- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I keep revisiting this paragraph: Quote:From the mid-1800s until 1978, the Church didn’t ordain black men or allow black men and women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances. While the revelation extending priesthood and temple blessings was received 40 years ago, some of the past speculation on why the restriction existed still seems to affect the way some members of the Church look at me today. I don’t know why the priesthood restriction was put in place. Personally, I’m OK with not knowing, because I know that God loves all of His children. But occasionally some members still say really hurtful things about the faithfulness and capabilities (or lack thereof) of black members to try to explain it.
Maybe this touches on dande48’s point, maybe not but I think spending some amount of energy on discussing why the priesthood ban was put in place would help alleviate the problem of some members believing and saying hurtful things about the faithfulness and capabilities of black members.
Not knowing and arriving at a place where we don’t need to know because we know for ourselves that god loves us is a perfectly good place to land. It’s good when individuals can move past the issue but if we want to educate a community, in this case a community that continues to say hurtful things, it may help to explore the topic. Citing god’s love and moving on really isn’t discussing the issue.
If we believe that god instituted the ban then I don’t find it all surprising that members, even well meaning members, come up with all sorts of justifications, some of which ultimately end up hurting more people. If we can have an open discussion, create some room that perhaps the leaders that instituted the ban were acting less according to god’s will and more according to the filter through which they viewed the world, then maybe as a community we’ll be less prone to come up with wacky justifications that try to shoehorn god’s will into the equation.
The essay on race and the priesthood states:
Quote:Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.
But we’ve been too busy rehashing the same lessons written 20 years ago to ever cover something recent/relevant. At least that’s been my experience, that so far we haven’t covered essay #1 in my corner of the vineyard. I bet most members of the church have never heard the paragraph quoted above. Why would we expect the culture to change, for people to stop advancing the theories and biases to the next generation if we spend no time at all educating members and discussing the topic?
Perhaps getting back to dande48’s point, “it doesn’t matter, it’s in the past, god loves me” is a bit of a dodge.
This is my thought too Nibbler. I mentioned on my previous post that any speech or article can only push the envelope so far and still be considered orthodox or loyal. I even admire Sister Witsman for selectively quoting SWK to make it seem like he had been preaching the same message.
I do not suggest that the church PR department is out there censoring people’s stories. However many members seem to frame their own stories in ways that are culturally acceptable and the powers that be can choose to highlight those messages that further their cause while downplaying or ignoring those that do not. Therefore by spotting the trends in the types of stories and personal accounts that get published we can draw some conclusions about where those boundaries are. One very large cultural barrier in our church and community is to suggest that leaders were wrong.
Let’s look at that paragraph Nibbler quoted.
nibbler wrote:
While the revelation extending priesthood and temple blessings was received 40 years ago, some of the past speculation on why the restriction existed still seems to affect the way some members of the Church look at me today.
This sentence is full of passive voice. “The revelation… was received” “past speculation… still affects” “the restriction existed”
nibbler wrote:
I don’t know why the priesthood restriction was put in place. Personally, I’m OK with not knowing, because I know that God loves all of His children.
Again the passive voice. “The priesthood restriction was put in place” Also, I am curious why the author does not know. Has she not read the essay on the subject?
The essay itself spends a lot of time describing the racist environment of the time. “At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion.” and then at the end we read “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” We, the reader, must somewhat read between the lines to understand that the priesthood restriction was racist, was not of God, and is condemned by the church leaders today.
My question, would the article still have been chosen for publication in the ensign if she had said “I understand that past church leadership implemented and maintained the ban because they grew up in a racist time and those prejudices bled over into their religious lives. Personally, I am OK with that and can forgive them for their shortsightedness. I know that God loved all of his children and grieved with his faithful sons and daughters of African descent that were denied temple blessings for over 100 years. I am so grateful that God revealed to church leadership in 1978 that the ban was not according to His will and I admire that church leadership took swift action once God’s intent was made clear. Unfortunately, some members still say really hurtful things about the faithfulness and capabilities (or lack thereof) of black members to try to justify and explain the ban.”
It is my belief that such a statement, while accurate and in accordance with my understanding of the church position on the subject, would be too uncomfortable to be culturally acceptable and would not be printed in the current environment.
Again, I am not suggesting anything nefarious going on. I am just making observations of the sub-culture that is modern Mormonism. Humans gonna human.
This is poorly structured and I apologize in advance… In reply to what dande said about Africans…
Stop there for a moment.
Not all blacks are Africans (think modern).
We have good friends from Haiti who are so offended when people refer to them as African Americans. They are American citizens who are from Haiti and they speak lovely French.
We have friends from Trinidad…again, they don’t consider themselves African Americans, but don’t really know where they fit in the PC world.
A sister in our ward is Nigerian and has no interest in becoming a citizen of the US. She will absolutely rip you a new one if you refer to her as an African American. That woman can handle her own. I’ve seen it!
😆 The list could go on, but the
stereotypesare there for people with darker skin, and I think that is the bigger problem. Especially if they carry names that are indicative of the black culture (think blind job applications).
Living in the south and seeing how my area has changed, I think it really comes down to stereotypes, and not necessarily racism.
The most charitable acts I’ve ever seen were performed by members in my community who happen to be black, but dang if they can’t shake the stereotype that we expect them to be thugs.
🙄 I will add that the most awesome people around here are the older black men. They are so much fun to talk to! They are polite and respectful and full of stories.
The areas around me have a white minority (talking one white student in a classroom of other races…3 white kids per grade level, etc.).
But I don’t think that the students who drift into trouble are doing so because of racism. Heck, the whole community is made up of a mixture of races who are new to the area. No one is discriminating against them in their own school, or at the jobs in town. I think that, if anything, they are simply a byproduct of a culture that they can’t seem to break free from.
This PC world has gone above and beyond when it wasn’t long ago that someone in the news referred to Nelson Mandela as being an African American.
🙄 Our dearest friends are from South Africa. They are white. They speak with an accent. They have dual citizenship and are, in reality, African Americans.
The oldest daughter applied for a scholarship created for African Americans. This is a girl with outstanding grades, but who also comes from a low-income family. She was denied the scholarship and banned from reapplying. Why? Because she isn’t black. See, the scholarship said it was for AAs, but it didn’t say that the applicant also had to have darker skin.
I guess my point is that we can’t really use the term African Americans and think that it covers everyone who is black.
But I also wanted to put in my thoughts that maybe it
isn’t racismafter all. Maybe we just need to retrain our brains and
drop the stereotypeswhen we see truth in action. Roy wrote:
It is my belief that such a statement, while accurate and in accordance with my understanding of the church position on the subject, would be too uncomfortable to be culturally acceptable and would not be printed in the current environment.
The people who read the essays are often those who already have some idea of the truth, and are turning to the Church for explanation. They really don’t reveal much of anything, only try to tiptoe around the truth and explain things away. Most active members aren’t interested in reading them. Those who do, are likely to side with the Church and put their doubts to rest without looking into it more. Despite being more “open”, were still pretty deceptive and cherry-picked the truth. They are for a very specific type of member.
The Church will always do all they can to post themselves in a more positive light. They air their dirty laundry as people find it, with plenty of excuses. But they will still do all they can to keep people from finding it in the first place. I don’t think the story was censored. But I do believe that her specific story was used to further very specific aims within the Church. It’s meant to bring about change in a positive direction, and I think it does that (however slowly). What it is trying expressly to not do at any cost, is harm the membership’s absolute trust in Church authority. Which, IMHO, will need to be harmed to truly defeat racism in the LDS Church.
QuestionAbound wrote:
Not all blacks are Africans (think modern).
When I first wrote it, I used “white people” instead of Caucasians, and “black people” instead of Africans. But for some reason, that felt racist and discriminatory. I was using it as a “race”, not to describe where people come from. Sorry about the confusion. I completely agree with all that you said. And that SUCKS for that child of your friend.
http://www.i-am-bored.com/2015/12/its-not-about-race-pic.html This photo is what I think of when discussions like this come up.
Sorry for the link, I don’t know how to upload a photo here.
Roy wrote:
Again the passive voice. “The priesthood restriction was put in place” Also, I am curious why the author does not know. Has she not read the essay on the subject?
The folks over at bycommonconsent are not impressed by this article for some of the reasons you and others mention.
I should state that I’m glad the article exists. It can be a launching point into having a discussion. I don’t want to be critical. It’s their experience, I’m thankful they shared it. Besides, if it’s in the Ensign chances are it’s been through an approval process that has taken months and months, requiring multiple edits.
Roadrunner wrote:
Roy wrote:
Again the passive voice. “The priesthood restriction was put in place” Also, I am curious why the author does not know. Has she not read the essay on the subject?
The folks over at bycommonconsent are not impressed by this article for some of the reasons you and others mention.
Thanks for the reference.
https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/05/09/no-known-records-exist-the-fallacy-of-racial-restriction-origins/ Turns out that BCC was discussing a different article from the June Ensign with some of the same issues.
Perfect is the enemy of good. I try not to let expectations of perfect get in the way of appreciating good.
I thought of an analogy while reading this thread. When an old building in a modern city becomes unfit or unsafe, we knock it down to build a new one in its place. It’s relatively easy to haul away the debris containing the old materials and bring in new materials to start from scratch. A year later, we’ve got a brand spanking new skyscraper.
In the past – and you don’t even have to go back very far – it didn’t work like that. Fewer materials were at hand and they were harder to move. The city’s ground level tended to rise over time as dust, trash and sewage collected in the streets and alleyways. Buildings were used long after they became unfit or unsafe, and then were abandoned. Eventually, new buildings would be made from some of the old materials, on mounds that covered the old buildings’ remains.
Without proper sanitation, street cleaning, and modern excavation, mining, lumber and building techniques, this was as well as they could do. Eventually the result was a
tell, an artificial hill resulting from generations of inhabitants rebuilding on the same spot. The church, being unwilling or unable to clean up recent discourse and demolish old doctrines, builds its current doctrines on tells.
Thar’s a good analogy Reuben. I’ve seen tells myself in the Middle East and some of them are actually very high.
Another (poorer) analogy for Mormonism is the old one about the brush/broom, which has had so many parts replaced that little or nothing of the original remains. The handle is replaced, then the head etc.
Sam, Trigger’s broom?
There’s also the ship of Theseus.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.