in this country.

 

For folks who believe an apology is due, I'm interested in what you think it should say.  What, exactly, should be apologized for, and how should it be worded?

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

For what?

The harm done.

I'm supposing nobody would be happy with a short statement saying something like "we apologize for the harm done".  (Even though @Teancum seemed to initially agree, I'm guessing he'd find such a short brief thing issued by the church totally lacking.  Correct me if I'm wrong, please.)

 

 

 

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

What you think your church does in sincerity and what it actually does are not necessarily the same thing.

In my experience, the Church is overwhelmingly good and decent in its dealings with its members, and with those not of our faith.

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

I'm not suggesting that the church is absolutely insincere.

And I'm not suggesting that you absolutely enjoy skinning puppies for profit. ;) 

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:
Quote

My point is that I think some of the people calling for an apology will "deem it insufficient," which speaks to the foregoing "virtue signaling, posturing, or pre textual" motivations which may be involved in calling for the apology in the first place.  Put another way, I think this development might expose a lack of good faith by those seeking the apology.

Should the apology be deemed sufficient simply because you and your church say you're being sincere?

Please show me conduct by the institutional church in, say, the last quarter century that would indicate a lack of sincerity regarding its desire to overcome and condemn racism, both in and out of the Church.

Take your time.  I'll wait.

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

After all this time? Really?

Me (referencing the putative apology) : "My point is that I think some of the people calling for an apology will 'deem it insufficient.'"

You (referencing the putative apology) : "After all this time? Really?"

I could not ask for a more clear demonstration of my point.

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

The seeking of an apology is far from a recent topic of discussion. The lack of good faith comes from the institution who will not give an apology, nor does it believe an apology is necessarily deserved. The narcissist will claim that they were right, even if wrong, in doing what they did and then making it worse by not apologizing. Narcissists don't apologize. 

You continue to prove my point.  

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

The church isn't a collective. It is an institution.

Could you elaborate on the distinction here?

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

No guilt is being ascribed to you, Smac.

Then on whom is the guilt being ascribed?  The "institution"?  

Collective guilt, in other words?

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

You don't owe an apology.

Who does owe an apology, then?

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

However, those who have the attitude of "Is offering an apology even worth it?" perpetuate the sin therefore acting in no kind of faith at all. 

The "sin" being the ban that was instituted in 1852 by people now long dead?  And which was ended nearly a half century ago, in 1978?  

I "perpetuate" a "sin" I never participated in?  Collective guilt, then.  That's your thing?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Posted
19 minutes ago, rpn said:

He kept slaves in Utah territory.  He told those assigned to investigate in the 1880's that JS did not authorize Elijah Abel to receive the priesthood, which was either a known falsehood, at least a careless one which personnally benefitted him.   If he had not perpetrated that lie, the initial investigation would likely have resulted in removing the ban --- it was the 1880's when black people  had made huge strides in the Reconstruction, after all.

Are you referencing this?

Quote

Brother A. O. Smoot said 'W. W. Patten, Warren Parish and Thomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Southern States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negroes who made application for baptism. And the question arose with them whether Negroes were entitled to hold the Priesthood. And by those brethren it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted the Prophet Joseph, and subsequently they communicated with him. His decision, as I understood was, they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their Masters.

In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself in the Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Bro Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him, what should be done with the Negro in the South, as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by consent of their masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them.

These two statements were duly signed by each of these brethren

If so, what is your assessment of this:

Quote

1879, Abraham Smoot (the owner of 2 slaves) and Zebedee Coltrin claim Joseph Smith instituted the Priesthood ban in the 1830s (L. John Nuttal diary, May 31, 1879, pg. 170, Special Collections, BYU). The Smoot affidavit, attested to by L. John Nuttall, appears to refer only to a policy concerning slaves, rather than to all Blacks, since it deals with the question of baptism and ordination of Blacks who had “masters”. This affidavit says that Smoot, “W.W. Patten, Warren Parish and Tomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Southern States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negroes who made application for baptism. And the question arose with them whether Negroes were entitled to hold the Priesthood. And…it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted with the Prophet Joseph; and subsequently they communicated with him. His decision was they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their Masters. In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself in Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Brother Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him, what should be done with the Negro in the South, as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by consent of their masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them” (quoted in Wm. E. Berret, Historian, BYU VP of CES, The Church and the Negroid People).

Thanks,

-Smac

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...