Church apologizes for Racism!

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 743
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:15 pm

Not that I really have time to jump back into all this, but I thought this comment by someone somewhere else really summed it up.

"The desire to condescendingly explain to oppressed people why their latest wound isn’t all that bad comes from the same place of bias that wants to silence oppressed voices for good to keep from rocking the status quo.

Don’t tell us why we are wrong to hurt, just listen and commiserate."

It originated on a different, though fundamentally similar topic. To make it fit this one a little bit better, I'd recast it as:

The desire to condescendingly explain to oppressed people who they should be mad at comes from the same place of bias that wants to silence oppressed voices for good to keep from rocking the status quo.

Don’t tell us why we are wrong to hurt, just listen and commiserate.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Palerider » Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:15 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:15 pm
comes from the same place of bias that wants to silence oppressed voices for good to keep from rocking the status quo.
I disagree with this.

People do this (tell others how to think) to each other all the time, regardless of race or color.

Parents do it to their children. Bosses do it to their employees regardless of gender, race, etc. Friends do it to each other.

People just want to view things through an oversimplified quick-fix lens because it's easier than taking the time to really listen. Listening is not expeditious. People look for quick easy solutions. Listening is hard work. People aren't trained to be good listeners. And in some cases they may even be correct in their opinion but it may not be the right time to say it. As Covey says, the higher the emotional level the more listening needs to be done until venting and validation are accomplished and then a correct and equitable solution can be sought. But listening to and validating another person's pain doesn’t automatically make that person correct in how that pain was actually brought about.

It's not a matter of (melodramatic base tones here) devilish bigots trying to shut up the oppressed finally and forever. The above sounds like a dark, dreadful accusation of haters instead of people who, though somewhat ignorant are generally well intentioned.

Anyway, this opinion and a quarter won't even get you a phone call anymore.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 743
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:14 am

Palerider wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:15 pm
Parents do it to their children. Bosses do it to their employees regardless of gender, race, etc. Friends do it to each other.
Do you notice that your first two examples involve dominance relationships? That might be significant.

And the author of the quote I shared was most definitely not talking about what goes on among friends. They were having a most lively discussion among friends.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Palerider » Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:08 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:14 am
Palerider wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:15 pm
Parents do it to their children. Bosses do it to their employees regardless of gender, race, etc. Friends do it to each other.
Do you notice that your first two examples involve dominance relationships? That might be significant.
It certainly is since any of these relationships can be and often are mutually beneficial and well intended. Heirarchy doesn't automatically imply suppression, exploitation, or prejudice.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by alas » Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:28 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:14 am
Palerider wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:15 pm
Parents do it to their children. Bosses do it to their employees regardless of gender, race, etc. Friends do it to each other.
Do you notice that your first two examples involve dominance relationships? That might be significant.

And the author of the quote I shared was most definitely not talking about what goes on among friends. They were having a most lively discussion among friends.
People do it to those they perceive to be lower in social standing. So, yes, parents do it to children, bosses do it to employees, and whites too often do it to minorities. It is almost a measure of social standing, which is why it becomes so hurtful to minorities. It not only invalidates how the person feels, it tells them the person who just invalidated them thinks they are better. So, it adds insult to injury on top of whatever hurt just got invalidated. People do not do it to people they see as higher up the social class system. You do something like that to your boss or parents, you could be fired or grounded. Friends do it to each other, but when they do it weakens the friendship. No matter the relationship, it is disrespect for the person's feelings.

And while the one doing it is possibly correct about the anger being aimed wrong, or being irrational, or overblown, there are better ways to deal irrational or inappropriate emotions. Cognitive therapy comes to mind. Which is careful listening, then analysis of the where and why of the emotion.

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 743
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:05 pm

alas wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:28 pm
People do it to those they perceive to be lower in social standing. So, yes, parents do it to children, bosses do it to employees, and whites too often do it to minorities. It is almost a measure of social standing, which is why it becomes so hurtful to minorities. It not only invalidates how the person feels, it tells them the person who just invalidated them thinks they are better. So, it adds insult to injury on top of whatever hurt just got invalidated. People do not do it to people they see as higher up the social class system. You do something like that to your boss or parents, you could be fired or grounded. Friends do it to each other, but when they do it weakens the friendship. No matter the relationship, it is disrespect for the person's feelings.

