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.
Post Reply
User avatar
alas
Posts: 1435
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by alas » Thu May 24, 2018 11:34 am

I think I can kind of understand how bad it hurt for blacks to get their hopes up, only to have them dashed. My most painful experience from the church was not being blamed for my father's sin, but getting my hopes up that the church was going to STOP victim blaming and actually help (female) victims of male abuse. There is a program run by a great guy who has been bishop and in stake presidency. It is more than just a support group because it discusses how to apply gospel principles when you are the sinned against rather than the sinner. The church actually looked at adopting it, but then wanted to put it under LDS FS and charge money to attend. The guy who has the lessons copy righted said, not if you are giving addicts FREE services and want to charge the innocent victims---not just or fair to give free bishop support to the sinner, free support to addicts(also sinners) and free services to unwed mother's who may or may not place a baby for adoption, and then turn around and charge the innocent money. Nope. He and the greedy could not agree, so of course the church doesn't really care about female victims, so they decided not to help after all. Anyway. Very painful to find out that the church does not give a shit on top of all the crap I went through personally. So, yeah, in a way I know how painful it can be to hope that the church could actually live up to its potential and then have my nose rubbed in the reality that the church cares about tithing dollars. Period.

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1719
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Palerider » Thu May 24, 2018 12:14 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 10:39 am

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.
Just wondering here. Isn't this kind of analogous to the abused spouse who is somewhat psychologically enslaved by their husband/wife?

They are (at the time) incapable of seeing the true extent of the offending spouses' arrogance, sickness, insecurity, emotional immaturity....and in a twisted way still see themselves as having to defend their abuser in all situations?

So when someone well meaning, comes along and kind of intrusively points out the sins of the abuser, the abused spouse illogically feels the pain of being in the existing relationship and because the well meaning person really has little direct power to change the behavior of the offender, consequently the abused spouse supposes (illogically) they have done more harm than good.

For the time being it's kind of a no win situation. The abuser changes only when he is absolutely forced to by outside forces. The abused must either submit to the abuse or finally reach the correct conclusion that the abusive spouse is a lost cause and take the necessary steps to free themselves from the situation.
"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
Not Buying It
Posts: 1070
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:29 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Not Buying It » Thu May 24, 2018 12:51 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 10:55 am
Not Buying It wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 9:19 am
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.
Not Buying It wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 9:19 am
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.
Not Buying It wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 9:19 am
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.
I'm not sure I am mischaracterizing it. Perhaps it has been lost in all the twists and turns of this discussion, but at the beginning part of what this discussion was about was that some black Mormons were crucifying Streeter but saying nothing about the Church that caused the problems in the first place. It may be hyperbole to say that they are directing all of their angst at Streeter, but they sure aren't directing any at the Church, at least not publicly.

That was my point in the beginning, and it is still my point now. Streeter apologized after getting the proverbial crap kicked out of him, fine. But the black Mormon groups that let him have it with both barrels haven't said word one about what the Church did or it's lack of apology.

That is what I find unfair. They went after him, he apologized - but they didn't go after the Church. Let me amend what I said then - black Mormons have directed all of their public angst at Streeter, and if they have any for the Church that wronged so much more severely and deeply, we haven't seen it, have we? Why is it Streeter gets beat up, but they give the Church a pass?
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Thu May 24, 2018 12:57 pm

Palerider wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 12:14 pm
Jeffret wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 10:39 am

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.
Just wondering here. Isn't this kind of analogous to the abused spouse who is somewhat psychologically enslaved by their husband/wife?

They are (at the time) incapable of seeing the true extent of the offending spouses' arrogance, sickness, insecurity, emotional immaturity....and in a twisted way still see themselves as having to defend their abuser in all situations?
It sounds like you're saying that blacks are incapable of figuring out how to live their lives on their own and need someone else to make their choices for them or instruct them on how things need to be. Or that they're psychologically damaged to the point of not being able to see what's really going on.

And ... the use of the term "enslaved" here ... is ... um ... an interesting choice of words.


I'm not sure that's really what you meant to convey here, but yeah, that's pretty much how it comes across. Especially in such a racially charged issue. It's a long-standing perception that blacks have had to deal with. It used to be very overt and explicit. These days it is more covert and many people don't realize when they say harmful things like this.

Palerider wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 12:14 pm
For the time being it's kind of a no win situation. The abuser changes only when he is absolutely forced to by outside forces. The abused must either submit to the abuse or finally reach the correct conclusion that the abusive spouse is a lost cause and take the necessary steps to free themselves from the situation.
Even if this were a valid comparison, it's not very useful. It doesn't help an abused person either.

I suppose if there were to be a comparison to an abused person in a relationship it goes like this: Somebody comes along and tells the abused, "Hey, your abuser just said he's completely reformed and going to do for you exactly like you've always wanted." And the abused learns that it was all just a hoax and the other person was just trying to use the abused to attack the abuser. Not a very pleasant situation.


But, that's still not a very good analogy.
"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: 879
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Thu May 24, 2018 1:58 pm

Not Buying It wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 12:51 pm
I'm not sure I am mischaracterizing it. Perhaps it has been lost in all the twists and turns of this discussion, but at the beginning part of what this discussion was about was that some black Mormons were crucifying Streeter but saying nothing about the Church that caused the problems in the first place. It may be hyperbole to say that they are directing all of their angst at Streeter, but they sure aren't directing any at the Church, at least not publicly.

That was my point in the beginning, and it is still my point now. Streeter apologized after getting the proverbial crap kicked out of him, fine. But the black Mormon groups that let him have it with both barrels haven't said word one about what the Church did or it's lack of apology.

That is what I find unfair. They went after him, he apologized - but they didn't go after the Church. Let me amend what I said then - black Mormons have directed all of their public angst at Streeter, and if they have any for the Church that wronged so much more severely and deeply, we haven't seen it, have we? Why is it Streeter gets beat up, but they give the Church a pass?
Wow. I never knew Streeter had it so rough. He was crucified, but somehow he got better. To get the proverbial crap kicked out him. But he got better from that also. He also got beat up. And yet he apparently willingly gave an apology for all that.

Could you please share with me some documentation as to where all of that brutality happened? At that level there ought to be police records. But, even if this is just egregious exaggeration, there ought to be some basis for those claims.

Sometimes I think white men are just the most delicate snowflakes. Someone from a different group disagrees with them and they go all to pieces. See for example Richard Paul Evans.


You're making a very unreasonable demand on what some other people say, and how, and when. You're insisting on public statements that satisfy your own desires. You're insisting that they reach some level of "public", whatever that means, which is likely far beyond their control. They have no control over what gets published in the mainstream press. I have no idea what it would possibly take to satisfy your demands.
"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: 2930
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by moksha » Thu May 24, 2018 2:14 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 11:31 am
moksha wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 10:01 am
Sounds a bit like blaming the camera guy who brought the picture into focus.
That's certainly not an excuse. There are many instances of the picture being exploitative, whether it was taken for that purpose or used that way subsequently. Many oppressed minorities are well accustomed to how a picture or portrayal is used in an exploitative manner, to show them in a negative light or merely to depict their oppressed situation as natural to those in that group. In times gone by, National Geographic had a really problem with that. White nudity was prohibited, but black or indigenous nudity was fine for publication, as those that were depicted were considered less than fully human.
It was an analogy. Wasn't talking about a literal picture.

On the occasion of the Church meeting together with the NAACP and issuing a joint statement, the issue of no apology for 133 years of racial discrimination was very topical. Mr. Streeter pursued the topic in a way that brought the issue to the national headlines.

BTW, should National Geographics have brought clothing to make everyone they photographed decent? :o Keep in mind that nobody asked society matrons to remove their mink coats and wear something PETA approved.
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: 879
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Thu May 24, 2018 2:38 pm

moksha wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 2:14 pm
Jeffret wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 11:31 am
moksha wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 10:01 am
Sounds a bit like blaming the camera guy who brought the picture into focus.
That's certainly not an excuse. There are many instances of the picture being exploitative, whether it was taken for that purpose or used that way subsequently. Many oppressed minorities are well accustomed to how a picture or portrayal is used in an exploitative manner, to show them in a negative light or merely to depict their oppressed situation as natural to those in that group. In times gone by, National Geographic had a really problem with that. White nudity was prohibited, but black or indigenous nudity was fine for publication, as those that were depicted were considered less than fully human.
It was an analogy. Wasn't talking about a literal picture.
My use of the term "picture" was both literal and figurative. As I indicated by the use of the term "portrayal". Whether it's a photograph, a painting, or some other portrayal, through words or whatever the medium, the result I described is the same.
"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
IT_Veteran
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:36 pm
Location: California

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by IT_Veteran » Thu May 24, 2018 2:55 pm

Not Buying It wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 12:51 pm
That is what I find unfair. They went after him, he apologized - but they didn't go after the Church. Let me amend what I said then - black Mormons have directed all of their public angst at Streeter, and if they have any for the Church that wronged so much more severely and deeply, we haven't seen it, have we? Why is it Streeter gets beat up, but they give the Church a pass?
I have to disagree here. I have seen several posts in the Mormon Stories Podcast Community group on FB from black members (either directly or posts that were shared to the group) that discussed this. They were angry at Streeter and vocal about it because of the trauma it brought to the surface. When this very argument was made, several were able to point to other articles, blog posts, videos, and podcasts that did just that. They detailed efforts to bring about not just change, but contrition, from the church.

I didn't know any of that was going on. I haven't had occasion to go looking for it. Despite my ignorance of it, it is occurring anyway. I think we have to be careful not to make assumptions about others motivations, beliefs, and how things affect them. The idea that they don't understand the church's position on anything regarding people of African descent and the priesthood/temple blessings is simply incorrect. I'd say they, as a group, are far more aware of it - especially the ones that were offended by his apology.

I think many people that have been wronged by the church have a nuanced view of it and how they reconcile their belief. If they believe JS was a prophet and restored the gospel, as many do, they're able to reconcile that with the idea that prophets are still humans. I personally don't think God would allow his mouthpiece on the earth to do something that atrocious, but others do. They see the church as wrong on this, but still containing the fulness of the gospel.

However, I also don't think we get to tell them how they should feel or how they should direct their pain and hurt.

User avatar
Not Buying It
Posts: 1070
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:29 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Not Buying It » Thu May 24, 2018 3:37 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 1:58 pm
Not Buying It wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 12:51 pm
I'm not sure I am mischaracterizing it. Perhaps it has been lost in all the twists and turns of this discussion, but at the beginning part of what this discussion was about was that some black Mormons were crucifying Streeter but saying nothing about the Church that caused the problems in the first place. It may be hyperbole to say that they are directing all of their angst at Streeter, but they sure aren't directing any at the Church, at least not publicly.

That was my point in the beginning, and it is still my point now. Streeter apologized after getting the proverbial crap kicked out of him, fine. But the black Mormon groups that let him have it with both barrels haven't said word one about what the Church did or it's lack of apology.

That is what I find unfair. They went after him, he apologized - but they didn't go after the Church. Let me amend what I said then - black Mormons have directed all of their public angst at Streeter, and if they have any for the Church that wronged so much more severely and deeply, we haven't seen it, have we? Why is it Streeter gets beat up, but they give the Church a pass?
Wow. I never knew Streeter had it so rough. He was crucified, but somehow he got better. To get the proverbial crap kicked out him. But he got better from that also. He also got beat up. And yet he apparently willingly gave an apology for all that.

Could you please share with me some documentation as to where all of that brutality happened? At that level there ought to be police records. But, even if this is just egregious exaggeration, there ought to be some basis for those claims.

Sometimes I think white men are just the most delicate snowflakes. Someone from a different group disagrees with them and they go all to pieces. See for example Richard Paul Evans.


You're making a very unreasonable demand on what some other people say, and how, and when. You're insisting on public statements that satisfy your own desires. You're insisting that they reach some level of "public", whatever that means, which is likely far beyond their control. They have no control over what gets published in the mainstream press. I have no idea what it would possibly take to satisfy your demands.
Hey, man, this is just an online discussion group. No need to get so snide. If you feel like I’ve offended you I’m sorry.
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1435
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by alas » Thu May 24, 2018 4:30 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 12:57 pm
Palerider wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 12:14 pm
Jeffret wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 10:39 am

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.
Just wondering here. Isn't this kind of analogous to the abused spouse who is somewhat psychologically enslaved by their husband/wife?

They are (at the time) incapable of seeing the true extent of the offending spouses' arrogance, sickness, insecurity, emotional immaturity....and in a twisted way still see themselves as having to defend their abuser in all situations?
It sounds like you're saying that blacks are incapable of figuring out how to live their lives on their own and need someone else to make their choices for them or instruct them on how things need to be. Or that they're psychologically damaged to the point of not being able to see what's really going on.

And ... the use of the term "enslaved" here ... is ... um ... an interesting choice of words.


I'm not sure that's really what you meant to convey here, but yeah, that's pretty much how it comes across. Especially in such a racially charged issue. It's a long-standing perception that blacks have had to deal with. It used to be very overt and explicit. These days it is more covert and many people don't realize when they say harmful things like this.

Palerider wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 12:14 pm
For the time being it's kind of a no win situation. The abuser changes only when he is absolutely forced to by outside forces. The abused must either submit to the abuse or finally reach the correct conclusion that the abusive spouse is a lost cause and take the necessary steps to free themselves from the situation.
Even if this were a valid comparison, it's not very useful. It doesn't help an abused person either.

I suppose if there were to be a comparison to an abused person in a relationship it goes like this: Somebody comes along and tells the abused, "Hey, your abuser just said he's completely reformed and going to do for you exactly like you've always wanted." And the abused learns that it was all just a hoax and the other person was just trying to use the abused to attack the abuser. Not a very pleasant situation.


But, that's still not a very good analogy.
Jeffret, you know that 99.9 percent of the time, I totally agree with you, so on the odd occasion that I can't just quote you and say me too, it feels totally weird.

I actually thought the comparison to an abused spouse was pretty valid. The abused spouse often blames everything but the abuser. She loves the abuser and wants desperately for the abuser to love her in a healthy way instead of an abusive controlling way. She often cannot see how guilty her abuser really is. She will get very angry at family and friends who point out that her hubby is an abusive jerk. She has hope he will change, because during the "honeymoon phase of the abuse cycle, he can be wonderful and she has hope he can always be that way. In a sense she is out of touch with the reality that the abuser is NOT going to change.

Now, I hate to speak for all blacks, or any of them really, but I suspect that many of them have hope that the church will magically stop being what it has always been and start being what it should be. I do know at least one that I have talked to, so I am sort of speaking about her when I say she hopes the church is going to change to be what she needs it to be. She converted (not in the US) in about 1974, IIRC. She was promised by missionaries that the church would soon change and give black's the priesthood. That gave her hope that the church can be what it should be. Not the abusive jerk it actually is. She still clings to that hope, and we have talked about how my hope that the church can treat abuse victims as innocent human's has been shattered. But she still has hope because of "her" missionary's promise.

To me, she is not angry enough about the priesthood ban. I think I am more angry about the damned church hurting her than she is. Because I don't love this church any more and she does. Just like an abused spouse still loves her abuser and MY being angry about the abuse does not convince her to be angry.

Now, I hate to criticize my friend, cause I love her to pieces, but from MY perspective, as someone who's hope that the church will change has been dashed, she is out of touch with the "reality" that I see. (And of course my reality is the correct one ;) so, from MY perspective, she is acting just like the abused spouse who still hopes the abusive jerk will change. While *I* see the reality that her hope is hopeless.

This is where I think the people who are defending the hoax are coming from. They see it from their perspective. That abusive jerk is not going to change, give it up and get out. "Why are you so angry at this one person when all he did was point out what the church needs to say?" They see the church as the abusive spouse who is not going to change and make the mistake of pushing for divorce when the abused still has hope.

Nobody can or should push the abused wife into a divorce. SHE has to make that decision.

So, it looks to us apostates like they are not angry enough at the church. But they are TBM. We apostates need to remember they are TBM, just like I have to do with my friend. It would be very wrong for me to yell at my friend and say the church is an abusive jerk and haven't you suffered enough and get out of the abusive church. No, she will either see it for herself or not. It is MY reality, not hers. I can't really understand her reality. But I can listen to her when the church has just beaten her AGAIN. I can fume and kick rocks and hate this damned church. But I should not show her my anger because she still loves the church. And all my anger does is hurt her more.

It isn't that our white opinion is wrong, so much as it is that our apostate opinion is wrong for understanding TBM blacks.

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Thu May 24, 2018 5:19 pm

Not Buying It wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 3:37 pm
Hey, man, this is just an online discussion group. No need to get so snide. If you feel like I’ve offended you I’m sorry.
Definitely not offended. Just pointing out the extreme exaggerations you're using. It's a little like the men who cry about witch hunts, when the real witch hunts involved killing women. Rather not comparable.

If you would like to share any indications that Streeter was actually attacked in any fashion, I'm very interested in hearing it. So far I haven't come across any cases in which Streeter was even figuratively attacked. Certainly not the SLTrib article. He explains that the pain he caused was brought to his attention and he willingly wished to apologize. If there are other meaningful attacks elsewhere I haven't seen them, so perhaps you know of something I don't.
"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: 1116
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Reuben » Thu May 24, 2018 5:41 pm

alas wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 4:30 pm
It isn't that our white opinion is wrong, so much as it is that our apostate opinion is wrong for understanding TBM blacks.
Me, too.

I tried to write something to defend Palerider's analogy in a similar way, but it didn't work out as nicely.

FWIW, I feel a bit of black members' pain. The hoax ruined my day. I'm owed an apology, too, for different rhetoric and actions, but I'll never see it. The causes are the same: collective arrogance and aggressive defense of an unsupportable, warped belief system. It manifests as a different "ism."

To a great extent I have it easier, though, because I can see my abuser for what it is and protect myself. I also don't have to bear a painful internal struggle between my Mormon identity and my racial identity. This is as far as I want to go making guesses about black Mormons, though. I can't really understand their pain.
You were born to trust, not fear. It is your birthright.

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 2582
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Red Ryder » Thu May 24, 2018 6:22 pm

Anyone think Sista’s in Zion might be exploiting an opportunity and saw this as a chance to jump up on a soap box for self agrendization?

83 minutes? Seems like she was promoting her Mormon Sista’s brand in the same way Ali the tattooed Mormon promotes her Tattooed Mormon brand. Is chance the Mormon rapper going to weigh in too? What about Sherri Dews response? What GA is going to leverage this in a future GC talk?

Has anyone seen Streeter’s you tube videos before this? He’s fairly anti Mormon. Why suddenly an apology and offer to turn over the website to the church at no cost? Perhaps so he doesn’t get sued?
Those who do not move do not notice their chains. —Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1719
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Palerider » Thu May 24, 2018 7:54 pm

[quote=alas post_id=40528 time=1527204652

I actually thought the comparison to an abused spouse was pretty valid. The abused spouse often blames everything but the abuser.
[/quote]


I had what I considered a better explanation (better than my first) written up for Jeffret, but for some reason it aborted when I hit submit.

Anyway, Alas you've done a good job of spelling this out for me and for the most part, I'll leave it as it is.

I would just mention that I'm sure Blacks are very equal to the task of thinking for themselves and need no one to direct them as Jeffret projected onto my analogy. Not his fault, just poor writing on mine.

My only point is that we all have to deal with our own biases regardless of our skin color and it is those biases that can get us into trouble when we don't see reality or truth as clearly as we should.
"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
BlackMormon
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by BlackMormon » Thu May 24, 2018 8:29 pm

blazerb wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 6:11 pm
BlackMormon wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 10:04 am
SO the Church is regenerating itself for modern times and for the future. People will die away, new generations will come and maybe one day, just to distance itself from the past, it will change its name, shelf the Book of Mormon, Mormon Doctrine, Book of Abraham and others and new leaders in the future will come up with their own books. As generations pass, future Mormons will have a whole new church. During this process, the money and assets will be preserved and they will do like the 1% Illuminati and Freemasons do, retain their "legacy".
I wonder sometimes if the regeneration will end up leaving behind the religious aspects entirely. I can't remember if I learned about it here, but the Oneida community ended up just making cutlery. I could easily imagine the Mormons just being a giant holding company in 100 years, but I'll wait to see. It's more likely that the religious claims will remain, but fewer and fewer people are going to believe them.
Great claims require Great evidence. The concept of men "holding keys" is getting old. My suspicion is that today and tomorrow, or decades from now, people will be asking "where is the beef?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0
Mormon Spokesman Explains Why Blacks Aren't Allowed Priesthood (1973)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT1OfP8CqKo
https://www.modernghana.com/news/539346 ... -jesu.html

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Thu May 24, 2018 9:59 pm

[Deleted because I decided I didn't really like it after all. It didn't really help.]
Last edited by Jeffret on Thu May 24, 2018 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 879
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Thu May 24, 2018 10:27 pm

Palerider wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 12:14 pm
Jeffret wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 10:39 am
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.
Just wondering here. Isn't this kind of analogous to the abused spouse who is somewhat psychologically enslaved by their husband/wife?

They are (at the time) incapable of seeing the true extent of the offending spouses' arrogance, sickness, insecurity, emotional immaturity....and in a twisted way still see themselves as having to defend their abuser in all situations?
Palerider, if your intent was to tie your comment here into mine about how to perform allyship, then I absolutely stand by my earlier comments. At a minimum it is terribly poor allyship. It's negative allyship. It's harming the people we are trying to help. Bad ally, no cookie. If we want to help, we have to let go of our own ego. We have to let go of judgement. We have to fundamentally accept that it's not about us. And most importantly, we have to LISTEN to the voices of those we're trying to help.

We simply cannot just say, "Well, I've figured out what all your problems really are. If you'll just listen to me it will be fixed." Nor can we say, "They're just responding that way because they're psychologically deficient."

This video provides a great overview of what I mean about how to be an ally:
5 Tips For Being An Ally


If, however, your intent was more along the lines of what alas wrote, then my comments were overly harsh.

[edited to be more direct in phrasing]
Last edited by Jeffret on Thu May 24, 2018 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 879
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Jeffret » Thu May 24, 2018 11:18 pm

alas wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 4:30 pm
I actually thought the comparison to an abused spouse was pretty valid.
It's an interesting question. Is it valid to take what we understand about the psychology of an abusive relationship and apply that to an individual's interactions with an organization or a community? Or even more to apply that to a whole sub-group within the community? To take the psychology and insist it applies to the sociology?

I'm not convinced.

As stated, this is an analogy or a comparison. All such things are flawed, as while they describe some similarities, they also obscure the dissimilarities. If we're going to make use of these analogies, it's essential that we understand their limits. And, particularly in this case, we need to be very careful we're not projecting our onto experiences onto someone else's.

I'm still far too much of a NOM and have been doing this for far too long to accept this abusive analogy of having much validity. The Church isn't for me and I have much to criticize it about, but it provides useful advantages to many people. I totally lack the wisdom to tell someone else whether the Church is useful to them. It's been many, many years since I abandoned even the foggiest notion or concern for whether the Church is true. My concern for the latter years I participated was whether it is useful. When I couldn't make it useful any longer, I left.

And that's where I think this consideration is much more important. It's not whether the comparison to an abused spouse is valid. It's whether it's useful.
alas wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 4:30 pm
Now, I hate to speak for all blacks, or any of them really, but I suspect that many of them have hope that the church will magically stop being what it has always been and start being what it should be. I do know at least one that I have talked to, so I am sort of speaking about her when I say she hopes the church is going to change to be what she needs it to be.
...
To me, she is not angry enough about the priesthood ban. I think I am more angry about the damned church hurting her than she is. Because I don't love this church any more and she does. Just like an abused spouse still loves her abuser and MY being angry about the abuse does not convince her to be angry.

Now, I hate to criticize my friend, cause I love her to pieces, but from MY perspective, as someone who's hope that the church will change has been dashed, she is out of touch with the "reality" that I see. (And of course my reality is the correct one ;) so, from MY perspective, she is acting just like the abused spouse who still hopes the abusive jerk will change. While *I* see the reality that her hope is hopeless.
Is it useful in your interactions to treat her as an abused spouse? Does that help you to provide better support for her? Do you lighten her load better because you think of her as an abused spouse, who is psychologically scarred and weakened?

Those are serious questions. It's possible that for you this comparison or characterization is productive.

Personally, I can't do it. I seriously cannot comprehend thinking that I could know better than someone else what they should do or how they should live their lives. I cannot engage with them, seeking to support them, while thinking of them in lesser terms. Oh sure, I'm far from perfect. I don't always succeed at these ideals. I may think I know that someone would be better off leaving the Church or doing something different, but I consider that a weakness in myself. Perhaps it is just my weaknesses, my ignorance, my lack of wisdom that keep me from knowing what others should do. I'd make a terrible bishop.
alas wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 4:30 pm
This is where I think the people who are defending the hoax are coming from. They see it from their perspective. That abusive jerk is not going to change, give it up and get out. "Why are you so angry at this one person when all he did was point out what the church needs to say?" They see the church as the abusive spouse who is not going to change and make the mistake of pushing for divorce when the abused still has hope.
Again, does insisting on our perspective help us to better support them? In ignoring their statements and their desires, aren't we really making it all about us and our desires? Is that useful? As someone we are ostensibly trying to help was quoted in the article, aren't we really just using them as pawns for our own purposes or to make ourselves feel better?
alas wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 4:30 pm
Nobody can or should push the abused wife into a divorce. SHE has to make that decision.

So, it looks to us apostates like they are not angry enough at the church. But they are TBM. We apostates need to remember they are TBM, just like I have to do with my friend. It would be very wrong for me to yell at my friend and say the church is an abusive jerk and haven't you suffered enough and get out of the abusive church. No, she will either see it for herself or not. It is MY reality, not hers. I can't really understand her reality. But I can listen to her when the church has just beaten her AGAIN. I can fume and kick rocks and hate this damned church. But I should not show her my anger because she still loves the church. And all my anger does is hurt her more.

It isn't that our white opinion is wrong, so much as it is that our apostate opinion is wrong for understanding TBM blacks.
And here, in your wrap-up is where we come 100% back into alignment again. Here we both agree that listening is essential. That our judgements are heavy weights dragging us down as we support those who need us. The comparison, the analogy, may or may not be valid but it is definitely not useful. In fact it is a detractor. And that was exactly my primary point in the piece that Palerider was responding to earlier. And a big part of the reason why I rejected the comparison.
"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: 1435
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by alas » Fri May 25, 2018 1:12 am

I don't see my friend at all as lesser. A battered spouse is not weakened or lesser in any way. Is a soldier in combat weakened by the combat? I sure as hell don't think so. Yet it will leave scars, both physical and mental. 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. 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.

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. It was actively abusive. I think the church is abusive to blacks in its racism. So, not a battered spouse any more than a combat veteran, or victim of a racist culture. There are similarities when the church you love tells you that you were not valient in the pre-existence or your spouse that you love tells you that you are worthless.

I don't see myself as damaged or weakened by having survived abuse. I see myself as stronger. But it sure took me a long time before I could get as angry at my father as he deserved. I loved him, and it was hard to see him for the abusive jerk he was. Abused spouses have a hard time seeing the abuser for what he is, and my friend keeps thinking the church will change and love all of God's children. I see her as not seeing the church for what it really is. But then I have given up the hope she clings to.

When Roots came out, we watched it together. We are both childhood sex abuse survivors. 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. She tries to get me to come back to the church by pointing out how things have changed for the good. The temple ceremony, women praying in conference, it all gives her hope. While to me, it is hollow, like the spouse abuser in the honeymoon part of the cycle. He is sweet now, but next week he will beat us again. The change is too little too late. The church isn't really changing.

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.

And she has never told me off when I use this comparison, so maybe it is useful to her too???

It also helps me understand her that we are both women and the church is sexist. There is some difference between the harm done by racism and the harm done by sexism, but really they are similar. And the church is homophobic, and she uses her feelings of the racial hurt to try to understand my lesbian daughter.

We all use our own experiences to try to understand others. No, it is never a perfect comparison. But it is SOMETHING.

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1719
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Church apologizes for Racism!

Post by Palerider » Fri May 25, 2018 8:13 am

alas wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 1:12 am
I don't see my friend at all as lesser. A battered spouse is not weakened or lesser in any way. Is a soldier in combat weakened by the combat? I sure as hell don't think so. Yet it will leave scars, both physical and mental. 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. 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.

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. It was actively abusive. I think the church is abusive to blacks in its racism. So, not a battered spouse any more than a combat veteran, or victim of a racist culture. There are similarities when the church you love tells you that you were not valient in the pre-existence or your spouse that you love tells you that you are worthless.

I don't see myself as damaged or weakened by having survived abuse. I see myself as stronger. But it sure took me a long time before I could get as angry at my father as he deserved. I loved him, and it was hard to see him for the abusive jerk he was. Abused spouses have a hard time seeing the abuser for what he is, and my friend keeps thinking the church will change and love all of God's children. I see her as not seeing the church for what it really is. But then I have given up the hope she clings to.

When Roots came out, we watched it together. We are both childhood sex abuse survivors. 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. She tries to get me to come back to the church by pointing out how things have changed for the good. The temple ceremony, women praying in conference, it all gives her hope. While to me, it is hollow, like the spouse abuser in the honeymoon part of the cycle. He is sweet now, but next week he will beat us again. The change is too little too late. The church isn't really changing.

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.

And she has never told me off when I use this comparison, so maybe it is useful to her too???

It also helps me understand her that we are both women and the church is sexist. There is some difference between the harm done by racism and the harm done by sexism, but really they are similar. And the church is homophobic, and she uses her feelings of the racial hurt to try to understand my lesbian daughter.

We all use our own experiences to try to understand others. No, it is never a perfect comparison. But it is SOMETHING.
+1 :)
"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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest