- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
nibbler, that’s great! Is there any way to access the SM after the live stream? the reason this can be so powerful is that it’s harder to ignore what someone says if they are closer to your own group. Sort of like how LDS people tend to be unsympathetic toward of LGBTQ+ unless they have a family member in that group and then they are much more sympathetic (usually). I think hearing this kind of dialog from members of the Church in a Church (SM) setting would do a lot of good.
Quote:I’m not sure this would really accomplish anything. Hardly anybody in the Church would actually admit to “harboring racist views.” They’d tell themselves that as long as they disagree with lynching or Jim Crow laws, they were open-minded and non-discriminatory. Besides, I really lean towards having fewer, not more, temple recommend questions. It’s like we’re looking for reasons to keep people out of the temple. I’d be happiest with a single question along the lines of “Do you believe you’re worthy to go to the temple.” I know that’s not ever going to happen, but the micromanagement of our lives is just something I can’t get on board with.
I agree I’ve been guilty of harboring of racist views, Katzpur. And my mom has too, although we’re normally nice people and people that know us would agree. And I’ve had prejudice against gays too. Having my faith transition and having a gay nephew and a bisexual nephew, they’re my brother’s young adult sons, has helped me to have more Christ-like feelings towards them. Forgive me if I offend anyone when I say this next sentence. Many of these racist views have been brought on by many factory jobs being unavailable to white people because they were more available to Mexican minorities. I don’t know if that really true or not, but it’s hard at times to not feel racist even mildly if certain jobs are given to just minorities. I wasn’t trying offend anyone. I was just saying how I’ve felt. Since I’ve been living on Social Security Disability alone, due to my psychiatrist’s recommendations, I haven’t had a job since 2010 or a little before that anyway. When it comes to temple questions, I would agree that we need fewer, not more temple questions. Like you, I also agree it would be better if the bishops and stake presidents just asked the question “Do you believe you’re worthy to go to the temple?” After my faith transition, I no longer believe that temple ordinances are required for exaltation. I believe now that they are just symbolic means that can help people learn to love like God loves. A way of becoming one with God and with others. I don’t believe everyone needs the ordinances to do so. It’s apparent from reading the Doctrine And Covenants that Joseph’s brother Alvin needed to temple ordinances. I know some will say different, but I think Alvin progressed far enough spiritually that he didn’t need them.
When it comes to blacks, I also agree it would be if the General Authorities, particularly President Nelson, officially apologize for what former leaders said in the past regarding black males being denied the priesthood because they were less valiant in the Pre-mortal Existence. Somehow I ended hearing about the blacks not being allowed the priesthood from my mission companion in my first area through some mild argument. I was shocked when I heard that! I told him I believed the leaders made a mistake in not allowing blacks the priesthood, although the reason why he told me because that’s what the prophets are the time were inspired to do. He also told me to not be like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and lose faith in the church over issues like this. Unfortunately, in door-to-door tracting, he would sometimes say to the people who refused to hear us, “We’re not Jehovah’s Witnesses.” My mission companion was a nice guy and served the Lord to the best of his ability, but, as you can plainly tell, he was bit prejudiced to Jehovah’s Witnesses and he had too much reliance on the religious institution and its leaders as many members have and I have had in the past.
nibbler wrote:
Roy wrote:
What other steps might the church make to reinforce it’s commitment against racism?
I wanted to report on a really good SM (streamed meeting) I saw Sunday.
Two African American members gave a talk and they talked about racism with the kid gloves off. It was the most powerful meeting I’ve heard in a church setting in over a decade.
They addressed current events and their experiences of being on the receiving end of racism growing up. Where it really started to hit home was when they talked about racism that their children have faced. I know I’ve fallen into the trap of thinking, “Well yeah, that was a long time ago, this is 2020.” It was eye opening to hear stories of things that their children have suffered in the here and now.
One of the speakers, a counselor in the SP, talked about specific instances of racism that their children have faced at church. They pointed out how in some cases the
lesson manualswere the source of the racist remarks. The talks were relevant, eye opening, and powerful.
I love this. I think we forget it’s not just the top leadership being sexist, racist and otherwise ignorant of the reality of our world, but it’s down to local members too. It may be 2020, but there are still people who believe the earth is flat, NASA is fake, vaccines make people autistic and so on. I have the hope that in the next 20-50 years the next generations coming through can help continue to clean up the old school habits that we still see.
I wanted to bring this post back in light of the recent social unrest, etc. I live in a large metropolitan area. We have our share of demonstrations, violence & racial unrest.
There has been nothing (zero) come from our stake to condemn the violence or support the equal rights
movement. Has anyone heard anything from the leadership in your area? The church almost seems
afraid to say anything. It seems like it is a lost opportunity to stand up & take a position.
I found this article online from BYU.I found it interesting.
On Own Now wrote:Maybe this is a little like a young progressive friend of mine who recently stated that the only way to have real change was for older people to die off.
As an oldish person, I agree w/ this.Katzpur wrote:Hardly anybody in the Church would actually admit to “harboring racist views.”
I’ll admit to it and that I probably don’t understand them.
Minyan Man wrote:There has been nothing (zero) come from our stake to condemn the violence or support the equal rights movement. Has anyone heard anything from the leadership in your area?
Politics 2020 is fueled by demeaning and degrading people. We need our leaders need to leave it at the door. Some do that already. Some struggle in varying degrees. Every blue moon our Bishop will dogwhistle some RW thing from the pulpit. The latest was calling for deliverance from riots.I agree that reference was a small thing, like a little bit of porn. But it’s also effective at helping the spirit out the door. Afterward, my father-in-law met with him and the stake president about it. The following Sundays have felt better to me.
I do believe our bishop wants Sunday to be spiritually safe. However, he’s surrounded by vocal RW’rs (the ward majority) and I imagine that complicates finding a non-political space – which, btw, is never easy.
For a person who’s strongly aligned, finding non-political space means spending time in the heads of people you don’t agree with. That’s difficult on a good day. Today it’s brutal; the pressure to dismiss other points of view is just relentless.
I don’t envy our bishop or the work in front of him. However, I’ve learned to respect the ability of The Mantle to transform. I think he’s heard what needed saying and I’m content to let him find his way.
I went to a BLM event and march last weekend. The only church members I saw there were part of the III% (3%) counter protest on the other side of the street waving American and confederate flags. Let me just say that people on that side of the street probably feel more comfortable in their Mormon skin than a BLM activist might. I think the point of the OP is that sometimes the church makes good statements of cooperation with the NAACP when it doesn’t seem to cost them anything.
NAACP is the older and more respectable African American organization – too respectable some might say. That is probably why the LDS reached out. I think many people would be very surprised if they knew what Black Lives Matter is all about. On the face of it, it is a slogan that few folk can disagree with. But if you dig deeper, one finds out that its leaders describe themselves in their own words as “trained Marxists” meaning that their aims go far deeper than George Floyd and they are Communist run. They wish to overthrow the government and capitalism and they have been around a long time. This is ironic since they have been boosted a lot by corporations and given millions by them. They also had material on their online manifesto (now removed) saying that they wish to destroy the “nuclear family”. This is why I never give my backing to a group until I know who and what they are and who funds them.
SamBee wrote:
NAACP is the older and more respectable African American organization – too respectable some might say. That is probably why the LDS reached out.I think many people would be very surprised if they knew what Black Lives Matter is all about. On the face of it, it is a slogan that few folk can disagree with. But if you dig deeper, one finds out that its leaders describe themselves in their own words as “trained Marxists” meaning that their aims go far deeper than George Floyd and they are Communist run. They wish to overthrow the government and capitalism and they have been around a long time. This is ironic since they have been boosted a lot by corporations and given millions by them. They also had material on their online manifesto (now removed) saying that they wish to destroy the “nuclear family”. This is why I never give my backing to a group until I know who and what they are and who funds them.
I think I’ve said this before, but I think the church mostly gives lip service and takes photo ops with the NAACP.
Apparently Pres. Oaks knows about BLM and at least partly agrees with you.
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/racism-other-challenges/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/racism-other-challenges/ I think BLM has roped in a lot of good people. I suppose if any good comes out of it, then it might lose its more extreme element. I agree about the NAACP. I think it is mostly photo op territory.
I don’t like how the church has handled race relations in the past, but I suppose 1978 is now long behind us. You would have to be fifty or sixty or more to remember it.
SamBee wrote:
NAACP is the older and more respectable African American organization – too respectable some might say. That is probably why the LDS reached out.I think many people would be very surprised if they knew what Black Lives Matter is all about. On the face of it, it is a slogan that few folk can disagree with. But if you dig deeper, one finds out that its leaders describe themselves in their own words as “trained Marxists” meaning that their aims go far deeper than George Floyd and they are Communist run. They wish to overthrow the government and capitalism and they have been around a long time. This is ironic since they have been boosted a lot by corporations and given millions by them. They also had material on their online manifesto (now removed) saying that they wish to destroy the “nuclear family”. This is why I never give my backing to a group until I know who and what they are and who funds them.
I do not believe that the BLM movement is lily white nor is it a monolith. There are a vast variety of ideas floating in that group that are united by the rallying cry that “Black Lives Matter.” I do not believe that the majority of BLM activists want communism. That is not anything that I have ever heard from BLM supporters themselves. I did read the online manifesto that you refer to. I feel that the statement in question was poorly worded and given to misunderstandings that resulted in the entire document being removed. In context, the statement seemed to be saying that all are welcome regardless of family or socioeconomic status and that you do not have to have come from a nuclear family with both a mom and a dad in order to be considered valued and respectable. I would even argue that the calls to “defund the police” (and even what it might mean to do so) are not universally understood or supported within the movement.
For historical context, I compare BLM to the women’s suffrage movement. We now look back at those women as brave heroes but at the time they were considered treasonous by many. They continued protesting during a time of war and some elements of the movement even organized bombings and arsons (to the best of my knowledge their goal was property damage and not deaths).
To summarize, I am not a member of a minority group and therefore recognize that it can be difficult for me to fully imagine what the world might feel like from that perspective. I do agree that people in these groups have very valid concerns about policing in their communities and the sense that law enforcement may react differently to a person of color than to a white person (up to and including unnecessarily taking actions that result in the death of a person of color). BLM in addition to not being a monolith is also far from the only organization trying to make this point and enact change. The NAACP, which is in the title of this thread, is another well known example. I generally support such organizations and individuals in trying to get their concerns heard enough to enact changes.
:::Moderator Hat::: I recognize that the BLM movement has some serious political leanings and I do not want to get sidetracked from our mission of helping people to StayLDS. Lots of people come here with different political opinions. All of those people are welcome. In order to stay focused on our mission let’s all try to avoid having political discussions (and I am talking as much to myself as anyone else). Thank you! ::: End Moderator Hat :::
I think groups should be a lot more transparent in their aims and objectives. I have been a member of one or two groups I have had to leave because this was not the case. I don’t think the LDS itself always has been and that causes issues – there is certainly a gap between what the leadership teaches and what the general membership believes and does.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.