And while the one doing it is possibly correct about the anger being aimed wrong, or being irrational, or overblown, there are better ways to deal irrational or inappropriate emotions. Cognitive therapy comes to mind. Which is careful listening, then analysis of the where and why of the emotion.
Exactly. You said it better than I could have.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 743
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:37 pm

Palerider wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:08 pm
It certainly is since any of these relationships can be and often are mutually beneficial and well intended. Heirarchy doesn't automatically imply suppression, exploitation, or prejudice.
Well, since we're talking about oppressed groups, I think we can safely assume that oppression exists. And that suppression, exploitation, and prejudice go right along with it. As the woman I quoted said, "The desire to condescendingly explain to oppressed people ...".

It's true that interactions between parents and children can be mutually beneficial and well-intended. With bosses and employees it varies dramatically. Maybe it's mutually beneficial. Maybe it's not. Maybe he really is a benevolent dictator.

But, is it good to compare how we instruct our children to how should instruct oppressed groups? It seems to me like there's a problem in that approach. Members of those oppressed groups are frequently very aware of that problem.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Palerider » Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:29 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:37 pm
Palerider wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:08 pm
It certainly is since any of these relationships can be and often are mutually beneficial and well intended. Heirarchy doesn't automatically imply suppression, exploitation, or prejudice.
Well, since we're talking about oppressed groups, I think we can safely assume that oppression exists. And that suppression, exploitation, and prejudice go right along with it. As the woman I quoted said, "The desire to condescendingly explain to oppressed people ...".

It's true that interactions between parents and children can be mutually beneficial and well-intended. With bosses and employees it varies dramatically. Maybe it's mutually beneficial. Maybe it's not. Maybe he really is a benevolent dictator.

But, is it good to compare how we instruct our children to how should instruct oppressed groups? It seems to me like there's a problem in that approach. Members of those oppressed groups are frequently very aware of that problem.
You and the person you quoted are talking about oppressed groups. But not all those who offer advise are oppressors. They just may not be good listeners. Offering well intended advise is not a sign of oppression. It isn't race or gender based bigotry. Everyone does it. Just look at the internet. People give their unsolicited opinions and they can't even see the other person's race or sex.

You're taking a common human phenomenon and trying to make it into something stereotypical of only racists and oppressors. So if advise is offered good or bad to an oppressed group or even one that's not, "you must be an oppressor" for being foolish enough to want to help.

Sorry, I think we have a difference of opinion here.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by alas » Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:49 pm

Palerider wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:29 pm
Jeffret wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:37 pm
Palerider wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:08 pm
It certainly is since any of these relationships can be and often are mutually beneficial and well intended. Heirarchy doesn't automatically imply suppression, exploitation, or prejudice.
Well, since we're talking about oppressed groups, I think we can safely assume that oppression exists. And that suppression, exploitation, and prejudice go right along with it. As the woman I quoted said, "The desire to condescendingly explain to oppressed people ...".

It's true that interactions between parents and children can be mutually beneficial and well-intended. With bosses and employees it varies dramatically. Maybe it's mutually beneficial. Maybe it's not. Maybe he really is a benevolent dictator.

But, is it good to compare how we instruct our children to how should instruct oppressed groups? It seems to me like there's a problem in that approach. Members of those oppressed groups are frequently very aware of that problem.
You and the person you quoted are talking about oppressed groups. But not all those who offer advise are oppressors. They just may not be good listeners. Offering well intended advise is not a sign of oppression. It isn't race or gender based bigotry. Everyone does it. Just look at the internet. People give their unsolicited opinions and they can't even see the other person's race or sex.

You're taking a common human phenomenon and trying to make it into something stereotypical of only racists and oppressors. So if advise is offered good or bad to an oppressed group or even one that's not, "you must be an oppressor" for being foolish enough to want to help.

Sorry, I think we have a difference of opinion here.
Palerider, I agree with you that giving advice is not always a sign that the person is intending to oppress. But sometimes when we do something in a stupid way, our intentions are not the result. In Jeffrets quote, there is the word condescending along with giving advice, and even when we don't necessarily feel superior, if we pass out advice "as if" we know more, it comes across as condescending. When men do it to women, women call it "mansplaining". And no matter how good the man's intentions, when he mansplains he becomes part of the problem of male domination of women. I know a lot of good men who talk to women this way, and often it is just something they picked up from church culture, not feelings of superiority. But men need to learn not to, because no matter their intentions, when they step on a woman's toes, instead of trying to justify that they did not mean to hurt her, they just need to get off her toes. It is the same way with race. Because oppressors do explain things to minorities "as if" they know more because they are the majority, even when good people try to explain something, it still comes across as SOS (same old sh**) I think it comes across that way because minorities get a chip on their shoulder, but still when we do something that hurts people, we do best if we learn not to do stuff that hurts people. Even when we think it is the minority person's fault for running around with a chip on their shoulder.

I think this might explain the point Jeffret is trying to make here. We majority people do best if we learn to avoid unintentionally hurting others.

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Palerider » Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:41 pm

alas wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:49 pm

I think this might explain the point Jeffret is trying to make here. We majority people do best if we learn to avoid unintentionally hurting others.
I think I see what you're getting at here Alas, but my first thought is, "Well....in a perfect world....."

Nobody gets to go through life without getting their toes stepped on and nobody goes through life without stepping on a few. No one pops out of the womb in full emotional, social, psychological maturity.

That means all of us have to put up with a growth process in others as others put up with a growth process in ourselves. Labeling others who may unintentionally be a little condescending as "oppressors" and "racists" isn't helpful. It may even mean that a little growth still needs to take place. Wait.....was that condescending? ;)
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 743
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:34 pm


Palerider wrote:Nobody gets to go through life without getting their toes stepped on and nobody goes through life without stepping on a few. No one pops out of the womb in full emotional, social, psychological maturity.
Do you find that most people experience that stepping- on and being- stepped on pretty equivalently? I mean they experience both and about as much as everybody else?

Or are there some groups that seem to get stepped on all the time?
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Palerider » Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:48 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:34 pm
Palerider wrote:Nobody gets to go through life without getting their toes stepped on and nobody goes through life without stepping on a few. No one pops out of the womb in full emotional, social, psychological maturity.
Do you find that most people experience that stepping- on and being- stepped on pretty equivalently? I mean they experience both and about as much as everybody else?

Or are there some groups that seem to get stepped on all the time?

Whether some do or some don't isn't the point. That isn't the argument here. The argument is whether ALL THOSE who do the stepping should be automatically labeled as oppressors or racists.

In essence when we stereotype all people who make unintentional mistakes (as opposed to those who cause pain purposely) as being in the same group as oppressors, we have done exactly the same as those who would say all people of color are lazy.

Some PEOPLE commit sins intentionally. Some PEOPLE commit sins of omission. And some PEOPLE make mistakes and have errors in judgment because they are misinformed or inexperienced.

In this case, it appears to me we're just not using "race" as our base point any longer. Instead we're using "anyone who makes an error" as our own private party to be prejudiced against. It becomes social prejudice or even worse, political correctness.

It's really a way of curtailing freedom of speech. Shutting people up rather than letting them speak their minds and argue the pros and cons.

Originally this thread ran to a conversation about who was really or truly to blame for the pain inflicted by the hoax apology.

Some voiced their opinion in one direction and some in another. I don't see that telling white people that they are limited only to listening and cannot express an opinion as being an atmosphere for open, honest and frank discussion.

Of course a few of those who express their opinions will be of a dishonorable ilk. But guess what. Those kind exist in BOTH groups, whether the oppressed or the oppressors. So in reality we are dealing with a behavior common among humans..... not specific to one race.

