Note:
This essay first appeared on Janan’s blog, A Life Diasporatic. Please click on THIS LINK to visit her blog and read her other wonderful essays.
Addressing The Black Elephant In The Room
In the time since my baptism, there has always been a black elephant in the room, that is, the topic of the effect of the priesthood-temple ban on people of black African descent. It looks on in silence as I interact with my fellow Church members. Its presence fills me with a fury that is both ignited and quelled by a faith that I love. Last Friday, its eyes began to pierce through the room that had been its haven for so long. By Sunday morning, I had realized that its presence could no longer go unspoken. With the Church’s statement on race and the priesthood came countless blog posts and internet threads. Many detailing the difficult nature of that part of Church history and what it meant as far as the nature of revelation by those we hold to be prophets, seers and revelators. The statement took me back to the conversations I’ve had with members and non-members alike about the 1978 revelation, the effects the priesthood-temple ban had on members of black African descent and the times I was told by white people that white people just weren’t ready for change. This topic is about black people and yet various commentators have directed the conversation to a conversation about white people or co-opt the prevailing attitudes and rhetoric towards black people to the oppression faced by women and those who are members of the LGBTQIA community. I have no doubt of the inequalities that exist for both women and members of the LGBTQIA community. At the same time, these oppressions are not interchangeable and only serve to ignore intersectionality within sexism, homophobia and transphobia. In talking about LGBTQIA rights and equality for women, where are the discussions on Cece McDonald and the higher rates of violence towards queer and transgender people of color or the intersection of class and race in terms of marriage equality? Where is the uproar for Renisha McBride, how women of color are disproportionately affected by domestic violence or how minority women are paid less than white women? Yet there is an urgency to appropriate the struggles of black people within the Church and ignore the fact that this topic is not about white people.
In future discussions about the statement on race and the priesthood, my hope is that two things occur. First, recognizing the significance of the comments by General Authorities about race and interracial marriage, this statement and the 1978 revelation itself. For over 100 years it was taught that there was something inherently wrong with people of black African descent. So much so that it disqualified us from sharing the same eternal blessings as everyone else in the Church. Both the 1978 revelation and this statement are a reconceptualization of long standing notions of black identities within the Church; something that people of black African descent have known all along: that we are people. We are not cursed. We were not less valiant in the pre-mortal life. We praise the same God as other members within the Church. Our creator made us this way. And it took over a century to be recognized as capable, spiritual beings. It was a difficult period for us as a people. Yet many of us stayed because we found strength through a creator who loved us more than we could ever begin to imagine despite the insistence by man that we were not worthy of basking in all of God’s glory. In a gospel that teaches that in the face of adversity and oppression, that we must learn to forgive. Here we stand at the precipice, shouting that we are here and we have always been here.
But why isn’t anyone listening?
My other hope is we discuss the definition of racism and separate ourselves from the idea that racism is an individual problem opposed to an institutional one. Racism is not a few hurtful words, it is a type of oppression rooted in power, privilege and prejudice. The combination of the three provide the basis for the belief that a particular race is superior. While people of color can certainly be prejudiced and discriminatory against white people, they have not had the same institutional power that has historically been held by white people. With racism comes the term white supremacy, any action or belief established to perpetuate ‘white’ as the standard while subsequently erasing people, beliefs and cultures that deviate from it. The reason why what President Young’s comments (as well as those made by President George Q. Cannon and Elder Bruce R. McConkie, among others) on race and interracial marriage were indicative of white supremacy and indeed racist is because their comments served to uphold white as the standard of purity and righteousness while subjugating the existence of black bodies as ‘cursed’ and unworthy of complete salvation. The scriptures do not specify that the ‘seed of Cain’ were marked with a curse of ‘black African skin’ yet people of black African descent were the only ones singled out for being unable to hold the priesthood and participate in all temple ordinances. I’m troubled by the idea that racism or white supremacy no longer exists, particularly in the Church as an institution or its culture. It’s difficult to look at a directory of the General Authorities and Auxiliaries without wondering why there are so few people of color or going to a temple and seeing a portrait of the savior surrounded by all white angels, without wondering how deeply rooted this ‘othering’ rhetoric of black people and people of color was and is.
We as a collective body are only at the very beginning of addressing the black elephant in the room and I hope subsequent discussions on race focus on its presence.
Janan Graham-Russell
Janan Graham-Russell is a writer based in Evanston, Illinois. In 2016, she graduated from the Howard University School of Divinity with a Master of Arts in Religious Studies. Her writing focuses on culture, history, religion and theology through Black feminist and womanist lenses. Her work has been featured in The Atlantic as well as Mormon Feminism: Essential Writings (2015) and A Book of Mormons (2015). When she's not writing or doing research, she enjoys dancing to Beyonce, watching films, and spending time with her husband and infant son.
All posts by Janan Graham-Russell
Janan, this is really important stuff. Thank you so much for your perspective. Please, keep writing.
The black American culture was the one I was exposed to and grew to love in a mission that was as unfortunately foreign to my Idaho raised self as any exotic locale outside the US. I was always struck by their (your?) deep spirituality. To see so very many of those who converted and embraced Mormonosm eventually alienated and distanced from their ward families really pained me as a missionary. I’m listening. I think your hope for future discussion of these issues is the right one. Thank you.
I responded to Jenan on a Facebook page indirectly, when I responded to a posting of her essay by a leftist Mormon and critic of the Church there who placed it on the Mormon Discussion page as a part of an unusually prolific phase of blacks-and-the-priesthood oriented threads, doubtless sparked by the recent Church statement on race and the priesthood. This theme, and the various memes and narratives associated with it – long one of the coins of the NOM realm – has been (with, of course, the periennial favorite, homosexual marriage), present in abundance across the Facebook LDS world of late.
Jana apparently assumed that I was, in some sense, afraid to face her “in public” in this forum. Well…no. My initial response took place on Facebook because my initial response was to the author of that thread. Here, in slightly modified form are my two main responses to here “Elephant” essay above:
“In the time since my baptism, there has always been a black elephant in the room, that is, the topic of the effect of the priesthood-temple ban on people of black African descent. It looks on in silence as I interact with my fellow Church members. Its presence fills me with a fury that is both ignited and quelled by a faith that I love. ”
The ban itself had a clear scriptural basis, has never been repudiated or discarded by the Church as of divine origin, and was ended nearly forty years ago. There is nothing in the room now but the NOMs and their attempt to import the ideology of permanent racial grievance and victimhood into the Church from the surrounding secular culture.
“Last Friday, its eyes began to pierce through the room that had been its haven for so long. By Sunday morning, I had realized that its presence could no longer go unspoken.”
It ended nearly forty years ago – almost a half century.
“This topic is about black people and yet various commentators have directed the conversation to a conversation about white people or co-opt the prevailing attitudes and rhetoric towards black people to the oppression faced by women and those who are members of the LGBTQIA community. I have no doubt of the inequalities that exist for both women and members of the LGBTQIA community.”
Politically correct credentials established. All the right identity groups are oppressed and tormented with no end in sight. America the horrible. Check.
“At the same time, these oppressions are not interchangeable and only serve to ignore intersectionality within sexism, homophobia and transphobia.”
Three instances of pomobabble/academic leftspeak in one brief sentence (“intersectionality” is a purely ideological construct that would very likely be fundamentally unintelligible outside the “studies” disciplines comprising the broad filed of critical theory in present day academia without first having accepted the fundamental premises of the multuculturalist/Afrocentrist worldview).
“In future discussions about the statement on race and the priesthood, my hope is that two things occur. First, recognizing the significance of the comments by General Authorities about race and interracial marriage, this statement and the 1978 revelation itself. For over 100 years it was taught that there was something inherently wrong with people of black African descent. So much so that it disqualified us from sharing the same eternal blessings as everyone else in the Church.”
False. The ban had to do with lineage, not any innate deficiency, and none of the theological speculations regarding blacks and the priesthood were ever in a position to be considered official church doctrine (regardless of how many saints assumed they were) and all have been repudiated as the personal opinions/conjectures of past General Authorities.
Secondly, nothing in LDS doctrine ever denied blacks the eventual full blessings of the gospel. Even Brigham Young taught that the ban was for this life only, and would be rectified at some future time (probably in the Millennium).
“Both the 1978 revelation and this statement are a reconceptualization of long standing notions of black identities within the Church; something that people of black African descent have known all along: that we are people. We are not cursed. We were not less valiant in the pre-mortal life.”
At one time, there was a curse, or restriction, relative to priesthood, on the lineage descended from Ham. This is found in the scriptures in an unambiguous way. The valiance aspect is another question entirely, and is, indeed, not found in the scriptures, but is grounded in sound doctrinal principles that apply, not just to blacks, but to all the Father’s children, and should not be discarded because it was misused in this one instance.
“My other hope is we discuss the definition of racism and separate ourselves from the idea that racism is an individual problem opposed to an institutional one. Racism is not a few hurtful words, it is a type of oppression rooted in power, privilege and prejudice.”
Yes, well, this is the classic cultural Marxist/black power/multiculturalist perspective, and critically flawed, philosophically, historically, and psychologically, at its very core, in my view.
“The combination of the three provide the basis for the belief that a particular race is superior. While people of color can certainly be prejudiced and discriminatory against white people, they have not had the same institutional power that has historically been held by white people.”
Again, a regurgitation of the old black power claim that blacks cannot be racist because, it is claimed, they hold no power – structural, institutional power – in white American society. This is, again, a cultural Marxist view that collectivizes and mutes individual psychological and characterological attributes and then associates their potential presence as manifested in actual behavior with traditional neo-Marxist concepts such as “structural inequality” and “dominant power structures” that, empirically and historically, are quite dubious as concepts outside the ideological framework within which they support other aspects of an overarching ideological system.
“With racism comes the term white supremacy, any action or belief established to perpetuate ‘white’ as the standard while subsequently erasing people, beliefs and cultures that deviate from it. The reason why what President Young’s comments (as well as those made by President George Q. Cannon and Elder Bruce R. McConkie, among others) on race and interracial marriage were indicative of white supremacy and indeed racist is because their comments served to uphold white as the standard of purity and righteousness while subjugating the existence of black bodies as ‘cursed’ and unworthy of complete salvation.”
Surfing over the leftist academic psychobabble for a moment, blacks were never denied complete salvation in 19th, early, or middle 20th century LDS thought. The lifting of the ban was foreseen (especially by president McKay), but not foreknown as to the exact time frame. While the majority of Mormons of prior eras doubtless saw blacks as in some sense inferior, I see no indication of a belief in “white supremacy,” as a coherent body of thought in a theological sense, as, if so, it would have manifested itself in attitudes towards other minorities, none of which were ever denied the priesthood or other blessings of the gospel.
“The scriptures do not specify that the ‘seed of Cain’ were marked with a curse of ‘black African skin’”
True.
“yet people of black African descent were the only ones singled out for being unable to hold the priesthood and participate in all temple ordinances.”
Yes, because of the lineage relationship to a certain line descended from Ham, not because of “race,” a concept that does not appear in the Book of Abraham. The “curse of Cain” was LDS folk doctrine, unfortunately picked up by some of the Brethren.
“I’m troubled by the idea that racism or white supremacy no longer exists, particularly in the Church as an institution or its culture.”
Of course it doesn’t, as an institutional characteristic (and collective “structural” characteristics encompassing entire classes of human beings as an organic mass only make sense to a neo-Marxist, outside of which theory it appears preposterous, especially at this juncture in American social history). No doubt there are individual racists and even white supremacists in the Church. Even worse, there are leftists, socialists, communists, and progressives in the Church, but that doesn’t make the church an institutional representation of those belief systems.
“It’s difficult to look at a directory of the General Authorities and Auxiliaries without wondering why there are so few people of color”
Cynicism, innuendo, and malignant suspicion of the Jews of the modern academic Left: the aged, white, Christian, middle class male. Perhaps they’d stand out more if we put armbands on them that said, in large red letters, “politically incorrect.”
“or going to a temple and seeing a portrait of the savior surrounded by all white angels, without wondering how deeply rooted this ‘othering’ rhetoric of black people and people of color was and is”
Apparently, the fundamental nature of angels and God is whiteness – not Caucasian – but actual whiteness, a pure whiteness (Jesus’ hair is said to be “white as wool”) and the radiance emanating from glorified bodies is white, a white light.
Is your grandiose racialist moral posturing over now, or must we wade through even more dreary multiculturalist Newspeak and neo-Marxist theoretical abstractions?
“We as a collective body are only at the very beginning of addressing the black elephant in the room and I hope subsequent discussions on race focus on its presence.”
Yes, the academic Left and its entrenched ideological and administrative power structure within contemporary academia and the race industry within and attached to the welfare state will traffic in racialism, racial balkanization, and ethnic tribalism as long as it feeds their power, influence, hubris, and sense of anointed self-importance as saviors and redeemers of the benighted, Forrest Gumpish masses who do not have the benefit of an advanced degree in social work, multicultural studies, woman’s studies, gay and lesbian studies, or critical theory.
Janan responded:
“It is quite clear that you are not interested in a discussion but rather establishing a platform to debase me and my work with blatant falsehoods and misconceptions about intersectional studies. You clearly have not read my work in which I state, “It is not about you.” I will say it again. Loran, it is not about you. It’s not about your attempts to deflect the conversation. It is not about your inherent fear to address me in public opposed to a closed Facebook group. It is not about the convenience of making connections to my work and cultural Marxism or propaganda of Left just because you feel uncomfortable. It is not about your attempt to ignore the problems that are faced by people who are different than you.
But please keep standing on your platform. You’ll find that there are very few people standing with you and even fewer listening”
I responded:
“It is quite clear that you are not interested in a discussion but rather establishing a platform to debase me and my work”
Quite the contrary. My problem, however, after studying, reading, and observing critical theory and its many siblings (of which all of the “studies” programs/departments within contemporary academia are extended family) is precisely in taking such ideas, theories, and claims seriously.
Let me state that I am very well acquainted, after some thirty years (ongoing) of the study of such ideologies as Aftrocentrism, multiculturalism, and woman’s studies with the majority of your arguments and claims here, as well as the language and jargon within which you articulate your ideas. I am not a novice or neophyte respecting the academic Left and its various sectarian cults of liberational, emancipatory, or “social justice” oriented “studies.” If I appear harsh at first glance, its because my knowledge of the long march through the academy represented by such pseudo-disciplines as “Africana Woman’s Studies” and their overarching purpose and effects on the intellectual and political life of the nation has a long history.
I find the attempt to graft them, in any form and in any manner, onto the restored gospel and church of Jesus Christ to be an outrage of megalithic proportions and audacity (not to mention deep misunderstanding and confusion regarding just what that church is and what it represents).
“with blatant falsehoods and misconceptions about intersectional studies.”
I recognize no falsehoods or misconceptions here, although I will admit that my interpretation of just what such studies are and what they seek to achieve may be radically different then your own and deeply problematize the dominant internal narrative of the critical theory paradigm.
“You clearly have not read my work in which I state, “It is not about you.” I will say it again. Loran, it is not about you.”
It is about white people as participants in “structural” racism and oppression, and in such a lumpen collectivity (black people being the collective victims of institutional whiteness), I, myself, can hardly escape being implicated in the structures of oppression from which I have, in this critique, benefited as a white male, and supported, at least indirectly, by support of the fundamental ground of white racism, which is normally understood to be capitalism.
If you are a disciple of Afrocentrist/multiculturalist doctrines to any degree, then you may also believe that I, as a white person, am inherently and intrinsically racist, even though I may not believe so myself and may not support bigotry and predjudice or manifest any overtly racist attitudes or assumptions in a conscious way. Such racism is “latent,” subtle, and diffracted, but still present in various guises.
“It’s not about your attempts to deflect the conversation.”
I spoke directly to your beliefs and ideology. I attempted do deflect nothing.
“It is not about your inherent fear to address me in public opposed to a closed Facebook group. ”
And here we go with the subjective assumptions about motives and internal psychological states. All too common on the modern campus, and the coin of the realm in the “studies” world, I know. I don’t even know who you are, and my initial response was to the author of the Facebook post, simply because it was proximate. Trust me, I have no fear of addressing you, or anyone else, in public.
“It is not about the convenience of making connections to my work and cultural Marxism or propaganda of Left just because you feel uncomfortable. It is not about your attempt to ignore the problems that are faced by people who are different than you.”
I have never ignored them nor do I intend to. My understanding and interpretation of just what those problems are, their origin and meaning, is doubtless drastically at variance with your own, however.
“But please keep standing on your platform. You’ll find that there are very few people standing with you and even fewer listening.”
On the contrary, Janan, the extreme sectarian ideological vortex of the modern humanities and social science classroom in which your mind has been formed and shaped has become so isolated and alienated from the mainstream of American life and culture, and has rejected the ideals and principles of true liberal arts education to such a degree, that its only connection with reality outside the cloistered dungeon of critical theory and its progeny is through the mainstream media, the arts, Hollywood, and the pop culture, which spreads and mediates its ideas, in popular, simplified form, among the masses.
Beyond this, you are in an ideologically monastic world all your own, in which one politically correct theoretical pill makes the world larger, and one pill makes it small.
This is without a doubt the biggest load of ranting drivel that I have ever read in my entire life. You are a madman, or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Nary a sentence goes by without your conspiracy theories spewing forth in what can only be described as laughably incoherent.
In your transparent attempts to throw the scent off of white men you do the very thing you accuse Janan of doing and paint yourself as a victim. The audacity that it takes for a white man to paint himself as victim following the Race and the Priesthood essay is probably something that should be applauded. That takes real, weapons-grade bullshitting to accomplish.
The notion that merely because “some” members were racists lets the Church somehow off the hook for a century+ of oppression of the highest order (especially when “some” of the racists were _prophets of God_) doesn’t even pass for an intelligent thought.
You are a mental gymnast; a tumbler extraordinaire Loran.
You base your entire set of arguments on one idea: two verses in the Pearl of Great Price (Abraham 1:26-27)that say Pharaoh could not have the priesthood because he was descended from Ham. Your argument rests on the assumption that every single thing written in the scriptures must be accepted as perfect truth, even though it was written by imperfect people with imperfect knowledge. So before I address your specific comments at all, I need to know: do you believe women should cover their heads when praying in order to not tempt the fallen angels that roam the earth? Because Paul did, and it’s in the scriptures. Do you believe slaves should obey their masters? Because Paul did, and it’s in the scriptures, along with a reminder that woman was created for man, and not the other way around, and that women should behave accordingly. Or that we should, as it says in the Word of Wisdom in D&C, feed rye to our poultry, even though it actually has a poor nutritional profile for birds that can lead to growth problems or even be toxic? Do you believe we should do all these things just because they are in the scriptures? I believe that every prophet has been a man/woman of their time, with their own faults, and that many human cultures have gained enough wisdom to know that some things presented in the scriptures were either products of the author’s culture/ personal biases or meant as guidance for a people in a time long passed. If you’re going to be taking the tack that the priesthood and temple ban was scriptural, and therefore okay, I expect to see you advocating head coverings for praying women and feeding poison grain to our chickens.
Dude, here is the thing. You lack credibility because all of your points are based on opinion and conjecture.
Until you can find credible sources (besides your massive supercomputer like brain) for all of your points, you will just be another angry dude arguing with people on the internet. If you’re fine going through life looking like that, and you really feel like trolling around on the internet as a (paradoxically) contentious “faith defender”, then carry on. But honestly, in all your “studies”, did you not learn that sweeping, generalized, statements are generally frowned upon and ignored anywhere where writing matters?
I am one that says, if you have an opinion, (even one I disagree with) feel free to state it with candor. But, just to be clear, you have offered your opinion, and your indictments are stated with such hubris (and such disregard of author) that it sounds like your years of familiarity and enlightened studies of other disciplines MIGHT (just might, possibly, maybe) have been more superficial peeks into why they are stupid, and not deep considerations of their claims.
Sorry to have misspelled her name on several occasion and in several ways. I’m just getting ready for work and have no time to make the changes to the typos.
I’ve got it (Janan) now…
Lorin,
In all of your diatribe you failed to leave any evidence that you are defending the position of a loving Savior. You seem to conflate Conservatism with righteousness and completely destroy the possibility of a productive discussion on the issue by insult and prejudice against any who may
disagree. If you really hold Janan in such low esteem, why engage at all?
“This is without a doubt the biggest load of ranting drivel that I have ever read in my entire life. You are a madman, or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Nary a sentence goes by without your conspiracy theories spewing forth in what can only be described as laughably incoherent.
In your transparent attempts to throw the scent off of white men you do the very thing you accuse Janan of doing and paint yourself as a victim. The audacity that it takes for a white man to paint himself as victim following the Race and the Priesthood essay is probably something that should be applauded. That takes real, weapons-grade bullshitting to accomplish.
The notion that merely because “some” members were racists lets the Church somehow off the hook for a century+ of oppression of the highest order (especially when “some” of the racists were _prophets of God_) doesn’t even pass for an intelligent thought.
You are a mental gymnast; a tumbler extraordinaire Loran.”
As there is utterly nothing of intellectual substance here, and you chose the mode of an emotion-based, ad hominem rant instead of engaging the points, arguments, and propositions made in my responses to Janan above, I see no point in engaging you here.
I will ask, however, that you make clear and provide a reference for your claim that I have tried to paint myself as a victim. where is this assertion or argument made? My analysis was of the critical theory/neo-Marxist foundations and ideology underlying her worldview and theoretical perspective. I made no claims of my own victimhood anywhere in my responses.
Where are you seeing this?
“You base your entire set of arguments on one idea: two verses in the Pearl of Great Price (Abraham 1:26-27)that say Pharaoh could not have the priesthood because he was descended from Ham.”
No, that is hardly my entire argument (and could you clarify exactly what you think my argument is, assuming that by this you mean the priesthood restriction?).
“Your argument rests on the assumption that every single thing written in the scriptures must be accepted as perfect truth, even though it was written by imperfect people with imperfect knowledge.”
No, that kind of extreme scriptural literalism is associated, in the West at least, primarily with Protestant fundamentalism, not with the restored church of Jesus Christ. The scriptures are only one of the major keys by and through which knowledge of God and his gospel are revealed to human beings on earth.
“So before I address your specific comments at all, I need to know: do you believe women should cover their heads when praying in order to not tempt the fallen angels that roam the earth? Because Paul did, and it’s in the scriptures.”
CFR.
“Do you believe slaves should obey their masters? Because Paul did, and it’s in the scriptures,”
Yes, it is, and within the context and historical parameters of that age, it would appear a part of the gospel as revealed at that time under the conditions within which human beings were required to live it, to the best of their ability.
“Or that we should, as it says in the Word of Wisdom in D&C, feed rye to our poultry, even though it actually has a poor nutritional profile for birds that can lead to growth problems or even be toxic? Do you believe we should do all these things just because they are in the scriptures?”
Many scriptural passages, as the Church itself has always taught, are relevant, more or less, and capacitated, to the times, age, conditions, and cultural constraints of the people to whom it (or the particular instance of it) was revealed. Principles stay the same, but practices and application of principles can vary substantially. What you are essentially asking is why LDS do not follow and subscribe to the law of Moses, offer animal sacrifice, observe the Jubilee etc. The reason is that this entire instance of the gospel (the preparatory gospel or “schoolmaster”) was fulfilled, superseded, and retired as a gospel system. The answer, of much of it, to your specific examples lies here.
“I believe that every prophet has been a man/woman of their time, with their own faults, and that many human cultures have gained enough wisdom to know that some things presented in the scriptures were either products of the author’s culture/ personal biases or meant as guidance for a people in a time long passed. If you’re going to be taking the tack that the priesthood and temple ban was scriptural, and therefore okay, I expect to see you advocating head coverings for praying women and feeding poison grain to our chickens.”
The ban is not found in the scriptures (as we have them, and not taking into the vast corpus of scriptural material yet unknown and yet to be restored/revealed)in any detail. The relevant verses in the BofA that provide a basic outline of the lineage affected by it, however, are extensive and are stated within the context of the origins and passing down of the priesthood from Adam and “the Fathers” to Abraham, and the specific exceptions to the right to hold that priesthood fall upon historic peoples well attested in secular and sacred history. They are, ultimately, doctrinal points regarding priesthood authority and the use of lineage as a channel through which various gospel teachings, authority, and responsibilities come throughout human history. The subject matter is fundamental (God chooses who and who not to to call to hold His priesthood, and blesses, for his own reasons, different peoples in different and varied ways and hardly at the same level as ancient Semitic dress codes for woman in church or what to feed chickens.
“Dude, here is the thing. You lack credibility because all of your points are based on opinion and conjecture.”
Most of it entailed a carefully thought out and articulated body of arguments, propositions, and critical analysis of Janan’s arguments. If you have nothing to add to that, then so be it (by the way, Janan’s entire position here is purely a theoretical construct based upon a body of preexisting ideological theory dating as far back as the first third of the 20th century, long before black studies, woman’s studies, multiculturalism etc. were ever conceived. They are, in other words, overwhelmingly, opinion and conjecture).
“Until you can find credible sources (besides your massive supercomputer like brain) for all of your points, you will just be another angry dude arguing with people on the internet.”
You’re clearly out of your depth here, Thomas, as you’re asking for “credible sources” for philosophical arguments regarding fundamental aspects of the human condition and the sociopolitical structure of American society, while adducing none of your own and requiring nothing of the kind from Janan, who’s arguments, as made, were entirely her own. My arguments are entirely my own as well. I could provide tons of sources, of course, but that would only prove that there are a number of other people (many of them eminent thinkers) who agree with me. Trust me, Thomas, after thirty years as a voracious and insatiable seeker of knowledge, education, and wisdom, I’m quite capable of thinking on the hoof and on a moment’s notice.
If you’re fine going through life looking like that, and you really feel like trolling around on the internet as a (paradoxically) contentious “faith defender”, then carry on. But honestly, in all your “studies”, did you not learn that sweeping, generalized, statements are generally frowned upon and ignored anywhere where writing matters?
I am one that says, if you have an opinion, (even one I disagree with) feel free to state it with candor. But, just to be clear, you have offered your opinion, and your indictments are stated with such hubris (and such disregard of author) that it sounds like your years of familiarity and enlightened studies of other disciplines MIGHT (just might, possibly, maybe) have been more superficial peeks into why they are stupid, and not deep considerations of their claims.
“If you’re fine going through life looking like that, and you really feel like trolling around on the internet as a (paradoxically) contentious “faith defender”, then carry on. But honestly, in all your “studies”, did you not learn that sweeping, generalized, statements are generally frowned upon and ignored anywhere where writing matters?”
That’s odd, because, looking over my posts, I see a number of clearly stated, specific propositions and assertions.
“I am one that says, if you have an opinion, (even one I disagree with) feel free to state it with candor. But, just to be clear, you have offered your opinion, and your indictments are stated with such hubris (and such disregard of author) that it sounds like your years of familiarity and enlightened studies of other disciplines MIGHT (just might, possibly, maybe) have been more superficial peeks into why they are stupid, and not deep considerations of their claims.”
And you would be wrong. I think you may be what you perceive
as hubris with your own inability to adduce substantive counter-arguments.
I am enraged at your inability to correctly copy and paste.
Also,
“And you would be wrong. I think you may be what you perceive as hubris with your own inability to adduce substantive counter-arguments.”
Best. Response. Ever.
In my response to Thomas, I inadvertently left in a portion of his own post at the bottom, without quotation marks. Perhaps a mod could delete that and clean up the post a bit?
No way to edit posts here, unfortunately.
EOR, Thomas, Heidi and Daniel, thank you. I will post what I stated in the closed group here.
Loran,
It is quite clear that you are not interested in a discussion but rather establishing a platform to debase me and my work with blatant falsehoods and misconceptions about intersectional studies. You clearly have not read my work in which I state, “It is not about you.” I will say it again. Loran, it is not about you. It’s not about your attempts to deflect the conversation. It is not about your inherent fear to address me in public opposed to a closed Facebook group. It is not about the convenience of making connections to my work and cultural Marxism or propaganda of Left just because you feel uncomfortable. It is not about your attempt to ignore the problems that are faced by people who are different than you.
But please keep standing on your platform. You’ll find that there are very few people standing with you and even fewer listening.
Janan, I wanted to thank you for your article, and plead for understanding as I (an undeniably white woman, raised in western, white bread, redneck America) unapologetically learn from you and come to better understanding of blacks’ experience in the LDS church through the last 150+ years. I stand guilty of taking things from blacks’ experiences and comparing them to my own new experiences of ostracization and prejudice in the church. Some whites may do so to try to continue to perpetuate white supremacy . . . I find myself doing so because my recent experience suddenly opens up so much understanding, and my heart breaks for the untold lives that were affected, the hurt and denial slathered generously by the leadership they were supposed to trust. My intention is not to diminish the importance of blacks’ experience, or the aching need for change and equality . . . but to say that I think I have just the tiniest glimmering of a slice of what might have been felt, and I want to help. That I want to establish a connection that I can’t claim through the culture I was taught, or friends I had, or any other more ordinary way. Just that I have been given a taste of what it feels like to be denied full acceptance in a group of people that are supposed to love me–from leaders called to shepherd me–and I want to let whoever needs to know that there’s one more out there that loves unequivocally, and will listen with a heart open and inclined to love.
Thank you for writing, and don’t stop.
“It is quite clear that you are not interested in a discussion but rather establishing a platform to debase me and my work with blatant falsehoods and misconceptions about intersectional studies. You clearly have not read my work in which I state, “It is not about you.” I will say it again. Loran, it is not about you. It’s not about your attempts to deflect the conversation. It is not about your inherent fear to address me in public opposed to a closed Facebook group. It is not about the convenience of making connections to my work and cultural Marxism or propaganda of Left just because you feel uncomfortable. It is not about your attempt to ignore the problems that are faced by people who are different than you.
But please keep standing on your platform. You’ll find that there are very few people standing with you and even fewer listening.”
And here, again, we have (I think this is the third response now), Janan fleeing the arena of ideas, engaging in the subjective psycholgization of my motives and character, and dancing furiously in an attempt to circumvent actual critical debate regarding my substantive arguments and points made regarding her essay and its ideological subtext and philosophical basis.
Why? Well, I know why. After some three decades of studying and reflecting upon the world of critical theory that dominates and controls much of the modern academic milieu, it became clear to me long ago that the academic Left is overwhelmingly bark, and little, if any bite. They retreat almost immediately into their walled cities of political correct shibboleths, curses, and ritual anathemas the moment they are intellectually challenged or exposed as to the ideological snake oil they are peddling.
People like Janan are not “intellectuals” in the highest and noblest sense of that term. They are sectarian ideologues, and as with most such ideologues, they cannot hold their own in the marketplace of ideas (and just try to find an academic leftist who would support a free marketplace in any area, let alone that of ideas)outside the cloistered coven of academia surrounded by like-minded colleagues simmering in the heady broth of politically correct groupthink.
I don’t want a real discussion? Let me restate my philosophical objections to Janan’s piece (not personal observations of her), and let’s see if she can engage and rebut the arguments and points presented in a philosophically substantive manner. There were a few polemics in my initial responses, but the bulk of those responses were criticisms of her ideas and arguments, to which, it appears, she has no defense. Below are both my original responses, shorn of any polemical observations, with only the substantive observations and arguments intact. Let’s see what transpires:
“The ban itself had a clear scriptural basis, has never been repudiated or discarded by the Church as of divine origin, and was ended nearly forty years ago. There is nothing in the room now but the NOMs and their attempt to import the ideology of permanent racial grievance and victimhood into the Church from the surrounding secular culture.”
“intersectionality” is a purely ideological construct that would very likely be fundamentally unintelligible outside the “studies” disciplines comprising the broad filed of critical theory in present day academia without first having accepted the fundamental premises of the multuculturalist/Afrocentrist, and broadly neo-Marxist worldview).”
“The ban had to do with lineage, not any innate deficiency, and none of the theological speculations regarding blacks and the priesthood were ever in a position to be considered official church doctrine (regardless of how many saints assumed they were) and all have been repudiated as the personal opinions/conjectures of past General Authorities. Secondly, nothing in LDS doctrine ever denied blacks the eventual full blessings of the gospel. Even Brigham Young taught that the ban was for this life only, and would be rectified at some future time (probably in the Millennium).”
“At one time, there was a curse, or restriction, relative to priesthood, on the lineage descended from Ham. This is found in the scriptures in an unambiguous way. The valiance aspect is another question entirely, and is, indeed, not found in the scriptures, but is grounded in sound doctrinal principles that apply, not just to blacks, but to all the Father’s children, and should not be discarded because it was misused in this one instance.”
“This is…a cultural Marxist view that collectivizes and mutes individual psychological and characterological attributes and then associates their potential presence as manifested in actual behavior with traditional neo-Marxist concepts such as “structural inequality” and “dominant power structures” that, empirically and historically, are quite dubious as concepts outside the ideological framework within which they support other aspects of an overarching ideological system.
“blacks were never denied complete salvation in 19th, early, or middle 20th century LDS thought. The lifting of the ban was foreseen (especially by president McKay), but not foreknown as to the exact time frame. While the majority of Mormons of prior eras doubtless saw blacks as in some sense inferior, I see no indication of a belief in “white supremacy,” as a coherent body of thought in a theological sense, as, if so, it would have manifested itself in attitudes towards other minorities, none of which were ever denied the priesthood or other blessings of the gospel.”
“Let me state that I am very well acquainted, after some thirty years (ongoing) of the study of such ideologies as Aftrocentrism, multiculturalism, and woman’s studies with the majority of your arguments and claims here, as well as the language and jargon within which you articulate your ideas. I am not a novice or neophyte respecting the academic Left and its various sectarian cults of liberational, emancipatory, or “social justice” oriented “studies.” If I appear harsh at first glance, its because my knowledge of the long march through the academy represented by such pseudo-disciplines as “Africana Woman’s Studies” and their overarching purpose and effects on the intellectual and political life of the nation has a long history.
I find the attempt to graft them (neo-Marxist/critical theory/identity ideology catagories and concepts),in any form and in any manner, onto the restored gospel and church of Jesus Christ to be an outrage of megalithic proportions and audacity (not to mention deep misunderstanding and confusion regarding just what that church is and what it represents).
“I recognize no falsehoods or misconceptions here, although I will admit that my interpretation of just what such studies are and what they seek to achieve may be radically different then your own and deeply problematize the dominant internal narrative of the critical theory paradigm.”
“It is about white people as participants in “structural” racism and oppression, and in such a lumpen collectivity (black people being the collective victims of institutional whiteness), I, myself, can hardly escape being implicated in the structures of oppression from which I have, in this critique, benefited as a white male, and supported, at least indirectly, by support of the fundamental ground of white racism, which is normally understood to be capitalism.
If you are a disciple of Afrocentrist/multiculturalist doctrines to any degree, then you may also believe that I, as a white person, am inherently and intrinsically racist, even though I may not believe so myself and may not support bigotry and predjudice or manifest any overtly racist attitudes or assumptions in a conscious way. Such racism is “latent,” subtle, and diffracted, but still present in various guises.”
“It ended nearly forty years ago – almost a half century.”
“Politically correct credentials established. All the right identity groups are oppressed and tormented with no end in sight. America the horrible. Check.”
“Secondly, nothing in LDS doctrine ever denied blacks the eventual full blessings of the gospel. Even Brigham Young taught that the ban was for this life only, and would be rectified at some future time (probably in the Millennium).”
Loran, I wonder if you get how dismissive these comments are. Or, at least, how utterly un-Christlike. You seem completely oblivious of the damage the ban did and the pain it has caused. You’re so steeped in your own privilege. By writing off Janan’s point of view as leftist, Marxist, or anything similar, you are condescending to her and ignoring the fact that the experience of black LDS members is vastly different from your own. You have attacked her arguments from a philosophical and academic perspective… as though that were the most important approach. It isn’t. Your responses completely lack compassion.
Leah, thank you, and well-said.
Dear Loran,
Since you seem to be intent on derailing Janan’s thoughtful and compelling piece with your customary prolix drivel, please allow me to correct some of your factual errors in hopes it will serve to inform your future argumentation.
1. You write, “The ban itself had a clear scriptural basis.”
This is incorrect. Are you aware that Elder Bruce R. McConkie made a complete analysis of this issue at President Kimball’s request, and returned to him a detailed report concluding that there is no scriptural basis for the ban? Or do you consider yourself a better scriptorian than Elder McConkie?
2. The ban was lifted 35-years ago this past June. Yet you first write that it “was ended nearly forty years ago,” and follow it up with, “It ended nearly forty years ago–almost a half century.”
I do not expect I need to inform you that 35-years is not “almost a half century” except in the mind of someone who wants to put it as far in the past as possible, even at the expense of rudimentary mathematics.
3. You write, “The ban had to do with lineage.” This is specious.
One cannot disentangle race from lineage so nicely, as you presume to do. How is one’s race determined if not with respect to lineage?
And you are perhaps aware that South Africans had to prove their “lineage” contained no African black blood in order to qualify for the Priesthood. (At least until President McKay thankfully stopped the practice, but only by shifting the burden of proof to the Church. Lineage was still the key, and the disqualifier was if one’s lineage contained somebody of the black race. See how the two go together?)
4. You write that the ban “had not to do with . . . any innate deficiency, and none of the theological speculations regarding blacks and the priesthood were ever in a position to be considered official church doctrine.”
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the 1949 First Presidency Statement declaring there was no injustice in withholding the Priesthood from blacks due to unspecified bad acts in the pre-mortal existence?
This certainly sounds like an “innate deficiency” to me. The First Presidency even labeled it a “handicap.”
And you are well aware that a First Presidency Statement is as official as it gets, and certainly constitutes “a position to be considered official church doctrine.”
You will note the 1949 First Presidency Statement specifically states the Priesthood ban was “doctrine.”
5. You write that Janan’s piece was “a regurgitation of the old black power claim that blacks cannot be racist because, it is claimed, they have no power.”
If you would take the time to read what Janan wrote instead of leaping to your keyboard, you will find she actually wrote that “people of color can certainly be prejudiced and discriminatory against white people.”
You are not responsibly interacting with Janan’s piece, but using it as a platform from which to launch your own diatribes which, as often as not, have little or nothing to do with what she wrote.
6. You write that “blacks were never denied complete salvation in the 19th, early, or middle 20th century LDS thought.”
Wrong again, Loran.
Are you not aware that when Jane Manning James applied to President Joseph F. Smith to be sealed to the family of Joseph Smith, her request was denied? But she was allowed to be sealed to Joseph Smith’s family as a servant for eternity. Do you consider this “complete salvation”? (Of course Jane was not actually allowed into the temple for the ordinance. It was done by proxy. While Jane was still alive.)
7. You write that “progressives” are “even worse” than “white supremacists.
Here is the offending paragraph: “No doubt there are individual racists and even white supremacists in the Church. Even worse, there are leftists, socialists, communists, and progressives in the Church.”
To make the irony complete, you follow up with accusing Janan of believing “that I, as a white person, am inherently and intrinsically racist, even though I may not believe so myself and may not support bigotry and prejudice or manifest any overtly racist attitudes or assumptions in a conscious way. Such racism is ‘latent,’ subtle, and diffracted, but still present in various guises.”
It appears you have proven correct the sentiments you ascribe to Janan.
Out of the mouths of babes . . .
I love what you guys tend to be up too. Such clever work and reporting!
Keep up the excellent works guys I’ve included you guys
to blogroll.