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
MoPag
Posts: 3739
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:05 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by MoPag » Fri May 25, 2018 8:24 am

The church isn't the only place Black TBMs experience racism or where they have to deal with a racist past. A racist past is just a sad part of life for every Black American. And that is why I think they don't react the way we really want them to towards the church's racism. If they are going to leave an institution because it unapologetic of it's racist past, they would have to leave America too.
...walked eye-deep in hell
believing in old men’s lies...--Ezra Pound

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1025
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Fri May 25, 2018 8:58 am

alas, I think at this point you and I are primarily flogging a dead unicorn. Not only is it dead, it never existed.

My original comments were hugely based upon the precise context in which they existed and the exact phrasing that was used. Palerider has clarified that it wasn't quite phrased the way he intended so that original line of discussion was invalid. The discussion you and I are having is quite different. It's also more in line with what Palerider indicated he intended

Though it's now getting somewhat off-topic for this thread, there are a few concepts here I'd like to explore here, though. I'm going to re-arrange some of your sentences just a little bit, with indicators, to isolate the parts I want to talk about.
alas wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 1:12 am
A battered spouse is not weakened or lesser in any way.
...
So does spouse abuse. But it does not weaken the person. I suspect you lack the experience I have with battered women. They are some of the strongest people I know. They just have the misfortune of loving a jerk.
You're certainly got more experienced with battered women than I do, but I'm wondering if the timeline here is getting a little mixed up. Is there a difference between when the abused is in the abusive situation and afterwards? When fully entrenched in the abusive situation are they still some of the strongest people you know? While being abused do they demonstrate the clearest grasp of reality? Are they the most emotionally stable and resilient? I know they have to do a lot to hold up under that situation. Afterwards, from having been through it, they can demonstrate a lot of strength. My impression, though, is that people who have been through trauma like that can still be triggered and don't necessarily fully recover.

I know a woman who recently managed to get out of an abusive situation and is trying to rebuild her life. Luckily she survived. We really worried whether she would. Not for lack of trying not to, as we've since learned. I wouldn't call her strong during that period. She was doing everything she could to hold it together but it was crushing her. At this point she's definitely stronger than she was, but she's still kind of fragile. Things can trigger her. She's certainly developed more strength in some ways and demonstrates understandings that others frequently lack.
alas wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 1:12 am
Is a soldier in combat weakened by the combat?
...
Yet it will leave scars, both physical and mental.
...
More like a combat veteran, but the enemy is not as clear. Maybe like a civil war vet, where the enemy might be your neighbor or even brother. You love the enemy.
I believe in many cases, the answer is yes. It is well-known that in many cases a soldier will not make wise choices in combat. Many times in that situation, they won't be able to respond as they should. Sometimes they are just overwhelmed. They go through lots of training to try to make it automatic, but often the situation they find themselves in isn't the situation they trained for. Many of them suffer PTSD, which can leave them quite debilitated long afterwards. For some of them, the trauma manifests in the situation and not just afterwards.


But, does it help if we treat all veterans as if they suffer from PTSD? Does it help if we treat all women who have experienced abusive relationships as abused? Does it help if we treat all black Mormons as abused?


I think to some degree we're talking about different things. I think you're describing your individual interactions with someone you know very well. And your individual interactions with other people you've worked with. And you've got a lot of training and practice in separating out your perceptions and desires from those of others. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think you typically attack them, ignore them, and tell them what they need to do. I'm talking more about how we treat groups we might want to help, in aggregate. People we don't necessarily know well or at all. I think there's a significant difference.
alas wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 1:12 am
Your experience with the church is very different than mine, and probably very different from black's. For me the church was not merely not useful.
...
To her the church is both abuser and refuge from childhood abuse, while to me, it is only abusive. I don't love it any more, while she still does.
I'm still convinced that the Church can be a positive in many people's lives. Or at a minimum a net benefit. There are tons of stories in the Church of people who have benefited from its community, many of them true. I've seen it a number of times. I've been in other organizations, including my country, which have big problems but also have benefits.

