Church apologizes for Racism!

[Jeffret]

It's a crazy situation - when I first saw the parody I thought nothing about how blacks would feel reading it just because I don't identify that way so it just didn't cross my mind. I can clearly see now why that would bring up some raw emotions only to find out it was a joke. So I totally get that - and sadly Streeter probably was more focused in the way that we mostly are here - that the church has brought so much pain and anguish to so many because they have a foundation of dishonesty that continues to catch up with them, but they continue to want it both ways.

I didn't think about that either. It seemed off to me, legally and ethically, but I was pretty oblivious to just how big of a deal it was to those who were directly impacted. It wasn't until I saw Jerilyn Pool's efforts to comfort those who felt traumatized that I caught onto how it affects some others who are different from myself. According to the Salt Lake Tribune article, Streeter has come to recognize some of that also.

[Not Buying It]

Not Buying It, I've read your latest response multiple times but I've still been unable to detect any way in which you've been directly impacted by the Church's racist policies or refusal to apologize. You've described ways in which you're indirectly impacted. Or ways in which you're impacted generally by the Church's actions or by other actions. But I can't detect a specific harm from this action.


----
This is related to why Prop 8 failed at the Supreme Court. Prop 8 failed in district court because it was demonstrated it clearly illegally discriminated. There were no other justifications offered. That ruling was upheld in the appellate court, because it was the right thing to do and the appellate court played games to give the Prop 8 proponents standing. SCOTUS ruled that the appellate court should never have heard the case because the Prop 8 proponents, who argued the case in favor of Prop 8, did not validly have standing. What that means is that they were not able to demonstrate any reasonable way of establishing any direct harm they faced by overturning Prop 8. The fact that they ran the campaign to pass Prop 8 didn't establish direct harm. They argued that allowing gay marriage would destroy society and harm their marriages, but they could not demonstrate any direct cause.

Guess you and I have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes “direct impact”. By your standard, I’d argue any of the black members who are upset who were born after 1978 weren’t “directly” impacted. They weren’t discriminated against, it was all before they were even born, what does it really have to do with them? By that standard of “direct impact”?

[Jeffret]

Guess you and I have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes “direct impact”. By your standard, I’d argue any of the black members who are upset who were born after 1978 weren’t “directly” impacted. They weren’t discriminated against, it was all before they were even born, what does it really have to do with them? By that standard of “direct impact”?

Possibly, but I think that over-stretches it. We're talking about not just the original racist behavior but the lack of addressing it and thereby allowing to racism to be perpetuated. That does directly impact current black Mormons but not Streeter or myself. They face the effects of it constantly.

For myself, I might be upset at how the Church behaves generally and its refusal to address its issues and apologize, to take responsibility. I might be concerned with how the example it sets might indirectly impact myself. Or indirectly impact people who directly or indirectly impact myself. But if I built my response to that upon how an oppressed minority group is treated I would be making use of their difficulties for my gain.

I might be upset at how the Church treats some oppressed minorities. Which I am. I might wish to help them out, to be their allies. But allyship can be tricky. It's paramount that we remember allyship isn't about us. We don't get the cookie. If they tell me what I'm doing to help is actually causing harm I don't insist that things have to be done the way I want. That's just perpetuating the oppression. If I insist my way is the correct way and I have the answers to an experience I don't understand I just continue to deny their experience and insist it isn't valid.

Listening is essential.

[wtfluff]

Not in the least. You've got it turned around.

Sorry, I don't see how it's me that's got things turned around: I see black people complaining that a white person made up a fake apology, yet the only people who can actually apologize for the racism are white people. There's a contradiction there.

I'm not saying black folks "can't" be angry at Streeter for "hurting" them, but why does the color of his skin matter? If Streeter were black, or if some other black person made up a fake apology, do you think these offended black folks would just laugh off that fake apology?

As has been mentioned in the thread: The people who are "mad" have things turned around: They should be angry at the "white" racist church who has caused them pain.

[moksha]

When the LDS Church and the NAACP met together to issue a joint statement, the 133-year history of racial discrimination without an apology became the white elephant in the room. Seems like Mr. Streeter was able to direct all eyes to the white elephant in a very dramatic manner.

When I read the story about the upcoming meeting, I wondered if an apology would be issued. After all, it seemed the right thing to do on that occasion. I doubted an apology would be given due to the intransigence of the Church to apologize for anything. I suspect Mr. Streeter realized this as well and that served as the impetus for his hoax.

Was it funny? Depends on your sense of humor and perhaps how much time has passed since the event. Was it a way to convey the desire for such an apology, in order to move beyond this sore point? Most decidedly.

[Jeffret]

Was it funny? Depends on your sense of humor and perhaps how much time has passed since the event.

Could you try to explain the humor to me? I'm just not seeing it. I realize I don't always see the same humor others do. I don't really find Wacky Packages funny, but I can kind of see how some people do. I tend not to find things humorous when they attack or demean minority or oppressed groups. This one seems to be written flat-out straight. We've got the straight man but the funny man failed to show up.

(A fundamental part of the problem is the idea of how much time has passed since the event. In this case, no time at all has passed for those most affected, as this is still a constant in their lives. It's easy for those of us who aren't daily affected to talk about how it's all so funny now that so much time has passed.)

[Corsair]

Was it funny? Depends on your sense of humor and perhaps how much time has passed since the event. Was it a way to convey the desire for such an apology, in order to move beyond this sore point? Most decidedly.

I certainly found the whole situation humorous even though Streeter's apology put a sad trombone on the end of it. For a few glorious hours we had the institutional church retracting an apology they did not issue which is doubly silly. I think the LDS church breathed a sigh of relief when the perpetrator of the hoax decided to apologize for it. It seemed they were only one more news cycle away from having to actually apologize for this LDS history, but Jonathan Streeter is now the current dumping ground for this animosity.

[Jeffret]

Sorry, I don't see how it's me that's got things turned around: I see black people complaining that a white person made up a fake apology, yet the only people who can actually apologize for the racism are white people. There's a contradiction there.

This is bewilderingly ridiculous. Who else could possibly apologize for the discrimination? Black people? Are they also supposed to apologize for slavery? "We deeply apologize for making you enslave us by being so black." The victim of the beating is supposed to apologize? "I deeply apologize that my face happened to be in the way of your swinging fist." The rape victim apologizes to her attacker? "I'm very sorry for being a woman and thinking I could walk down the street." Who is supposed to apologize for the Church's discriminatory behavior? The First Black Church of Atlanta?

As has been mentioned in the thread: The people who are "mad" have things turned around: They should be angry at the "white" racist church who has caused them pain.

Oh, i'm quite capable of being upset, angry, or disturbed by more than one thing at a time. You really don't get the moral right to tell me or anyone else just what we must be angry about.

(I'll come back to your other point if we manage to establish that the victim doesn't owe the perpetrator an apology. No matter what you think about Streeter's actions, I'm totally bewildered by your claim that anyone besides Church leaders could possibly apologize for the Church's behavior. I would be thoroughly surprised if you were willing to accept that regarding any other situation. If I apologize for Joseph's misdeeds and for the lies you were taught in Church, will that satisfy you?)

((I suspect this isn't really what you intended to say. Nonetheless, it is what you said.))

(((And I am upset at such victim blaming.)))

[Jeffret]

I certainly found the whole situation humorous even though Streeter's apology put a sad trombone on the end of it. For a few glorious hours we had the institutional church retracting an apology they did not issue which is doubly silly. I think the LDS church breathed a sigh of relief when the perpetrator of the hoax decided to apologize for it. It seemed they were only one more news cycle away from having to actually apologize for this LDS history, but Jonathan Streeter is now the current dumping ground for this animosity.

While the situation may have been funny, how was Streeter's original piece funny? How did it exhibit satire or parody?

I think you found the Church's situation and actions humorous. I agree with that. They find themselves in a problem of their own making and just manage to make everything worse.

Do you dismiss out of hand, because it doesn't align with your experience, the comments of those who found Streeter's actions painful or harmful? Can you read their comments, try to put yourself in their shoes, and try to understand their concerns?

[Corsair]

Do you dismiss out of hand, because it doesn't align with your experience, the comments of those who found Streeter's actions painful or harmful? Can you read their comments, try to put yourself in their shoes, and try to understand their concerns?

You're accurate. I largely dismissed their concerns out of hand rather than spending time understanding those concerns. This is a situation where Streeter's actions probably threw sand into the gears of progress.

[wtfluff]

(I'll come back to your other point if we manage to establish that the victim doesn't owe the perpetrator an apology. No matter what you think about Streeter's actions, I'm totally bewildered by your claim that anyone besides Church leaders could possibly apologize for the Church's behavior. I would be thoroughly surprised if you were willing to accept that regarding any other situation. If I apologize for Joseph's misdeeds and for the lies you were taught in Church, will that satisfy you?)

I'm sorry, where did I state that anyone besides the church could apologize for the church's racism?

Where did I say any of the victims should apologize for anything?

(((And I am upset at such victim blaming.)))

And again, where did I BLAME any victim? The only thing I am trying to point out is that the folks who are upset keep bringing the color of Streeter's skin up. Why does the color of his skin matter?

Streeter can't apologize for the church BECAUSE HE IS NOT THE CHURCH. It should not matter what color his skin is.

[Jeffret]

This is a situation where Streeter's actions probably threw sand into the gears of progress.

I separate that concern out from some of the other concerns. I don't believe that the ends always justify the means, so I'm not willing to just accept the end result as the only area of concern.

The potential legal issues bother me. Lying has always really bothered me, which is one of the reasons I'm no longer a Mormon. Without any aspects of satire, parody, or other acknowledgement other than that one tiny nearly invisible bit, Streeter's piece standing on its own is basically a lie.

I didn't originally understand the collateral damage to the very community Streeter's piece was ostensibly trying to help. That makes it more problematic and I'm glad he recognized that when it was pointed out to him.


As far as the ends go, getting the Church to engage in some progress, I think Streeter's actions here result in about a wash. Even without that collateral damage. It pointed the problem out to some who already knew about it. Otherwise, I don't know that it made much difference. If it weren't for the other issues I've described, I would've just said, "It takes all types to make progress." If it would have been done by someone directly affected it would have carried a different message.

[Jeffret]

I'm sorry, where did I state that anyone besides the church could apologize for the church's racism?

Where did I say any of the victims should apologize for anything?

Maybe we should try a reset on this point. That might help us clarify and get going down a better path. Can we come to any agreement on this point?

Who has the responsibility to apologize for the Church's racist behaviors?

Streeter can't apologize for the church BECAUSE HE IS NOT THE CHURCH. It should not matter what color his skin is.

Perhaps this might explain some of the confusion. No one has asked Streeter to apologize for the Church's actions. No one. Streeter has not attempted to apologize for the Church's actions.

(Can we come to any agreement on that point?)

[Not Buying It]

Well, Jeffret, I am going to agree to disagree on this one. I am not cool with black Mormons directing all of their angst at Streeter and making him the target for all of the pain they feel because of what the Church did. I can understand why people feel what he did was hurtful, I can see where it may have been insensitive, but it is wrong to make him bear the burden for all of that hurt when he didn’t really cause it - he just reminded them it was there. The Church caused this, not Streeter. But Streeter is taking the beating for the Church here. Its not right.

I don't get to tell black Mormons how to feel just like I don’t get to tell believing members, Scientologists, radical Muslims, or anyone else how to feel - but just because someone feels something that doesn’t mean I have to pretend I don’t find it irrational or illogical.

[wtfluff]

OK, here we go...

Who has the responsibility to apologize for the Church's racist behaviors?

Responsibility? I don't know about "responsibility".

But we can say "the Church" is the only entity that can apologize for "the Church's" racism. That gets a bit fuzzy though. Who is "the Church"? The Q15? Russel Nelson? President Newsroom? I'll just draw a line in the sand and say" The Q15 "should" be "who" could apologize for "the Church's" racism.

No one has asked Streeter to apologize for the Church's actions. No one.

Agreed.

Streeter has not attempted to apologize for the Church's actions.

Agreed.

(Can we come to any agreement on that point?)

If you agree with my replies above, then we are in agreement.



Jonathan Streeter posted a fake apology as if he were "the Church", which apologized for "the Church's" racism. Jonathan Streeter is not "the Church". Lots of people are upset and angry at Jonathan Streeter for posting the fake apology. (Is that a good reset?)

[Cnsl1]

I have to admit that I also did not fully understand the negative impact this fake article would have on black members of the church. I understand better now, and I feel it's the right thing for the author to apologize. He told a lie. The lie hurt some people. When you make a mistake, it's good to apologize, especially to the people you hurt. Good people make mistakes. Then they apologize sincerely and try not to do it again.

The great irony in this situation is that this lie highlighted a greater mistake made by an institution, who made a mistake, then eventually changed the mistake while holding close to the premise they were still following God's will, then finally admitted that it didn't seem like it was God's will after all. Do I have this right? So, in essence they admitted the mistake, but have not formally apologized to the people who were hurt. Correct? So, someone did it for them, which of course was wrong and insensitive. Had the author prefaced with "This is what I hoped would happen in this meeting today..." no one would be getting after him. That was his opinion, and likely thousands of us feel the same way. He wants the church to tell black people "we're sorry". What if they did do that? What would happen? I imagine that in this day and age, when our church is competing to retain members and add new ones, leaders have discussed this issue and likely have differing opinions on what is best for the church.

Something that i haven't heard discussed yet is the impact of the priesthood ban on the rest of the LDS population--not just the black members, or black people in general. And I suppose we should probably be identifying this ban as it was, on black people of African descent. It was not on people of color. It was not on African Americans only. It was not about color, really, but about a very specific group of humans, where their color was said to be a mark from God, identitying them as unworthy of certain blessings if God. Dark skinned island people were not banned, dark skinned native Americans or south Americans were not banned, just those with any drop of the black African or "negroid" blood, which is so ridiculous and utterly racist and offensive that it cringes me to type it. Obviously, those were the people most affected by this ridiculous policy.

But, many of rest of us were affected pretty significantly as well. I can remember when the ban was lifted. It was a happy day. Nothing in my previous (or future) dealings with any person of black African lineage gave me the impression they were in any way less valuable, worthy, or loved by God than me or anyone else. But, there was cognitive dissonance, because what had we been taught for years? I was taught by my church that these people were not as valiant as I was, or as were my white brothers and sisters. I was told that maybe they were fence sitters in the war in heaven, that they couldn't decide which side to go with, so God made them black. I was taught explicitly that they were black because of a lack of valiancy in the pre-existence--that they were not as good or special as me. I was not taught to hate or mistreat them, but I was taught by my church that they were not as good as me. Even if nothing I was taught by parents or experienced in the world supported this, my church taught me to be racist. I think they should apologize for that. If they don't, I'm okay and will still have a happy life, and certainly I'm near the end of the line of folks who deserve an apology, but let's not forget the pervasive effects this weird and racist policy had on the world.

[MoPag]

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.

Streeter is not a black Mormon. He doesn't have first hand knowledge of the pain black TBMs experience because of the church. I bet he knows a lot about the pain that we as non-blacks in the post-mo community have experienced at the hands of the church. But he doesn't know THEIR pain. They felt very disrespected that a man who didn't understand their pain would use their pain in the way he did. We know his intent was to stop the church from causing that pain. They (see above paragraph) can't see it like that because they are still TBM.

I keep seeing statements similar to those quoted above, which I am interpreting as: Streeter didn't have the right to do what he did because he is not black.

This is a really good point Fluff, and I totally get that it is hard to wrap our minds around it. But I'm going to try to break it down as best I can.

Streeter didn't have the right to do what he did because he is not black.

Streeter was wrong to use a pain he cannot understand in the way he did. I think it boils down to respect for pain.

I deal with he pain of my son's death everyday of my life. And I will live with that pain for the rest of my life. Nothing will ever make it completely go away. That is just something every bereaved parent understands. Things get tricky for me when I hear GC or SM talks or Ensign articles about child loss and how parents cope with that loss. It's tricky because most of those stories don't come from the parents themselves but rather people who HAVE NO IDEA about the absolute daily hell we (bereaved parents) live in. Unfortunately a lot of those stories don't come out of a respect for my pain but rather they use my pain to prove a point or promote an ideal. And that is just sh!tty.

Or maybe, let's make this a little broader. If you are a divorced person (raises arm the square ) And you find yourself in a SS class and the happily married teacher is teaching about eternal marriage and starts going on about the evils of divorce and giving their advice to divorced people, you'd be like: "B*tch Please!!!" The teacher no doubt thinks they are helping you by teaching gospel truths, but in reality they don't have a clue. And they are not acting out of a place of respect for a pain they don't understand.

Now I'm not saying that you can't speak about a pain unless you personally have experienced it. But you have to do so from a place of respect. And a big part of that respect is acknowledging that you don't have first hand knowledge of that pain.

If Streeter had been involved in the Black Mormon community before this happened. If he had worked closely with them, gone to Genesis meetings http://ldsgenesisgroup.org/ If he was an established ally in the Black LDS community. http://www.blacklds.org/833/the-genesis ... day-saints This whole thing might have gone a very different way.

If you want to speak up about a pain you cannot understand you have to do so from a place of respect for the people who bear that pain. If you don't know how to establish that respect LISTEN to them. Put everything you think you might know about their pain aside and listen. Ask how to help, ask how to be an ally.

[Jeffret]

But we can say "the Church" is the only entity that can apologize for "the Church's" racism. That gets a bit fuzzy though. Who is "the Church"? The Q15? Russel Nelson? President Newsroom? I'll just draw a line in the sand and say" The Q15 "should" be "who" could apologize for "the Church's" racism.

So, to a reasonably close approximation, the Q15, as the official presiding agents of the Mormon Church, are the ones who would have to apologize for the Church's racism. I think we're in agreement on that one.

Now the Q15 just happen to be pretty much white. I realize there has been a slight shift away from that in their most recent selections, but only barely. So, yes, it is white men who have the responsibility to apologize for the Church, just by the happenstance of circumstance. Their whiteness is not really relevant to that consideration. They don't have that responsibility because they are white. They have that responsibility because of their positions as presiding agents for the organization.

If they wanted it to be someone other than white men to make that apology, they have it within their power to make that happen. Grant that position and responsibility to someone other than white men. But this is really a side discussion, because it isn't their race that is the relevant consideration. (Though, if they had included a significant amount of diversity, particularly blacks and women, they may well have already made that apology. Again, though, it's nor really directly relevant.)

Jonathan Streeter posted a fake apology as if he were "the Church", which apologized for "the Church's" racism. Jonathan Streeter is not "the Church". Lots of people are upset and angry at Jonathan Streeter for posting the fake apology. (Is that a good reset?)

I've realized that a big part of my dislike of Streeter's original action is the lying. I don't like it in the Church and I don't like in what Streeter has done in this instance. I realize that Streeter expected people to eventually figure it out, but that doesn't entirely absolve him of the fault. As I don't accept that the ends justify the means, I'm not inclined to accept either Lying for the Lord or Lying against the Lord.

Other people have other disagreements with Streeter's actions, which I and he, feel have some justification.

[Jeffret]

But, many of rest of us were affected pretty significantly as well. I can remember when the ban was lifted. It was a happy day. Nothing in my previous (or future) dealings with any person of black African lineage gave me the impression they were in any way less valuable, worthy, or loved by God than me or anyone else. But, there was cognitive dissonance, because what had we been taught for years? I was taught by my church that these people were not as valiant as I was, or as were my white brothers and sisters. I was told that maybe they were fence sitters in the war in heaven, that they couldn't decide which side to go with, so God made them black. I was taught explicitly that they were black because of a lack of valiancy in the pre-existence--that they were not as good or special as me. I was not taught to hate or mistreat them, but I was taught by my church that they were not as good as me. Even if nothing I was taught by parents or experienced in the world supported this, my church taught me to be racist. I think they should apologize for that. If they don't, I'm okay and will still have a happy life, and certainly I'm near the end of the line of folks who deserve an apology, but let's not forget the pervasive effects this weird and racist policy had on the world.

Very good comments.

I want to talk about just this one part.

What you are talking about here is what is known these days as allyship -- being an ally to a minority group. We've come to understand that allyship can be a very tricky thing. While we are impacted or diminished when discrimination occurs against others, if we are not the target of that discrimination we don't get to be the primary voice. We have to support those minority voices and experiences. If we try to speak for them, without listening to them, we may very well end up perpetuating the discrimination in presuming that our right to speak overrides theirs. If they say that our voices or actions are causing them harm, we should withdraw and find better ways to support them. They get to be the primary voice to share their experience.

It is essential that we listen. We must learn from their experience and not attempt to define it.

[Jeffret]

I am not cool with black Mormons directing all of their angst at Streeter and making him the target for all of the pain they feel because of what the Church did.

You're mischaracterizing it. I can find no indication whatsoever that black Mormons are directing all their angst at Streeter. I haven't had the opportunity to speak with any of them personally on the subject but I suspect they've got plenty of angst to go around.

it is wrong to make him bear the burden for all of that hurt when he didn’t really cause it

Again, I can't find any indication that anyone has asked him to bear the burden of all that hurt. Just for his part in it. Which was all he apologized for. His actions caused some pain that he didn't intend and he apologized for that.

But Streeter is taking the beating for the Church here. Its not right.

The only reason Streeter is taking any beating here is because some people continue to defend Streeter from something which he has personally apologized for. I think he made some mistakes. He agrees with that. (Unless you want to accuse him of lying now.) He offered what I find to be a pretty good apology. I accept that apology. But I can't really accept an apology for a pain that I didn't bear. That choice is up to others who were more impacted than I.