And the way to deal with human frailties whether they are well intentioned or malicious is not by shutting people up. Much better to argue the merits of the freely stated opinion, wouldn't you agree? Seeking for and finding truth isn't always a task for the faint of heart. Sometimes we have to hear things that are difficult at the time but which may later prove to be right.

Labeling someone an "oppressor" because of an Ill-informed opinion commits the very sin you seek to shield others from. Rather than tell them to shut up, wouldn't it be better to find out why they feel the way they do through listening or asking honest questions? Or if you assume you already know the reason for their feelings aren't you displaying the very arrogance you claim you don't judge in other people?

Labeling is a form of judgment is it not? Especially without knowing what is actually in the heart of those whose opinions you disagree with?

So here's my point. Just because two people of different races disagree on a given issue does not automatically make one of them an oppressor. It just means truth and growth are still in the offing, waiting to be found.

Perhaps by both parties.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 743
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:03 pm

Palerider wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:48 pm
Whether some do or some don't isn't the point. That isn't the argument here. The argument is whether ALL THOSE who do the stepping should be automatically labeled as oppressors or racists.
This is hugely significant. A very revealing moment. It tells me that you and I are talking about two completely different things. I think that was a very essential, foundational point. But you think it's irrelevant.

Indeed you're largely arguing against a claim I never made. The only one who has mentioned the oppressor is yourself. (Do a search on it and you'll see that's the case.) I've never stated anything similar to what you state -- I've never made an allegation or statement that everyone who does the stepping should be automatically labeled as oppressors or racists.

I think part of the confusion may arise because you expect a duality. I've talked quite a bit about oppressed minorities. But I haven't mentioned the oppressors. I certainly don't break it down into two categories, the oppressed and the oppressor. Identifying and labelling the oppressor, or stereotyping as you mention, is somewhat meaningless in this consideration. Or maybe it's just that it's highly individual.

In many cases it's not really that an individual is an oppressor. It's that the system is. The culture. The society. The whole system of rules and expectations and demands.

Let me try an illustration. For clarity assume that the time is 5 years ago, 2013. In my state (Colorado), as in most of the rest of the U.S.A., gays are denied the opportunity to be married and enjoy the thousands of benefits that derive from that legal recognition. I consider that to be improper and and a denial of their basic rights. As a straight married man, I can give my wife a brief kiss in public and no one has any concern. A gay couple knows if they do the same they run the risk of serious attack, verbal and physical, if they do the same and they lack the protection of the law should something bad happen. I consider them to be members of an oppressed class. The courts kind of agree. I'm clearly not a member of that class. Does this make me an oppressor? Not in any meaningful way. It's the system that is doing the oppressing. Personally, I do what I can to talk to others, to argue, and to try to lift the oppression. Eventually as time passes gays win the nationwide to marriage. This alleviates a number of the problems but far from all. They still face many difficulties that I don't face. In this sense they are still an oppressed group, in some places more so than others. This doesn't mean I'm an oppressor, but I simply don't experience the same innate hardships or roadblocks that they do. I'm unlikely to get chased by a mob into a desert shop for holding my wife's hand.
Palerider wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:48 pm
In this case, it appears to me we're just not using "race" as our base point any longer. Instead we're using "anyone who makes an error" as our own private party to be prejudiced against. It becomes social prejudice or even worse, political correctness.
You're talking about something very different from what I am then, because I've never said anything like that.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 743
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:08 pm

Palerider wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:48 pm
It's really a way of curtailing freedom of speech. Shutting people up rather than letting them speak their minds and argue the pros and cons.
I would be quite interested in you could clearly explain how anyone's freedom of speech has been curtailed. What exactly is this freedom of speech? What does it constitute? How is it curtailed? Who has had their freedom of speech curtailed?
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Palerider » Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:42 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 11:25 am
I'm glad that Streeter recognized the problems caused by his actions. Whether there are also harms caused by another entity, such as the Church, is not entirely exculpatory. As someone who is not a member of the community most impacted by his "satire", neither Streeter nor I really get a voice to say in how the Church's or his actions impacted an oppressed minority group. In a significant way, Streeter was using an oppressed minority group to accomplish his aims. The fact that he was trying to help that group doesn't excuse the impact of his actions. If a member of a minority group had done something similar that would be a different story. When someone else does, that crosses a different line.

It really isn't our responsibility to determine how others should feel about the Church. It isn't our place to say who they should be upset at or what reaction they should have. We don't get to say that they should just cheer on Streeter and blame the Church.
This Streeter guy may have been wrong headed though well intentioned in his actions but what you're saying here is that neither he nor anyone else has the right to express an opinion that disagrees with the "oppressed" groups feelings.
Last edited by Palerider on Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Palerider » Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:24 pm

"The desire to condescendingly explain to oppressed people why their latest wound isn’t all that bad comes from the same place of bias that wants to silence oppressed voices for good to keep from rocking the status quo."


Also the quote you provided as supporting your approach and the constant referencing of the "oppressed" or "minority" groups, by implication and inference provides that there must be a group of oppressors. Otherwise the first group cannot be oppressed, correct?

And since there are some who may voice a wrongheaded opinion about where the oppressed should direct their ire, they must automatically be grouped with the oppressors for daring to give an opinion. They need to shut up right?

Not Buying It had it right when he said:

"I don’t think there is anything wrong in pointing out the inconsistencies in black Mormons being upset at Streeter but not being upset at the Church. Sure, we don’t get to tell people how they feel, but when they express what seems to be inconsistent or illogical views, calling them on it is fair game."

There's a big difference between listening for understanding and to validate another's feelings and becoming a bobble head doll and supporting an incorrect conclusion. And it takes freedom of speech to accomplish that.

Telling someone they have no right to express an opinion about what is right and what is wrong is wrong in itself. Let the opinion be expressed and judged on it's merits just as the "oppressed" should not be repressed in stating their opinion.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Palerider » Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:06 pm

As a matter of fact here's my opinion.

For the small good the church does, in reality it psychologically enslaves people of all races by its' cult-like doctrines.

I wish that those TBMs of African descent today, whose ancestors were badly discriminated against in the past and even those who are current day converts, could see that something like the apology hoax, though distasteful, is really nothing compared to the great hoax of Mormonism in general.

All of us who were and are being taken advantage of by this corporation that calls itself a church should direct our anger to the real cause of our pain.

I hope some day all of us regardless of race or gender or whatever label you want to use will be able to see that clearly and the soothsayers fog will be lifted from everyone's eyes.

To speak of "oppressors" is to remember what it's like to be shushed when bringing up polygamy or Adam/God in a gospel doctrine or priesthood class. To be told that women should be obedient to their husbands in all things. To obey leadership no matter how stupid they are. To give time, money, and endless labor to an organization that constantly reminds you, "We can get along without you, if you disagree with us." The church can get along without anyone so pay up or you won't be a forever family. If you don't do what we say, you'll be in Satan's power. You'll be evil.

Yes, there are some oppressors out there and I think I know who those blind guides are. "If the blind lead the blind they shall both fall in the ditch."
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 2532
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by moksha » Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:55 am

Palerider wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:06 pm
I wish that those TBMs of African descent today, whose ancestors were badly discriminated against in the past and even those who are current day converts, could see that something like the apology hoax, though distasteful, ...
If not distasteful then at least disappointing. Like telling an ardent fan of Star Wars that Chewbacca was going to make an appearance at General Conference. They will feel let down in a major way when Chewy is a no-show. However, if Chewy had brought up the idea of the Church apologizing for supporting the Emperor then things would be kosher, but Earthlings have no standing in lampooning this Dark Side of the Force injustice because they live in a galaxy far far away. Only when they've made the Kessler Run in under 12 parsecs can they have any valid input!

Anyway, things have been simpatico with the Wookies since 1978, so forget about all that hair shirt business before that time already.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 743
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:46 pm

Palerider wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:42 pm
Jeffret wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 11:25 am
I'm glad that Streeter recognized the problems caused by his actions. Whether there are also harms caused by another entity, such as the Church, is not entirely exculpatory. As someone who is not a member of the community most impacted by his "satire", neither Streeter nor I really get a voice to say in how the Church's or his actions impacted an oppressed minority group. In a significant way, Streeter was using an oppressed minority group to accomplish his aims. The fact that he was trying to help that group doesn't excuse the impact of his actions. If a member of a minority group had done something similar that would be a different story. When someone else does, that crosses a different line.

It really isn't our responsibility to determine how others should feel about the Church. It isn't our place to say who they should be upset at or what reaction they should have. We don't get to say that they should just cheer on Streeter and blame the Church.
This Streeter guy may have been wrong headed though well intentioned in his actions but what you're saying here is that neither he nor anyone else has the right to express an opinion that disagrees with the "oppressed" groups feelings.
I'm glad you give me this opportunity to clarify my meaning, because that's definitely not what I meant to convey. In no way whatsoever did I intend to infringe Mr. Streeter's Freedom of Speech. I'm not aware of anyone who has attempted to infringe Streeter's Freedom of Speech. Or called for it in any way whatsoever.

Though you didn't copy it here, there is another aspect I've written in this discussion that I'd like to address first. I have said that I think there's some serious question as to whether Streeter actually had the legal right to write / create what he did. Freedom of Speech is not absolute. Besides the well-trod example of not having the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, the legislatures and courts have long recognized other limits to the Freedom of Speech. One of them is even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. You cannot copy someone else's words or creations and use them as you want. This includes trademarks. Copyright law allows for Fair Use, a nebulous concept, but it's hard to see how Streeter could claim Fair Use in this case. Legally I think it's pretty questionable whether Streeter's Freedom of Speech covered his creation.

In the part where you quoted me above, I admit that I spoke somewhat imprecisely. I was attempting to communicate more colloquially than precisely. I apologize for being unclear. Let me try re-phrasing it for more precision, though always limited by the inherent imprecision in human language.

Subject to the limitations I sketched above Streeter has the legal freedom to say what wants. I can say what I want. You can say what you want. Others can also. From a legal perspective, a more precise word choice in that part you bolded "get a voice to say" might be "gets to impose", such as, "Neither Streeter nor myself really gets to impose on anyone else how they feel or how they respond." "Have a say in" or "get a voice to say" often colloquially means "Have the right or power to influence or make a decision about something." Not Streeter, myself, or you, inherently have the right or power to influence or decide how black Mormons feel about the Church or Streeter's actions. Just because someone has a Freedom of Speech doesn't give them any right to impose their opinion onto anyone. Freedom of Speech doesn't require a listener. Nor does it require that anyone accept what is said.

Now ethically the matter may be quite different. First of all we would have to establish our ethical framework. Or to recognize that our ethical framework is individual. Our only standardized ethical framework is codified into the law and we've already discussed the legality. In my own, personal ethical framework, I strongly feel that I don't have the ethical right to tell others, and particularly to demand, how they should feel, who they should be mad at, or to do things that cause them harm or distress. Your ethical framework may be different.


I'm still rather surprised that we continue arguing over claims or approaches that Streeter himself has not made or that he has apologized for. He hasn't claimed that his Freedom of Speech was abridged. He issued what was apparently a heart-felt apology.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 743
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:12 pm

Palerider wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:24 pm
Also the quote you provided as supporting your approach and the constant referencing of the "oppressed" or "minority" groups, by implication and inference provides that there must be a group of oppressors. Otherwise the first group cannot be oppressed, correct?
Uhh ... not really. That's the duality I was talking about. Or the duality I was saying that doesn't really exist. One of the things I gave up when I gave up a belief in Mormonism was an insistence that there must always be a duality. Things are not always black or white. Not always as simple as oppressed or oppressor. Not always even male or female as we've learned. In some simplifications people say, "If you're not for us, you're against us." That's a very Mormon thing to say, but that's one approach I certainly reject. (Or, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate" -- but that's a very nerdy joke.)
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests