Last week the news has been filled with Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner’s transformation from a man to a woman, and the Vanity Fair photo shoot. I’m not sure how you feel about the issue. Jon Stewart gave a very interesting take on the topic, and it was a very interesting monologue that was a bit different than most of the things we’ve heard from the media. Jon made some interesting points about how Caitlyn is going to have to get used to how we objectify women. First Jon begins by being a little surprised at how positive the media has been concerning the transformation. {language warning}
Stewart, “it’s really heartening to see that everyone is willing to not only accept Caitlyn Jenner as a woman, but to waste no time in treating her like a woman.” {He shows clips of news shows discussing Jenner.}
[clip of Fox 5 female anchor talking] “all I can say is ‘Wow!’”
[different female Fox reporter] “so sexy, it hurts!”
[another Fox News reporter] “I got a couple emails from some friends yesterday saying ‘I’m a little jealous. She looks better than I do.’”
[Fox 5 person] “She looks like a movie star!”
[another woman] “She looks like Rita Hayworth, so glamorous.”
[female voice], “She is stunning.”
[female voice], “She looks beautiful.”
[male voice] “Wow!”
[female voice] “She looks AMAZING!”
[female voice] “Look at that. That is a hot woman!”
[male voice] “Yes, Caitlyn is hot.”
[male on TMZ] “Is like yes! sexy, boobs….”
[Stewart makes a face, and imitates a New York Accent], “I mean my brain was like, ‘this is a great milestone for the transgender community, but my penis was all like ‘titty-f***!’”
[Stewart returns to normal voice], “You see Caitlyn. Caitlyn, when you were a man, we could talk about your athleticism, your business acumen, but now you’re a woman, and your looks are really the only thing we care about. Which brings us to phase 2 of your transition: comparative f***-ability.”
[Male on Fox 32], “I think she looks like that chic from American Horror Story.”
[female voice] “Jessica Lang….
[Male voice], “Jessica Lang!”
[female voice] “… who’s hot!”
[male voice], “Do you think Caitlyn is actually hotter than Kris? (Kardashian)”
[female voice on Fox] “Ok, I have to ask the most important question. Does she have a better body than Kim Kardashian?”
Stewart, “Look! We want to give a woman a compliment here. We just need to make sure another woman gets taken down a peg in the process. It’s how we maintain the balance.
Well, we’re almost all the way there. Let’s complete the transition.”
[male voice] “She looks good! Especially for her age!”
Stewart, “There you go! Wow! That’s the caveat we were missing! Remind her she has an expiration date now! You came out at 65, you’ve got another 2 years before you become invisible to society! Better make the most of them. And you know what? Since it’s a special day, why don’t we throw in a little slut-shaming with a dash of ‘ah, she’s probably not that hot in person.’”
[Female voice], “what about the outfit? It’s a white, satin corset, very Playboy bunny-esque.”
[female voice’ “It shows the amazing effects that makeup can have though.”
[male] “Ok, and I’m wondering how much of this is Photo-shopped? How much of it is airbrushed?”
Stewart, “I mean you take away the corset and the makeup and I don’t know if anyone wants to bang her. So Caitlyn Jenner, congratulations! Welcome to being a woman in America.”
What are your thoughts? What do you think of Jenner’s transition? What do you think of the media’s objectifying a woman’s looks in general? (I was surprised how many women in the clips participated in critiquing Jenner’s looks.)
I might also add that Jenner also has semi-Mormon ties. Jenner attended the RLDS version of BYU, which is called Graceland University in Lamoni, Iowa. They’re so proud of him that they named the Bruce Jenner Sports Complex after him, but his Newton high school decided to remove his name from their football stadium back in 2011 because he never responded to their request for financial help of their football stadium. Should Graceland change the name to Caitlyn Jenner? If he were Mormon, what would LDS Church leaders do in light of the fact that we believe “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose”?
Wheat & Tares 
I’ve always been of the opinion that if you assume “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose,” and you also assume that gender is a male/female binary, and then you look at all of the evidence of biology that just doesn’t fit that binary, the only conclusion is that people who are transgender are an inevitability. To assume that you had a gender before you were born really reinforces the idea that there could have been a fluke in your development during birth and you really could have been born the wrong gender. Also, reinforcing strict gender roles is definitely going to make a lot of people who don’t fit into those gender roles feel like something is wrong with them. The Proclamation on the Family to me is the ultimate set up for transgenderedness.
As for Caitlyn Jenner’s transformation, I don’t really have much of an opinion since I don’t know her so I don’t know if she’s genuine, or just part of the crazy Kardashian circus.
EBK, I literally just said the same thing a couple days ago in a discussion I was having on the proclamation. If we believe gender is eternal, and we know that people aren’t always born with perfect bodies, what other conclusion can we draw? It would be extremely naive to believe that when it comes to your biological sex matching your gender, there are suddenly NO MISTAKES EVER.
As far as Caitlyn is concerned, it’s not just about being treated “like a woman”, or not quite in the same way. It has been my observation that whenever someone decides to be trans in public, the ONLY thing anyone wants to talk about is how well they pass, as if that is the stamp of societal approval that gives them the right to express their proper gender.
Well, I would say, refer to his acts before transition under the name Bruce. Bruce won the awards.
As to Stewart’s point, I think it’s an apt diatribe against both society and the media as to how we talk about women vs. men. We talk about men having accomplishments; we talk about how attractive women are. But this too is in vogue for comedians right now, particularly using the term Stewart used to describe the problem, that people (particularly Hollywood and the media) rate women’s “f***ability,” and that women become invisible after a certain age. He really wasn’t making any commentary on transgender at all, but on how women are treated.
When I first read the church’s policy on transgendered people, the way I took it, it was saying that you couldn’t change your sex just to get the priesthood, and it assumed no man would ever want to become a woman. Perhaps that’s just the way it sounded to me, but it was deliberately written with some very odd assumptions in mind. I believe the wording has changed, and also there was a trans man in Provo a few years ago who was treated differently from how the old policy was written as I recall.
I wonder if she makes 77 cents on the dollar now.
There are two issues here.
1. Why would anyone feel a need to change their sex?
2. Why is s/he being being considered heroic by so many?
The answer to both questions for those of faith is that we live in a fallen world. And unfortunately for American we are rapidly moving in the direction of what Mosiah spoke about in Mosiah 29:26-27.
was he baptized RLDS when at graceland u?
Brother of Jared: The clearest answer is that biological sex doesn’t always match sexual identity.
Aside from that, gender reassignment at birth (or soon thereafter) was often done when an infant’s sexual identity was ambiguous – not so much recently, but it was certainly done in the 1950s. Bear in mind that eugenics was also more acceptable back then. We’ve grown skeptical of interfering with sex in this country until adulthood, but it used to be more common for parents to decide during infancy which sex their baby really was when there was question. Throughout history there have been hermaphrodites, but we’ve somehow decided they don’t exist. Call it a fallen world or just how biology works, but sex isn’t a bright line distinction between male & female in all creatures. It’s a continuum, not a binary.
#5,#7 – sexual confusion (e.g., ‘gender identity’) was once considered by competent mental health professionals as a serious problem. Now it’s being celebrated, mostly at the expense of the one suffering from it and his family, all to sell scandal rags and air time. Sometimes the ‘clearest’ answer, put as Mike Judge (voicing Hank Hill of “King of the Hill”), is…”that boy ain’t right in the head”.
I pity the poor parents that had to choose what manner of ‘surgery’ (re: mutilation) to perform on their infant in order to give that child a ‘normal’ life. From what I understand of the issue, in most cases the baby was rendered female.
Hawk, babies are unfortunately born with deformities all the time, but we don’t define the norms around them. Now, I wonder at times what manner of cruel God would ALLOW such a thing, but I suppose if He supersedes with THAT malady, then He’s bound to intervene in others, and next thing you know, Heavenly Father is doing the very thing which supposedly Lucifer stumped for (and got shot down in flames, pun intended). Though of course I don’t agree with a ‘humanistic’ view as was that of the late Gene Roddenberry, the “Great Bird of the Galaxy” did put an interesting twist re: Ol’ Scratch and free agency…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magicks_of_Megas-tu
No, Bruce has never been RLDS. I’m not sure why he attended Graceland, but he did, and is by far it’s most famous alumni (even before the news broke a few weeks ago.)
I also think it’s quite interesting that Jon Stewart played up the sexism angle, rather than the transgender angle in this discussion.
Well, it would have been even more awkward to talk about her athletic prowess. There’s going to be plenty more hand-wringing over whether an athlete belongs in women’s sports in the future.
I like Stewart’s spin on the event, but honestly, if Kaitlyn’s coming out like that on the cover of Vogue, what else are people going to say?
Douglas, thanks for pointing out that past mental health professionals were competent. I can only assume you think contemporary mental health professionals who do not see “sexual confusion” as a serious problem are not competent. What’s your position on past competent health care professionals who thought the way to treat infection was with leeches? Ah, the good old days.
“I like Stewart’s spin on the event, but honestly, if Kaitlyn’s coming out like that on the cover of Vogue, what else are people going to say?”
I think this is a fair point. She chose to make her physical reveal in a fashion magazine with an accompanying photo spread of somewhat risqué pics. I think it’s understandable that that’s going to prompt some conversation about her physical appearance. That said, I think it was still an appropriate opportunity for JS to (correctly) point out issues of disparate treatment of the sexes/genders in our society.
#12 – False analogy, and considering the state of the art re: health care, nutrition, and general sanitation (or lack thereof), bleeding someone with leeches probably didn’t do any more harm, though it escapes me what their logic, other than experiential, was in employing same. Bleeding wouldn’t have been performed if it NEVER worked, people were ignorant, not stupid. When these obviously questionable medical (mal)practices were done away with, it was on the basis of science, not politics.
Maybe some 269 years hence (or 29 years ago, depending on what part of story you’re on), good ol’ Dr McCoy (whether the late DeForest Kelly or Karl Urban, U pick) will have something for gender reassignment in his travelling medical kit, which was amply-supplied enough to cure an elderly woman’s failing kidneys, and he’d reflect on how barbaric and ignorant we denizens of the late 20th or early 21st centuries were.
#13 – if Bruce (Caitlyn) Jenner is smart, (s)he’ll figure out how to have the best of both ways. Probably why, if the articles are correct (not that I really want to know the details), (s)he’s only dressing as a woman and taking hormones to conform the corpus indelectus to a believable form, but hasn’t gone so far as mutilation of the genitals. There might be hope for that boy yet.
I can only wonder what his/her four children, all but one grown (the youngest, Kylie, is still 17…) think of the matter. While the popular media makes an utter spectacle of this, is there ANY consideration for them, especially the younger girl, still a minor? Evidently not. Compassion and understanding are great until they interfere with TV ratings or magazine sales.
Bruce Jenner originally received a football scholarship at Graceland. There were a number of other athletes from Connecticut at the time, almost all non-RLDS. Bruce suffered some kind of injury, I believe, which ruled out playing football. That’s when the track coach there thought he had potential in the decathlon.
Bruce never joined the RLDS Church, although his first wife, whom he met at Graceland, was. Interesting side note: the officiating minister was her uncle, Maurice Draper, then a member of the RLDS First Presidency. And for what it’s worth, a friend of mine played the organ for their wedding at the Stone Church in Independence (on the north side of the Temple Lot from the Auditorium).
I recall seeing Bruce on campus during my freshman year spent at Graceland 1969-70 (the following year I transferred to the University of Missouri). He was a year ahead of me.
Jenner’s fame as an athlete and Olympic gold-medal winner came while he was known as Bruce, so I think it appropriate to keep that name on the sports complex at Graceland.
I am not a spokesman for the trans community nor do I aspire to be. I am, however, a BIC member of the church who has served a mission and married in the temple while awaiting an ephinany that never came. I do not seek acceptance from all the learned members who seem to know so much more about my gender dysphoria than do I. I do realize that there are many good active members that are sympathetic to our situation but I am tired of the marginalization so I no longer attend. I just want to be left alone and that is why it is so important to me that I “pass” to the best of my ability, if that is really a question posed earlier.
Dear Douglas,
It’s sad that you have no comprehension of how much hate you spew.
Regards,
Dexter
Dear Brother of Jared,
SHE is viewed as a hero by so many BECAUSE SHE IS A HERO. SHE IS STANDING UP FOR COUNTLESS PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF A JUDGMENTAL AND IGNORANT SOCIETY FOR FAR TOO LONG.
Regards,
Dexter
Douglas, if I heard you speaking like that in public I’d straight up kick your ass. If that’s enough to get me 86’d from W&T, then so be it. You’re a horrible human being and a disgrace to Christians everywhere. It’s utterly shocking that Americans are fleeing religion like a burning building with the Fred Phelpses and Douglases spreading their particular brands of vitriol like so much manure straight from their hate holes. My condolences to your children, pal.
You can’t call Douglas’s view hate speech when this is the mainstream view of almost all conservative Christians and most Mormons. It’s not hate, it’s sorrow and incomprehension.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of Kaitlin’s feeling of femaleness, nor the sincerity of the many other transgender people. After all, what they feel must be incredibly powerful in order to mutilate their bodies and run the gauntlet of intense public scorn. It’s God’s fault as usual.
Yet it is a mutilation nonetheless. And mutilations are sad. Bruce, God’s creation was far more beautiful than Kaitlin the surgical creation. Why God gave him a female spirit, I don’t know, nor do I judge him for embracing it.
On the objectification of women: Women have been judged by their looks, and men for the apparent ability to provide/protect, for thousands of years. I doubt that will change anytime soon based on evolutionary biological instincts.
“You can’t call Douglas’s view hate speech when this is the mainstream view of almost all conservative Christians and most Mormons…..”
Uh, yes we can, and several people have already. I’m sure you’ve heard the saying, “If a bunch of people asked you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?” Just because a belief is “popular” doesn’t make it right, or in this case, not hate.
We haven’t banned anyone for a few years, but I think Douglas is making a case for himself. Maybe he should go to M* where they endorse his kind of thinking.
Quite right, MH. Nate, what justification would you apply to slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries, based on the fact that virtually everyone in the world was engaged in it? If your speech is hateful, it’s hate speech. And I’d also add that I see not a shred of sorrow in anything Douglas has said on this subject. Unless you consider “that boy ain’t right in the head” some unique expression of empathy.
Re: hawkgrrrl in #3
http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender
“Avoid pronoun confusion when examining the stories and backgrounds of transgender people prior to their transition. Ideally a story will not use pronouns associated with a person’s birth sex when referring to the person’s life prior to transition. Try to write transgender people’s stories from the present day, instead of narrating them from some point in the past, thus avoiding confusion and potentially disrespectful use of incorrect pronouns.”
I think of this as the same as with any other name change/preference. For example, many of us would talk about Marilyn Monroe’s childhood as “Marilyn’s parents” and “Marilyn loved to ….” No need to go out of my way to say “Norma Jeane loved to ….”
Lots of folks change their names – often due to marriage, divorce, immigration. I don’t see the need to work hard to match up each name with each time period in a person’s life. I just use the current name.
It’s also easy to just say “Caitlyn Jenner (born William Bruce Jenner…” and then just say Caitlyn or Jenner from then on.
Regarding “hate speech,” you could say it was “hate” if the person receiving the speech took it as hateful. But often the person giving the speech is not actually feeling hate. Rather, what they say is based upon a misunderstandings or lack of empathy, which is not the same as hate.
Lodging the accusation of “hate speech” at someone, is often as tone deaf and insensitive as the hate speech itself. Douglas is not hateful, and such an accusation is as gross an assault on his true nature as any stones he has thrown at others.
If Douglas has committed any error, it is that he has not fully considered that Kaitlin’s feelings might be completely authentic and unalterable. But he has not considered this because his church teaches him that these feelings are a lie. He is being faithful to the traditional church view, and I think it is unfortunate when a person advocating the traditional LDS view is shamed off a blog on LDS views.
“What are your thoughts? What do you think of Jenner’s transition?”
Definitely a sign of the times. A bad sign. A much to do about nothing significant or consequential. We are much too worried about what does not matter – same sex unions, gender re-assignment and a whole host of other issues that will drag our society to its ultimate self-destruction.
It is not so much that we are focusing on these issues that is problematic, it is what we are neglecting when we do—the opportunity costs of focusing on sensationalism if you will. The proverbial house is burning down and we are focused on the fact we left the television on in a burning house. There are much more pressing issues: The crippling personal and governmental debt; the lack of respect for authority; the tumult and violence in the Middle East and Asia; rampant hunger and poverty; and a whole host of real issues. Important issues.
I think we focus on these tabloid issues because we don’t have the courage to face the real challenges.
Umm..Nate, sorry, you couldn’t be more wrong on this.
Nate, I could not disagree with you more about Douglas’s speech. We can differ as to what we define as hate speech, but Douglas’s comments are deliberately flippant, condescending and insulting. I don’t know Douglas personally, but I think your defense of his comments in this thread is completely unwarranted. Any objective reader of his posts here will see exactly what he’s saying about transgendered individuals generally, and Caitlyn Jenner specifically. And frankly, it’s beneath you to excuse such bad behavior by using the church as a shield. I never pegged you as someone who sees mormons as mindless, conditioned automatons who lack the ability to critically choose their behaviors for themselves. I’ll be sure to look for consistency in that position from you from now on.
Right, Ken. Because mormon church services are so focused on governmental debt and violence in Asia. It’s incredible how people can look at issues that are critically important to their fellow human beings and dismiss them out of hand, yet still break their arms patting themselves on the back for how Christlike they are as a people. I’m sure the time and effort members of the church spend obsessing about whether caffeine is covered by the word of wisdom is making the world a much better place than that spent fighting for the personal autonomy of other human beings.
Ken, how can you say those things don’t matter?
Same sex unions don’t matter? But marriage does matter?
People’s feelings don’t matter? I find your position indefensible.
Also, Ken, you said that a more pressing problem is: “the lack of respect for authority.”
You know, if this were always a huge problem, women would still be considered the property of their husbands, the world would be dominated by the rich and 90% of the population would be slaves/serfs.
The lack of respect for authority has done countless wonders for the rights and standard of living for 90% of human beings.
Brjones,
It is not the church I worry about, I think they are on the right path, it is society as a whole that has lost focus on what matters.
There is a saying: “When you stop working, the weeds will grow” Society has stopped working. They are focusing on sensationalism instead. Areas we have lost focus:
We have stopped living within our means and budgeting properly and personal and governmental debt has overgrown our ability to solve this problem (the hammer is about to fall in Greece);
We have stopped confronting evil in the Middle East and Russia and the forces of evil have taken over (ISIL, Putin, etc..);
We are paying people to be poor rather than providing opportunity;
Police have stopped working in the cities run by liberals as they don’t have the back of these officers. violent crime in Chicago, Baltimore and New York has soared since the local liberals have sided with the thugs;
Ken, Talking about cities run by liberals is way off topic–this post is about Bruce Jenner. But you’ve inspired a post idea. Let’s save it for next week, and I’ll oblige you somewhat.
I agree, ken. It’s extremely dangerous to be a minority these days in those cities, with those thug police running amok. At least we agree on that point.
Regarding “hate speech,” you could say it was “hate” if the person receiving the speech took it as hateful.
Nate, you are absolutely 100% wrong. Howard Cosell was fired from Monday Night Football when he said of Art Monk, “Look at that monkey go!” Cosell claimed the moniker for Monk was an affectionate term, not a racist statement. People are unintentionally racist, sexist, all the time, even when they mean it in an endearing way. So intention has nothing to do with it. (I could give more examples if you want.)
We used to think “negro”, “retard”, and “polack” were ok terms. Now we view them as offensive slurs. While we may cut people a little bit of slack in the 1960s and 70s for using such terms, we’ve grown up and recognize how hurtful these terms are, and shouldn’t continue to use them. We don’t tolerate such terms anymore, nor should we. Hiding behind the shield of religion doesn’t make it any better, and I would argue that when we do such things, we offend God and I am sure he will say, “Depart from me, ye that [speak] iniquity.”
In a recent MHA presentation, it was noted that when the Deseret News reported President Kimball’s 1978 revelation, on the adjacent page prominently displayed was an announcement (probably recommended by Mark E. Peterson) that interracial marriage was officially discouraged as LDS Church policy. Pres. Kimball, while he thought interracial marriage was inadvisable, gave his blessing to interracial couple to marry. (Two other apostles had strongly discouraged the couple.)
Today we view Kimball’s words discouraging interracial marriage as terrible (and he has been derided on the bloggernacle.) His intentions were good, but we still wince that he still said them. I don’t care that Pres Kimball’s words were “conservative Mormon” positions of the time. God loves all, black and white, and he loved them the same in 2015 as he did in 1978. In God’s eyes, interracial marriage was/is acceptable in 1878, 1978, and 2078. It would be nice if Pres Kimball was ahead of society rather than behind.
Some commenters here may relish their caveman opinions, but they are still neanderthal and they should grow up and quit being a bigot. (And I don’t care if they are senior citizens, they still need to grow up!)
“Today we view Kimball’s words discouraging interracial marriage as terrible (and he has been derided on the bloggernacle.)” And here, like so many instances, you and I part ways. His words weren’t “terrible.” They were good advice for the time and place they were given. Statistically, interracial marriages were doomed for failure. He also cautioned about marrying outside your culture, even your socio economic class. Not that there was anything inherently evil about interracial marriage, but that because of social stigmas, the relationship would be strained. I know a progressive viewpoint would be “but if no one did it, how would we ever rise above it?” That’s a fine attitude to have unless it’s your eternal salvation, not to mention temporal happiness in mortality, on the line. Birds of a feather tend to flock together for a reason. You can claim color blindness all you want, but in general, people of the same cultural/color/economic class tend to do better than when things are mixed. I get griped when people conveniently use a viewpoint of today to somehow find fault with counsel of the past.
Because we have a racialized system that stratifies people like that?
So brjones, you think it’s okay to use violence against people who say things you don’t approve of?
What’s even more alarming is she got 5 likes for her hateful comment.
And MH, you start talking about banning Douglas? And not brjones? Banning Douglas for what exactly?
“I do not seek acceptance from all the learned members who seem to know so much more about my gender dysphoria than do I.”
To me, this is the crux of the matter. People are willing to follow the words of a person who says he gets guidance from a being from another planet, yet are unwilling to learn from or understand those who live on this one.
#39 – Thank you, Nate, but be assured that I took Brjone’s ‘threat’ of ‘violence’ as mere hyperbole and not a serious threat. Were there any reason to take it as a bona fide threat, I’d have brought it to the attention of not only the moderators but also law enforcement. Certainly I would and should get into “deep Kimche” if I talked or wrote like that.
The nature of banning anyone is purely the discretion of the moderator(s), that’s the nature of an open blog, it’s their playground and they can decide who gets to play. It doesn’t matter if they’re being intellectually honest and/or consistent, like Trelane from “Classic” Star Trek’s “The Squire of Gothos” (in James Blish’s novelization), they can be completely “unfair”! You and/or I are perfectly able to start up our own blog and devise the rules therein. Thanks for pointing out their apparent hypocrisy, however. I leave it to them to stand by their views in the face of opposition, let’s see if they’ve got the guts…
Heretic, the trouble with judging what PAST (and usually long-dead) leaders have said is that times have changed to render certain nuances at least ‘quaint’, if not downright unspeakable. I’ve repeatedly chided the late Mark E. Petersen for ‘allowing’ black people to drive a Cadillac ca. 1954 (as if then or now that was the epitome of automatic taste for black people), but understand his intent wasn’t racism but of wishing ‘them’ well. I’d likewise cringe nowadays of speaking of blacks or anyone else in the context of a ‘them’, b/c it’d make no sense and be contrary to the inclusive mission of the Church. But I don’t presume to label the man as a bigot, that’s simply not justified, nor would rejecting his then counsel on this spurious basis.
If you remember “Humble Howard” Cosell, then likely you also recall the gaffes of Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder and Al Campanis. I remember seeing Campanis’ meltdown in a ward room at Kings Bay back in ’87 on “Nightline”. Knowing that Frank Robinson, who was a baseball hero of mine from his Orioles days, had managed both the Indians and the Giants (he did OK considering the dearth of talent he had to work with), I about fell off my chair. But I used his phrase to needle fellow Giants fans about Dusty Baker (an awesome COACH, but numerous times made questionable managing calls). It might have been racist had I felt the same way about his successor, Felipe Alou, who I felt was an improvement.
I leave with you a cartoon favorite of the WW2 era, though it’s obviously out of step with today’s society. I’ve heard many breast-beat about how ‘racist’ it was. Still, for bad or good, it’s a legacy of the times, and a showcase for the talents of Ruby and her daughter, Vivian, Dandridge. I don’t think I’d owe George Takei, my grandparent’s Nisei neighbors (now all deceased), or anyone of Japanese extraction any apologies for the hit men offering to rub out “Japs” for FREE, this was run some 13 months after Pearl Harbor! By viewing it, we can see starkly how things have changed in some 3/4 of a century. