Church apologizes for Racism!

[_Fence Sitter]

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.

That is why I qualified my remark by saying "informed". I realize that walking away from a lifelong religion is difficult, but how many of our black members are BIC? Again, I responded to Meadowchik remark by saying that I thought we are only talking about a handful of black members who might of been both fooled and hurt by this satire. And while I do not wish anyone that kind of pain, the pain is the result of what the church is doing and the result of those members, in spite of their race, who support that church. And attention needs to be drawn to that problem. This fake statement accomplished that. The fact that this discussion is happening here and through out social media demonstrates the effectiveness of the hoax.

There is a fake news outlet called The Onion. I am sure you have heard of it. Today's lead article is about a white woman in a restaurant who reaches for her cell phone when a suspicious black man tells her that the soup is minestrone. See here. Are such stories hurtful when taken as real? Sure, but they accomplish a purpose. They draw attention to a bad situation just like this parody did.

[_Fence Sitter]

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?

I think individual situations require individual remedies, and that one solution never fits all problems. With almost all illnesses, the best remedy usually is going to involve pain and discomfort on the path to recovery, sometime it is necessary to increase that pain to reach recovery sometimes it isn't. Like I said, each individual is different. But we are not talking about individual dynamics here, but rather group dynamics and applying a solution to group dynamics is going to cause different levels of results to the individuals within that group.

Look we are getting way off track here.
Yes I agree that some individuals were probably hurt by this incident.
No, I don't understand why those same individuals continue to support a leadership that is the cause of the problem

And I think that while some individuals were hurt by it, that the pain it caused is part of the processes working toward a day when the church actually does issue a much needed apology.

Are there better ways to accomplish that goal? Maybe but because this way is not the best does not mean it should not also be employed.

[_toon]

This was a despicable move. How many people of color cried tears of joy today, prayed in thanks, and then found out it was fake?

It may have been slightly insensitive to the very few that might have that reaction, but despicable?

If someone is distraught because they had been fooled into thinking that the church had apologized for past and present wrongs, something that they had been hoping and praying for, only to find out that it was a hoax and that the church hadn't in fact apologized, and likely would never apologize, then maybe it's time for them to realize that their real issue is with the church.

People shouldn't be so easily offended, especially when the intent was clearly not to offend.

[_Meadowchik]

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?

I think individual situations require individual remedies, and that one solution never fits all problems. With almost all illnesses, the best remedy usually is going to involve pain and discomfort on the path to recovery, sometime it is necessary to increase that pain to reach recovery sometimes it isn't. Like I said, each individual is different. But we are not talking about individual dynamics here, but rather group dynamics and applying a solution to group dynamics is going to cause different levels of results to the individuals within that group.

Look we are getting way off track here.
Yes I agree that some individuals were probably hurt by this incident.
No, I don't understand why those same individuals continue to support a leadership that is the cause of the problem

And I think that while some individuals were hurt by it, that the pain it caused is part of the processes working toward a day when the church actually does issue a much needed apology.

Are there better ways to accomplish that goal? Maybe but because this way is not the best does not mean it should not also be employed.

Group and individual dynamics are inseparable, which is one reason that deception tactics can have more consequences. Already today I saw people making lists of OTHER hoaxes which should be done like this one. I really think that deception, even temporary, is a very unstable tactic which can backfire in unexpected ways. We left for the truth, we should fight with the truth, not deception.

[_Meadowchik]

This was a despicable move. How many people of color cried tears of joy today, prayed in thanks, and then found out it was fake?

It may have been slightly insensitive to the very few that might have that reaction, but despicable?

If someone is distraught because they had been fooled into thinking that the church had apologized for past and present wrongs, something that they had been hoping and praying for, only to find out that it was a hoax and that the church hadn't in fact apologized, and likely would never apologize, then maybe it's time for them to realize that their real issue is with the church.

People shouldn't be so easily offended, especially when the intent was clearly not to offend.

Yes, despicable.

I attended the Book of Mormon Musical last summer. Say I invite my 90-year-old LDS grandma on the pretense that it's a wonderful musical "all about the Book of Mormon" knowing that it would scandalize and offend her, with the intent that it might "wake her up to the truth." I think the musical is very deserved, profane commentary about a profane institution, but doing that to my Grandma would in my opinion be despicable, too.

[Guest]

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.)

Not even close.

It's not at all uncommon for a man to apologize profusely and seemingly sincerely after having abused his spouse or girlfriend, so a very nice and convincing letter, with flowers and chocolates may work initially. Victim may or may not suspect, but the way she typically finds out it's bs the next beating. The damage from being fooled is not solely the let down from the false apology, but rather, that and mostly the fact that she was then beaten or abused again.

I suspect in that situation, a false apology where the only consequences was a very brief moment of false hope and then the realization that was actually hopeless might, in the long run, be welcomed, especially if it lead to the realization that the victim should leave her husband.

Would it be despicable to have the following conversation with a friend who was in an abusive relationship"

"You're husband is truly and sincerely sorry. He's changed, will never do it again, and has permanently returned to the person you thought you were marrying."

"Really? Maybe I'll go back to him. I was debating about going back, but this really helps me make that decision."

"No, not really. I just made that up. In fact, this is what he really said . . . Point being, he hasn't apologized, will never apologize, and accordingly, hasn't really changed. Might not ever change. I only made that up to help highlight where he's really coming from."

[_Xenophon]

That is why I qualified my remark by saying "informed". I realize that walking away from a lifelong religion is difficult, but how many of our black members are BIC? Again, I responded to Meadowchik remark by saying that I thought we are only talking about a handful of black members who might of been both fooled and hurt by this satire. And while I do not wish anyone that kind of pain, the pain is the result of what the church is doing and the result of those members, in spite of their race, who support that church. And attention needs to be drawn to that problem. This fake statement accomplished that. The fact that this discussion is happening here and through out social media demonstrates the effectiveness of the hoax.

There is a fake news outlet called The Onion. I am sure you have heard of it. Today's lead article is about a white woman in a restaurant who reaches for her cell phone when a suspicious black man tells her that the soup is minestrone. See here. Are such stories hurtful when taken as real? Sure, but they accomplish a purpose. They draw attention to a bad situation just like this parody did.

So I had a much longer response to this that seems to have vanished into the ether, user error I'm sure so I'll try to paraphrase.

To your first point, I think I understand better what you were trying to get at, I just took personal umbrage with any suggestion that participation with a previously racist organization somehow is an endorsement of that behavior. Apologies for wedging myself into the conversation.

To your second point, I'm not as harsh in my criticism as Meadowchick but I think calling this stunt by Streeter "satire" is a bit of a stretch. Satire is typically easy to identify and usually doesn't work so hard to deceive about source. If you wanted to make a truly satirical Mormon Newsroom, similar to The Onion, I think you could have something there. But by carefully crafting the site to perfectly mirror LDS announcements you kind of cross into a different medium. I remain skeptical that he has advanced the conversation forward in any meaningful way.

[_Fence Sitter]

Yes, despicable.

I attended the Book of Mormon Musical last summer. Say I invite my 90-year-old LDS grandma on the pretense that it's a wonderful musical "all about the Book of Mormon" knowing that it would scandalize and offend her, with the intent that it might "wake her up to the truth." I think the musical is very deserved, profane commentary about a profane institution, but doing that to my Grandma would in my opinion be despicable, too.

I invited my very conservative LDS in laws to a play that turned out to be a lot more racy than I had thought. Had I known in advance, I would not of invited them.

They enjoyed it a lot more than I expected.

Maybe you should let your Grandma decide what she would like to see or not.

[_Fence Sitter]

So I had a much longer response to this that seems to have vanished into the ether, user error I'm sure so I'll try to paraphrase.

I hate when that happens. I had the same thing almost happen in this very response when the "server not responding" message came up when I went to post it. I used the back button to go back to my post and copied it to clipboard and waited for the server to respond and pasted in my post.

To your first point, I think I understand better what you were trying to get at, I just took personal umbrage with any suggestion that participation with a previously racist organization somehow is an endorsement of that behavior. Apologies for wedging myself into the conversation.

No apology needed from you or Meadowchik for that matter. You both are making me consider more carefully what I believe here.
I disagree with your description here of the church being a "previously racist organization". In my view they are an ongoing racist organization, especially when one considers the overt racism in the Book of Mormon. I think one of the reasons that the church refuses to issue an apology regarding the blacks and the priesthood is that it would immediately bring up the fact that they have the same problem with how native Americans are portrayed in the Book of Mormon and I do not think that there is any sort of way for the church to fix that problem without destroying the belief in a literal Book of Mormon.

To your second point, I'm not as harsh in my criticism as Meadowchick but I think calling this stunt by Streeter "satire" is a bit of a stretch. Satire is typically easy to identify and usually doesn't work so hard to deceive about source. If you wanted to make a truly satirical Mormon Newsroom, similar to The Onion, I think you could have something there. But by carefully crafting the site to perfectly mirror LDS announcements you kind of cross into a different medium. I remain skeptical that he has advanced the conversation forward in any meaningful way.

Well the purveyors of this spoof actually consider themselves as such a site and so do I. See here for a blog on that very topic.

[_toon]

I hate when that happens. I had the same thing almost happen in this very response when the "server not responding" message came up when I went to post it.

I claim it happens to every single one of my posts. All my posts are originally well thought and reasoned and well written. If you had read them, you'd be praising my writing skills. But they end up getting lost when I try to post, and I then get so frustrated when re-drafting the post that I use bad grammar, poor punctuation, and broken thoughts.

Damn! Same thing happened to this post.