In the case of the woman I described, she is still a very devout, if rather unorthodox, Mormon. I strongly suspect she won't stay that way forever. At this point she's gaining enough strength that I doubt think she'll accept the imposition of orthodoxy, which will exert its heavy demands. I think the Church causes her some additional harms. But, I absolutely would not try to get her out of the Church at this point. She finds strength and meaning in it. I'm certainly not going to tell her that she's continued to accept abuse from the Church and she needs to direct her anger towards it.
alas wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 1:12 am
So, for me, it is a way to try to relate to my friend. I would certainly never pretend that I totally understand. But it is my way of trying to understand. So, yes, to me it is useful. It keeps me from wanting to shake some apostasy into her. It reminds me not to judge. It reminds me that I can listen, but I can't fix her world. I can't force her out of a church that hurts her, any more than I could make my clients leave an abusive marriage. It helps me remember when others got angry at my dad for me--that hurt me, because here is someone I love attacking another person I love. No, it isn't their anger. It is mine and I had to find my own way to it.
If the comparison manages to help you in these fashions, then I fully agree it is very useful. I'm not sure it is very useful in all cases. When dealing with everyone. Or when dealing with groups that we're not a part of.

But in this case, it sounds like it's very useful for you on an individual basis.
"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: 1025
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Fri May 25, 2018 9:00 am

Inspired by MoPag's comment, let me try a different line of inquiry.

Should we treat all blacks in America as if they are abused spouses in abusive situations?

For that matter, should we treat all women in America that way?
"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: 1025
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Fri May 25, 2018 9:02 am

FWIW, I think this is one of the most fascinating and enlightening discussions we've done here in a long time. That's why I keep posting so much. Sorry for my excessive posting but I think it's very interesting.
"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
alas
Posts: 2350
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by alas » Fri May 25, 2018 9:57 am

Jeffret wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 9:00 am
Inspired by MoPag's comment, let me try a different line of inquiry.

Should we treat all blacks in America as if they are abused spouses in abusive situations?

For that matter, should we treat all women in America that way?
Jeffret, I noticed after writing last time that you talk about using our understanding of "them" to treat them like other, weaker, not as smart, lesser. While I am talking about trying to understand them so we don't screw up by writing a hoax and hurting people. Are we understanding them so we can dismiss them as "other" and tell them what to do and wash our hands of their problems? Or are we trying to understand better, with the recognition that we will never understand completely and we never never tell them how to solve their problems.

So, Let me separate trying to understand someone whose experience is different than our own, from how we actually treat others. If I started out with a rape victim in counseling with the idea that I totally understand where she is coming from and what she needs to do to move forward, well, she isn't coming back because I treated her in a dismissive way. Now, there is some truth to the idea that I do understand where she is and know what she needs to do to move on, but I should never dismiss her as if I know her situation as well as she does. So, I don't even treat rape victims as rape victims or battered women as battered women. Each person has different experiences, they experience the same thing differently, they understand the experience differently, so we try to understand them as best we can with our experiences. But we never assume we know how they feel, and we never tell them how to run their lives. We leave them as expert on their lives.

But we do work toward ending the discrimination, abuse, lack of resources.

So, no as to "do we treat all blacks as abused spouses?" We don't ever treat all of everybody as one thing. Every battered wife is different, so how can we generalize to treat them all the same way. Not to mention the vast differences between being a victim of racism and being a victim of intimate partner violence. They are different animals and all they have in common is human suffering. We work to end the problems that are hurting them, but we never treat them as if we understand their issues better than they do. We use our experience to try to understand, but we are never going to get there, and we need to know that. So, we always listen more than we talk, we always let them decide about what is best for them.

No matter who they are or what they have been through, they are individuals that we do not comprehend, but we have to bust our butt trying to understand.

As to whether or not the woman IN the abusive situation is strong while staying. Yeah, she just doesn't know it yet. The strength is there and my job as counselor was to help her find that strength.

But, yes, the experience whether it is combat or racism leaves scars, some that never heal correctly. But you know, scar tissue is actually tougher than regular tissue. Sure, it sometimes causes problems (I have some scar tissue under my Achilles' tendon that is a problem--but talk about it being tougher than regular tissue, it has calcified and is now bone) so, in some ways the person is weaker, but then if they have done their physical therapy they strengthen other areas to compensate. Like a blind person has a weakness, yes, but they develop their hearing to compensate. In the same way, emotional scars once they heal leave the person kinder, more compassionate.

TLDR, how we treat people is different than how we try to understand people.

User avatar
MoPag
Posts: 3739
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:05 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by MoPag » Fri May 25, 2018 10:00 am

Jeffret wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 9:02 am
FWIW, I think this is one of the most fascinating and enlightening discussions we've done here in a long time. That's why I keep posting so much. Sorry for my excessive posting but I think it's very interesting.
I do too. And I want to add that it is hard to talk about race. It can be hard to deal with our own feelings about race and how we perceive ourselves in the current racial narrative. I think opening yourself up to new ideas, even if it makes you feel vulnerable is key.

There is a great South Park episode "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson" I can't link it because I'm at work. But here is the Wikipedia article about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Apol ... se_Jackson

Watch it.
...walked eye-deep in hell
believing in old men’s lies...--Ezra Pound

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1025
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Fri May 25, 2018 10:56 am

alas wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 9:57 am
Jeffret, I noticed after writing last time that you talk about using our understanding of "them" to treat them like other, weaker, not as smart, lesser. While I am talking about trying to understand them so we don't screw up by writing a hoax and hurting people. Are we understanding them so we can dismiss them as "other" and tell them what to do and wash our hands of their problems? Or are we trying to understand better, with the recognition that we will never understand completely and we never never tell them how to solve their problems.
I think we've identified the fundamental disconnect. I was most definitely talking about how we treat people in minority groups, primarily as a group. I was talking about how we must listen, seek, to understand, and accept them as the primary voice for what their experience is like. I was describing that we don't get to tell minority groups how they should respond. In context, most specifically, I was contesting the idea that we should tell black Mormons to stop whining about what Streeter did, shut up about it, and instead insist they publicly attack the Church and leave it. My comments were all definitely based around how we treat others, or what we expect or demand of them.

If it is useful for understanding and supporting, it's an entirely different matter. Particularly as you say, "trying to understand them so we don't screw up by writing a hoax and hurting people." Or continuing to insist their pain or experience with that hoax is invalid or meaningless.


I would still like to explore the differentiation of group vs. individual, though. Allow me to restate my latest questions:

Does it help if we understand how similar all blacks in America are to abused spouses?

Does it help if we understand that all women in America are basically like abused spouses?

Does our treatment of them improve based upon this understanding?
"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: 2234
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Palerider » Fri May 25, 2018 12:33 pm

I'm just wondering, aren't we talking about relationships whether they be between individuals or individuals and institutions?

So thinking back on some of Covey's writings, I totally agree with Jeffret and Alas here, that listening (seek first to understand, then to be understood ) is a critical component of creating a useful, trusting relationship.

As Covey states, it does no good to listen to someone's issue and then say, "Oh....that's not the way you should feel." or "That's not the right way to look at that situation." When we do so it invalidates their humanity. We have to see things from their perspective even if it might not be a healthy one.

Which brings me to the subject of "judgment".

We do have to make judgments. There's no getting around it. Whether we want to admit it or not, we make judgments about whether relationships with others or institutions bring us enough happiness or are nurturing or edifying enough to be worth the effort. And sometimes our assessments of those relationships can be clouded by our biases or by our hopes because of the investments we've made.

As an outsider to the relationship who MAY have a clearer view, It is usually incumbent on that outsider to WAIT until the person inside the relationship ASKS for our opinion or help because of the trust developed between us. The exception might be the professional counselor.

Another exception is probably when there are crimes being perpetrated that are deemed as such by society. In those cases I believe we have an obligation to act.

So if my neighbor lady or her children presented with black eyes or broken noses or spiral fractures on a consistent basis and I could hear the screaming and fighting coming from the large and gorgeous house next door, I would rather be disliked for calling the police and not minding my own business than think to myself, "Well, she's got it pretty good living in a beautiful place like that."
Is that analogous to someone benefitting from LDS church participation? Or is the down side of Mormonism more insidious and like being the frog slowly boiled in the pan? It takes awhile to manifest itself?

But getting back to how we interact with both individuals and groups. Am I wrong in thinking that I should avoid looking at groups of people in a stereotypical way when dealing with individuals of that group? Shouldn't my first effort be to find areas of commonality and trust on an individual basis in order to create an ally?

But as Covey states there may come a time when the parties, whether groups, institutions, or individuals may not be able to find enough common ground to create a synergistic relationship. And then sadly, at least for the time being, there is little or no interaction.

I do find there are organized groups that I cannot agree with but I still try to take individuals on a case by case basis.

For some time I have maintained that the church is a two sided tree. It has many Christian principles that produce good fruit. But those fruits are offset by the bad fruit produced by the doctrines of men that have been grafted into the tree/church. Those fruits may look pleasing to the eye and are delicious to the taste but they end up being bitter in the belly. What many do not realize is that the truly good fruits are available WITHOUT the enslaving, abusive doctrines within the church.
"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: 1025
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Fri May 25, 2018 2:20 pm

Palerider wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 12:33 pm
I'm just wondering, aren't we talking about relationships whether they be between individuals or individuals and institutions?
Yes, but I think there are some differences between individuals or individuals and institutions. Some pretty significant differences potentially. To put it one way, corporations really aren't people. They're composed of people, but the corporation is itself a faceless entity that masks the people behind it. That's different from dealing with individuals.
Palerider wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 12:33 pm
As Covey states, it does no good to listen to someone's issue and then say, "Oh....that's not the way you should feel." or "That's not the right way to look at that situation." When we do so it invalidates their humanity. We have to see things from their perspective even if it might not be a healthy one.
But that's all too often what happens in allyship. Those in the minorities have grown very familiar with that pattern. We've seen it well-displayed in this thread. In the SLTrib article about Streeter's apology, members of the black community described it.

As you say, that's not the beneficial way to move forward.
Palerider wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 12:33 pm
Which brings me to the subject of "judgment".
Personally I do better when I seek to abandon judgement. I reject the JST modification for Matthew 7:1, preferring the original, "Do not judge, or you will be judged" (Berean Study Bible). In judging others we impose judgement upon ourselves. Certainly it's a lot more difficult than that. There is an inevitability to judgement. It can be necessary. Not judging can be hard. If you'd like to elaborate on that discussion, I'd prefer to take it to a different thread.
Palerider wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 12:33 pm
But getting back to how we interact with both individuals and groups. Am I wrong in thinking that I should avoid looking at groups of people in a stereotypical way when dealing with individuals of that group? Shouldn't my first effort be to find areas of commonality and trust on an individual basis in order to create an ally?
I think that's essential. That's part of my reluctance to apply the analogy of the abused spouse to groups. It's entirely possible it can be useful in the individual, particularly as alas describes with her friend. When applied to a group I worry it would really subvert our perception.
Palerider wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 12:33 pm
For some time I have maintained that the church is a two sided tree. It has many Christian principles that produce good fruit. But those fruits are offset by the bad fruit produced by the doctrines of men that have been grafted into the tree/church. Those fruits may look pleasing to the eye and are delicious to the taste but they end up being bitter in the belly. What many do not realize is that the truly good fruits are available WITHOUT the enslaving, abusive doctrines within the church.
It's a pretty decent metaphor. I just look at it that the Church has some good and some bad -- it works for some people and not for others, depending upon their personality, situation, circumstances, and experiences. Doesn't work for me but it seems to work pretty well for a number of people I know.
"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
alas
Posts: 2350
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by alas » Fri May 25, 2018 7:16 pm

I would tend to say that no, we should not treat or see an entire group as any one thing. That becomes just another form of stereotyping. I have never found a stereotype helpful because they are wrong 3/4 the time. So, it would not help to see the entire group or even a specific individual that is new to us in a set way. I can keep my thoughts that there are some similarities between racial mistreatment and spousal mistreatment in mind as I try to understand a person who is new to me. It may or may not be helpful. If it proves useful, fine, but as often as not, I am going to have to find another experience of my own to try to u der stand this person.

There are a lot of variations in people's experience even among the same group. Two black kids in a predominantly white school may have such different personalities, that one becomes popular while the other is bullied. Or one black person may have enough money that they escape some of the prejudice and insults. Some are more affected by poverty that they are by race.

There was a thing I saw on TV once talking about privilege. They lined people up, and then they took one step forward, or stayed in place, according to how they answered the questions. Some of the questions were about race, or gender, while others were about poverty. I grew up poor enough that even being white, I lagged behind many of the blacks in the TV demo.

So, there are some blacks where I would have more in common with them because of things like no food in the house, or going to school hungry.

So, assuming all blacks are similar to battered women is a false stereotype.

Also, my friend would not be like a battered spouse as far as America goes. She is not African American, but came to the US as an adult. But only as far as the church goes. She grew up, not as a lower status minority, but as a curiosity. She actually had status in her country of origin. But in the church she is treated as second class.

I would also question the usefulness of applying the battered spouse thing to nonMormon blacks, just because the emotional component of being rejected by your tribe is different than blacks in general who have a subculture as their community and tribe. So, the battered spouse thing doesn't compare because it is not their tribe rejecting and insulting them. Most blacks do not love white culture the way TBMs love the church, so the hurt is very different.

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5045
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by moksha » Fri May 25, 2018 9:52 pm

Jeffret, did any black members of the Church appreciate the need for an apology to be brought to center stage?
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: 1025
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Sat May 26, 2018 6:59 am

moksha wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 9:52 pm
Jeffret, did any black members of the Church appreciate the need for an apology to be brought to center stage?
Sorry, but I really couldn't speak to that.

I struggle to see the relevance to any of the current discussions here, but if you have some meaningful information on that point, please share it.
"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
moksha
Posts: 5045
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by moksha » Sat May 26, 2018 7:07 am

Jeffret wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 6:59 am
I struggle to see the relevance to any of the current discussions here, but if you have some meaningful information on that point, please share it.
No meaningful information. Just trying to stimulate your inner Captain Queeg.
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: 1025
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Sat May 26, 2018 7:25 am

alas wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 7:16 pm
I would tend to say that no, we should not treat or see an entire group as any one thing. That becomes just another form of stereotyping. I have never found a stereotype helpful because they are wrong 3/4 the time. So, it would not help to see the entire group or even a specific individual that is new to us in a set way. I can keep my thoughts that there are some similarities between racial mistreatment and spousal mistreatment in mind as I try to understand a person who is new to me. It may or may not be helpful. If it proves useful, fine, but as often as not, I am going to have to find another experience of my own to try to u der stand this person.

There are a lot of variations in people's experience even among the same group. Two black kids in a predominantly white school may have such different personalities, that one becomes popular while the other is bullied. Or one black person may have enough money that they escape some of the prejudice and insults. Some are more affected by poverty that they are by race.
I really like what you've said here. I agree that this just becomes a form of stereotyping. As such, I think it tends to be very dangerous. As a private opinion, it might be useful but it runs the risk of warping our perception. As a publicly elaborated approach, it would create a stereotyped perception. Individually some people would recognize it as a simple comparison but others would use it as an inherent difference. I like how you describe considering that as a potential aspect for comparison in understanding an individual. We can shift through our understandings of people in general or people we've known as we try to understand someone new. Or better understand someone we know. It kind of sounds like a Miss Marple thing, for fans of Agatha Christie. You mentioned the trick, to not get too attached to our comparison, to where we insist, if only to ourselves, that the individual matches it.

It's very true about the difference in people's experiences. There tend to be some similarities among most individuals of a minority group. Most women learn to be cautious about walking at night. Most gays learn to be cautious about PDA. Most blacks learn to be cautious about encounters with the police. But, there are also tons of individual variation. One of the dangers of an outsider attempting to speak for the group is that he doesn't recognize the difference. He doesn't know how to distinguish between those things that are considered relatively common and those that aren't. He doesn't have some portion of that shared experience.
"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: 1025
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Sat May 26, 2018 7:26 am

moksha wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 7:07 am
No meaningful information. Just trying to stimulate your inner Captain Queeg.
I'd appreciate it if you would clarify. Should I be offended?
"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: 1025
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Sat May 26, 2018 7:42 am

Here's my follow-on question:

Does it help if we understand how similar all blacks in the Mormon Church are to abused spouses?


I'll go ahead and share my answer. I don't think it does. This is for many of the same reasons that we already discussed regarding the stereotyping of all blacks in America. The group is smaller and the situation is different, but the same issues still occur. It's a stereotyping. It doesn't necessarily help. It might be useful on an individual basis, but it can distort our perception if we're not careful and it can certainly negatively impact how others treat the group. Individual's experiences within the subgroup can vary dramatically.

An argument might be made that the situation is different, that being black in the Church is somehow radically or significantly different than being black in America. That somehow blacks in the Church are much more inherently similar to abused spouses. I certainly can't speak for them, but I struggle to see how this is a supportable argument. Being black in the Church isn't necessarily easy, but there are a number of aspects that are softer. The Church isn't killing blacks. It hasn't placed an out-sized number of them in prison. It doesn't cause them to fear for their lives every time they encounter one of their officers. Or many of a host of other things I'm unfamiliar with I expect. I can't really speak to their experience in these different / shared environments, but neither do I have any qualifications to claim that being a black Mormon is significantly or substantively worse than being a black American.
"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
Red Ryder
Posts: 4142
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Red Ryder » Sat May 26, 2018 9:08 am

Jeffret wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 7:26 am
moksha wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 7:07 am
No meaningful information. Just trying to stimulate your inner Captain Queeg.
I'd appreciate it if you would clarify. Should I be offended?
Another Penguin reference I had to look up. You’re hilarious Penguin!
After a day of gunnery target towing, Queeg orders a turn to head back to Pearl Harbor, but distracts himself by berating Keith and Keefer over a crewman's appearance. Ignoring the helmsman's repeated warnings, he lets the ship turn full circle and hit the towline, setting the target adrift. Queeg tries to cover up the incident.
“It always devolves to Pantaloons. Always.” ~ Fluffy

“I switched baristas” ~ Lady Gaga

“Those who do not move do not notice their chains.” ~Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1025
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Sat May 26, 2018 10:53 am

Red Ryder wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 9:08 am
Jeffret wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 7:26 am
moksha wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 7:07 am
No meaningful information. Just trying to stimulate your inner Captain Queeg.
I'd appreciate it if you would clarify. Should I be offended?
Another Penguin reference I had to look up. You’re hilarious Penguin!
After a day of gunnery target towing, Queeg orders a turn to head back to Pearl Harbor, but distracts himself by berating Keith and Keefer over a crewman's appearance. Ignoring the helmsman's repeated warnings, he lets the ship turn full circle and hit the towline, setting the target adrift. Queeg tries to cover up the incident.
I think you're saying I should be offended. I can if you would like.
"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")

Reuben
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Reuben » Sat May 26, 2018 2:38 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 10:53 am
Red Ryder wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 9:08 am
Jeffret wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 7:26 am

I'd appreciate it if you would clarify. Should I be offended?
Another Penguin reference I had to look up. You’re hilarious Penguin!
After a day of gunnery target towing, Queeg orders a turn to head back to Pearl Harbor, but distracts himself by berating Keith and Keefer over a crewman's appearance. Ignoring the helmsman's repeated warnings, he lets the ship turn full circle and hit the towline, setting the target adrift. Queeg tries to cover up the incident.
I think you're saying I should be offended. I can if you would like.
Um, I think moksha was pointing out in his very, uh, moksha way that you haven't been a bit not touchy, if you know what I mean. I'm guessing no offense is strictly necessary, but that moksha would be secretly tickled to death if you would provide him with that kind of comedic foil. He is the chaotic-neutral trickster demigod of NOM, after all.
Learn to doubt the stories you tell about yourselves and your adversaries.

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5045
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by moksha » Sat May 26, 2018 6:03 pm

For what it is worth, we all have our own inner Captain Queeq. Sometimes he gets loose and we have to reign him back in. I like to say "sorry for that strawberry incident".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8LR2okL8YM
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests