Does the Interpreter Foundation Have Colonialist Ambitions?

[drumdude]

I too worry that these members in Africa don't have well informed consent. Daniel praises them for their ability to recite parts of the standard works, but how well do they know church history with regards to the treatment of black members?

That seems not to matter, because they make for a great photo op.

[Rivendale]

Bednar classifies African Saints this way.

These members have a simple faith that is uncluttered

At least for now.

[drumdude]

The church began proselyting to white English-speaking people in 1853, but very few Black South Africans joined the LDS Church before 1978. Dunn, who was the son of a Scottish father and a Zulu mother, is believed to be the first Black African convert baptized in Africa in 1905, though he did not remain an active member for long. Another early convert of African descent was William Paul Daniels, who joined the LDS Church in 1915 while visiting relatives in Utah. He met on multiple occasions with Joseph F. Smith before returning to South Africa.

In 1930, the LDS Church established a genealogy program to help male members trace their genealogy to a European country to determine their eligibility for the priesthood, with final approval for receiving the priesthood given by the mission president. Evan P. Wright served as mission president over the South Africa Mission 1948–1953. Wright repeatedly expressed to the First Presidency the difficulty in establishing the church in the region caused by the church-wide ban on ordaining men of Black African descent to the priesthood. This was especially problematic because previous general authorities required even men who appeared white to prove a total lack of Black African ancestry before they could be ordained and records were often unavailable or incomplete. Two missionaries had been given the duty to work on genealogy research for the purposes of establishing which people were eligible for the priesthood. David O. McKay was the first general authority to visit South Africa in 1954, and during his visit to the mission, he changed the policy to allow mission presidents to approve men to be ordained without any genealogical research in cases where "there is no evidence of his having Negro blood in his veins."

While other congregations would allow Black and white members to worship together, the South African government requested that LDS Black and white congregations meet separately. Apartheid laws restricted Black people's attendance in white churches only if church authorities thought they would make a disturbance. Since Black members did not meet with white ones and were denied the priesthood authority required to run their own meetings, Black membership remained low. There were some Black South Africans, like Moses Mahlangu, who were closely affiliated with the Church but not baptized. Mahlangu held regular worship meetings teaching from the Book of Mormon and spent large amounts of time teaching of the Book of Mormon to people in the African townships starting in the late 1960s. He was also in regular contact with the mission presidents. After the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood, Mahlangu was eventually baptized on September 6, 1980.

After the 1978 revelation, the South African government revoked its limits on visiting LDS missionaries, and the LDS church started actively proselyting to Black people.

In the early 1990s, the majority of Latter-day Saints in South Africa were English-speaking white people, mainly of British origin. At some point between 2000 and 2005 the LDS Church reached a point where half the members in South Africa were Black, and the percentage of Black members has continued to rise since then. Two Black South Africans have been called as mission presidents. One, Jackson Mkhabela, was called to serve as mission president in Zimbabwe. He had previously been an area seventy and his wife Dorah had been a member of the Young Women General Board. Mkhabela had become the first Black man to serve as a stake president in South Africa in 2005. The other, Thabo Lebethoa, was called to preside over the South Africa Cape Town Mission. He was serving as stake president of the Soweto Stake at the time of his call.

The history of the LDS church in Africa is truly horrific, examining people for any trace of "Negro blood."

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Bednar classifies African Saints this way.

These members have a simple faith that is uncluttered

At least for now.

A simple faith uncluttered by facts/information/doctrine.

These Interpreter pictures feel very exploitive. There is Bradshaw smiling with his arm around these humble members with simple faith.

Bradshaw knows facts and information about the Church that would give these humble members pause, but he would never dare clutter their minds with facts/history.

All that matters is that these simple, uncluttered members attend meetings, pay tithing and never question or doubt.

God help these simple, uncluttered and humble members if they should ever learn to read (or get access to the internet) and start questioning or expressing doubts.

[Gadianton]

There is Bradshaw smiling with his arm around these humble members

At least he's there.

[Doctor Scratch]

There is Bradshaw smiling with his arm around these humble members

At least he's there.

Indeed. There was a stereotypically tone-deaf post just the other day from the Proprietor on this topic entitled “Some Saints You May Still Not Have Met.” Shouldn’t this read, “Some Saints *I* Still Not Have Met”? Instead, the Proprietor is flying across Europe, watching the latest whitewashed Interpreter film in his hotel room. I guess whatever he’s doing in Europe is more important than meeting these African saints that he’s happy to exploit.

[drumdude]

In any case, the simple answer to the question of why I’m not in sub-Saharan Africa with the Interpreter team is that I wasn’t invited. And why was I not invited? Because I’m not needed. I’m neither a cinematographer nor a sound specialist, and I have no expertise regarding the Church in sub-Saharan Africa. It’s true that I’ve sometimes been invited along to prior Interpreter Foundation film sets, but not very commonly and usually only locally, and always at my own expense.

Please recall the damning accusation that the Interpreter Foundation exists, at least in part, in order to fly me to exotic locales around the world. But now it turns out that, in fact, the Interpreter Foundation doesn’t exist and never has existed — not at all — to fly me to exotic locations around the world. Well, shazaam! Do you think that the character assassination will stop? Or, at least, that it might pause? That the slanderers might hesitate for a second or two? Are you kidding?

Of course, you may be asking yourself this very good question: Why does Dan Peterson bother responding to such malicious tomfoolery? It’s certainly not because I entertain any expectation that the Obsession Board will ever improve. But I do take seriously any insinuation that I’m profiting from apologetics and/or misusing donations to Interpreter. I’m not – my wife and I are, ourselves, both donors to and volunteers for the Foundation — and I think that such accusations must be forthrightly, decisively, and directly contradicted.

[Gadianton]

Yeah...

I'm not seeing accusations of profiting, in fact, I see no accusations.

I have no knowledge or expertise regarding the Interpreter's travel schedule. I have nothing bad to say about how the Interpreter uses its funds.

There are just a few facts that need reconciling.

1) A certain person travels the world constantly. How it's paid for is of no concern to me -- he seems to go where he wants.

2) Said person boasts about the humble people in the poor parts of Africa and how the IF or the church is doing great things there.

3) Said person has never visited the humble people of Africa, instead, opting to recycle neighboring tourist traps.

There is no crime here. Not serving a mission is not a crime. Not wanting to visit poor and humble people is not a crime.

Look, some people hit life's jackpot. My mom used to tell me that Steve Young was told not to serve a mission because he could do more for the Church playing football. It's possible that some while pursuing their travel and culinary adventures might drop a tall tale or two along the way and do more promoting the Church than others could do on a fulltime mission or seeking to help a new branch get off the ground in an area of poverty.

[Philo Sofee]

Yeah...

I'm not seeing accusations of profiting, in fact, I see no accusations.

I have no knowledge or expertise regarding the Interpreter's travel schedule. I have nothing bad to say about how the Interpreter uses its funds.

There are just a few facts that need reconciling.

1) A certain person travels the world constantly. How it's paid for is of no concern to me -- he seems to go where he wants.

2) Said person boasts about the humble people in the poor parts of Africa and how the IF or the church is doing great things there.

3) Said person has never visited the humble people of Africa, instead, opting to recycle neighboring tourist traps.

There is no crime here. Not serving a mission is not a crime. Not wanting to visit poor and humble people is not a crime.

Look, some people hit life's jackpot. My mom used to tell me that Steve Young was told not to serve a mission because he could do more for the Church playing football. It's possible that some while pursuing their travel and culinary adventures might drop a tall tale or two along the way and do more promoting the Church than others could do on a fulltime mission or seeking to help a new branch get off the ground in an area of poverty.

Yep, if it looks like manipulation, smells like manipulation, tastes like manipulation, and sounds like manipulation..... it's Mormonism.

[Gadianton]

Yep, if it looks like manipulation, smells like manipulation, tastes like manipulation, and sounds like manipulation..... it's Mormonism.
Top

Philo, you might ask yourself, why do I care? If the travelling is not illegal or unethical, then why do I care? Why even bring it up?

You may be surprised to learn that there is a reason.

Said person has a blog. Perhaps you knew this. The blog beats a drum: Religion, God, and more religion. I am curious, and I think I am rightfully curious, about the kind of life religion compels a person to live. Especially, a person who is compelled to talk nonstop about the benefits of religion and the bankruptcy of unbelief.

The blog author says that without God all is permitted. He seems to read "permitted" as "required". He doesn't seem to consider the possibility that a person who doesn't fear God might not want to go around beating others with tire chains. I think that's interesting. On the one hand, it explains why avowed atheists who tend toward intellectualism avoid pure self-destruction. The atheist is inconsistent, tacitly acknowledging objective morality while denying it. On the other, it explains his own moral success: just recently we learned about his triumph over alcohol and tobacco.

As an atheist, without belief in God, I think people are compelled to act according to their natural inclinations. A resulting difference in the way said person and I may see the outcome in terms of practical moral application, is that God provides a low bar for said person, while for me, introducing God into a world that can function with out him, provides a much higher bar. See what I'm saying? For said person, belief in God is evidenced by the world literally staying together, even if it may be by a thread. For me the world could survive by a thread anyway, without God, and belief in God should make it much better. To put it yet another way, for said person, belief in God explains his inclinations as well as my inclinations. I've avoided killing people and smoking, but I've fallen occasionally to a glass of whiskey. He's avoided all three. So I act somewhat like I believe in God, per his standard, while he's able to do a little bit better with his belief explicit.

Since he's avoiding alcohol and harmful drugs, what more could be asked? Belief is demonstrated. To me that isn't the case. I see a person who is quite gifted, but self-indulgent, whose actions are consistent with a person who doesn't really believe in God. For me, a person who believes in God would go significantly against their natural inclinations and do harder things. A world traveler who boasts of staying in the nicest hotels, or a luxury RV provided by generous benefactors occasionally, might feel compelled to visit the poor and experience discomfort in order to further build the kingdom of God. Where can I sacrifice to serve my God?

I mean, if said person were to quit the blog, quit travelling tourist traps, and go and build wells in Africa for the next five years, I would be forced to acknowledge the benefits of belief in God. If belief in God compels someone to significantly act against their inclination for the benefit of others, I can't discount that. But I could be wrong, maybe belief in God really is a "low bar" matter, where evidence of belief is had in the avoidance of the most self-destructive behaviors with explicit believers scoring slightly higher on happiness assessments.