Church apologizes for Racism!

[_Shulem]

THE LAW OF GOD

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

[_Shulem]

I feel for the members that wanted so very badly for this to be real.

The church does not apologize. The leaders of the church are so lifted up in pride that their necks are stiffer than steel poles. Those men are some of the proudest and arrogant men to ever walk the earth. The apostles of Mormonism are so entrenched and brainwashed that they are incapable of expressing true humility to humanity. They think they act and speak for God and in so doing they cannot apologize for God.

[_Shulem]

That is why they felt such emotion; they wanted the Church to do the right thing. There is no deficiency or foolishness in that desire.

The foolishness was in their thinking that God finally apologized through his prophets. How foolish is that? Since when does Mormon God ever apologize about anything? It is foolish for a faithful member of the church to think that God is apologizing through his prophets.

[_Fence Sitter]

I know more than one woman abused by her husband. Sure, I could try to "open their eyes" by pretending that their husbands are apologizing for all the threats, gas-lighting, and shaming. I could write very nice, convincing letters, maybe have them delivered with flowers and chocolate. This is very much like the hoax by Jonathan Streeter.

(by the way, he did do an interview in his name for the SL Tribune about it.)

How many of those abused women have husbands claiming that God is responsible for the abuse and not the husbands? Besides we are talking about institutional abuse by an organization to which membership is entirely voluntary. Hardly the same as a marriage. I don't think your analogy is very applicable.

What we are looking at is an institution claiming to be run by God. Those members, both black and white or of any color for whom this fake announcement caused pain, have just had a moment where they realized they are not in agreement with leadership claiming to know what God wants. That pain is the result of conflict they themselves have created and they should ask themselves why they are supporting such leadership rather than be angry at some momentary false hope.

To be honest I cannot understand why any informed black person would be a member of the LDS church. We have such an odious history of racism and racist leaders. Black members, by their very membership are supporting this institutionalized racism. Just as any native Americans who are members are supporting the racism against their very people pervasive in the Book of Mormon.

While the black issue is an important one in the church, in my opinion it is a shame that the person who created this very effective hoax used that issue rather than the gay one. I think there would have been a much greater effect on membership had he done this for gay issues. Would such a hoax have been very painful for gay members? Absolutely. But bringing change about in an organization like the LDS church is never a pain free process.

The LDS church was founded on white culturally based Christian fundamentalist 19th century beliefs. Those beliefs are being perpetuated today by a small group of ultra conservative elderly men born 80-90 years ago who still believe in many of those 19th century false beliefs and who refuse to acknowledge that the men who preceded them may have not been talking to God.

[_Meadowchik]

I know more than one woman abused by her husband. Sure, I could try to "open their eyes" by pretending that their husbands are apologizing for all the threats, gas-lighting, and shaming. I could write very nice, convincing letters, maybe have them delivered with flowers and chocolate. This is very much like the hoax by Jonathan Streeter.

(by the way, he did do an interview in his name for the SL Tribune about it.)

How many of those abused women have husbands claiming that God is responsible for the abuse and not the husbands? Besides we are talking about institutional abuse by an organization to which membership is entirely voluntary. Hardly the same as a marriage. I don't think your analogy is very applicable.

What we are looking at is an institution claiming to be run by God. Those members, both black and white or of any color for whom this fake announcement caused pain, have just had a moment where they realized they are not in agreement with leadership claiming to know what God wants. That pain is the result of conflict they themselves have created and they should ask themselves why they are supporting such leadership rather than be angry at some momentary false hope.

To be honest I cannot understand why any informed black person would be a member of the LDS church. We have such an odious history of racism and racist leaders. Black members, by their very membership are supporting this institutionalized racism. Just as any native Americans who are members are supporting the racism against their very people pervasive in the Book of Mormon.

While the black issue is an important one in the church, in my opinion it is a shame that the person who created this very effective hoax used that issue rather than the gay one. I think there would have been a much greater effect on membership had he done this for gay issues. Would such a hoax have been very painful for gay members? Absolutely. But bringing change about in an organization like the LDS church is never a pain free process.

The LDS church was founded on white culturally based Christian fundamentalist 19th century beliefs. Those beliefs are being perpetuated today by a small group of ultra conservative elderly men born 80-90 years ago who still believe in many of those 19th century false beliefs and who refuse to acknowledge that the men who preceded them may have not been talking to God.

Black people can be members for the same reasons white people are.

Perhaps you're not familiar with situations of trying to help people out of abusive marriages. And by the way, at least one of the husbands I referred to does use the God card to continue abusing. The other one probably does too. I can see tons of parallels between people injured by the church who still believe and those with abusive spouses. If you're interested, I'd be happy to go into more detail.

[_Xenophon]

Although I can agree with the sentiments that the church probably won't ever change and that if it does it will be a painful process, I think you're way off with the below remarks:

To be honest I cannot understand why any informed black person would be a member of the LDS church. We have such an odious history of racism and racist leaders. Black members, by their very membership are supporting this institutionalized racism. Just as any native Americans who are members are supporting the racism against their very people pervasive in the Book of Mormon.

Blacks, Native Americans or whomever can join the church, or any org, for a million different reasons. Their motives are their own as individuals and you have to let people sort through those things on their own. By your logic you would essentially ban blacks from participating in any part of American society, particularly the South, lest they be "supporting" institutionalized racism. The church's relationship with race isn't all that much worse than America's as a whole. Yes the LDS were very late to the party and I fully denounce the preisthood ban (not that anyone cares about my position on it) but it isn't like the world is now some magical, racism free wonderland. Minorities having to reconcile their place within a system that has historically (and often currently) placed them at sub-standard membership is not unique to Mormonism.

[_Fence Sitter]

Black people can be members for the same reasons white people are.

Of course they can but unlike white people there are reasons that a black person might feel less inclined to join.

Perhaps you're not familiar with situations of trying to help people out of abusive marriages. And by the way, at least one of the husbands I referred to does use the God card to continue abusing. The other one probably does too. I can see tons of parallels between people injured by the church who still believe and those with abusive spouses. If you're interested, I'd be happy to go into more detail.

You might start by explaining how individual abuse is similar to institutional racism. I don't think they are all that analogous.

Regardless, lets say you're right, that there are those out there that were hurt by this parody. The fact remains that this hurt is a direct result of a failed leadership those same people are supporting. If the hurt they experienced causes them to reconsider their unjustified support of that leadership, how is that a bad thing?

[_Fence Sitter]

Although I can agree with the sentiments that the church probably won't ever change and that if it does it will be a painful process, I think you're way off with the below remarks:

To be honest I cannot understand why any informed black person would be a member of the LDS church. We have such an odious history of racism and racist leaders. Black members, by their very membership are supporting this institutionalized racism. Just as any native Americans who are members are supporting the racism against their very people pervasive in the Book of Mormon.

Blacks, Native Americans or whomever can join the church, or any org, for a million different reasons. Their motives are their own as individuals and you have to let people sort through those things on their own. By your logic you would essentially ban blacks from participating in any part of American society, particularly the South, lest they be "supporting" institutionalized racism. The church's relationship with race isn't all that much worse than America's as a whole. Yes the LDS were very late to the party and I fully denounce the preisthood ban (not that anyone cares about my position on it) but it isn't like the world is now some magical, racism free wonderland. Minorities having to reconcile their place within a system that has historically (and often currently) placed them at sub-standard membership is not unique to Mormonism.

There is a world of difference between voluntary membership in a religion whose leadership claims to speak for God and being part of a overall society where racism rampant. One can at anytime leave the former, while the latter is unavoidable.

ON Edit.

by the way for what it is worth, I have a hard time understanding why anyone at all, who is informed about the history of the church, fully supports the current leadership of the church..

[_Xenophon]

There is a world of difference between voluntary membership in a religion whose leadership claims to speak for God and being part of a overall society where racism rampant. One can at anytime leave the former, while the latter is unavoidable.

I think you understate how easily people can divorce themselves from a religion that is thoroughly apart of themselves and their life. Particularly if, apart from the racism of old, one is finding value. From personal experience it isn't entirely uncommon to live in a world where one experiences less prejudice within your immediate church family than in other parts of your life. With that framing I don't see how you could possible blame a minority member for not tossing aside the LDS church immediately.

[_Meadowchik]

Black people can be members for the same reasons white people are.

Of course they can but unlike white people there are reasons that a black person might feel less inclined to join.

Perhaps you're not familiar with situations of trying to help people out of abusive marriages. And by the way, at least one of the husbands I referred to does use the God card to continue abusing. The other one probably does too. I can see tons of parallels between people injured by the church who still believe and those with abusive spouses. If you're interested, I'd be happy to go into more detail.

You might start by explaining how individual abuse is similar to institutional racism. I don't think they are all that analogous.

Regardless, lets say you're right, that there are those out there that were hurt by this parody. The fact remains that this hurt is a direct result of a failed leadership those same people are supporting. If the hurt they experienced causes them to reconsider their unjustified support of that leadership, how is that a bad thing?

Okay, first: An individual member of an abusive institution experiences at minimum a parasocial relationship that is abusive, with likelihood of dyadic abusive relationships within the institution. Relationships are usually based on some kind of mutual benefit. So in a marriage, a person can be benefiting from the relationship and abuse often means it's more likely they are somehow dependent on the relationship. Sure, they have the legal right to leave, just like they can leave a church, but there can be a thousand invisible consequences to them, psychologically, materially. They may be so ill-equipped to leave that they want to go back after living without the spouse. As members we can likewise be dependent on that parasocial relationship with the institution. It mistreats us, yet, but we get something out of it, sometimes we may not know how to get what we need anywhere else, because the relationship has insinuated itself into our mentalities and material lives so thoroughly.

Second, the direct result of the hurt is from the hoax. Assume the hoax never existed. That pain is already there, the hurt of being abused by the institution. Add the hoax, and another trauma has been generated. Have you ever dealt with PTSD? High anxiety? Chronic health issues? Seemingly little things can ruin your day, week, year because your ability to cope with the crap you already deal with has been affected. OF COURSE the chief cause of the overall painful circumstances is the underlying general problem, but do we want to add burdens or lighten them? What is the best course?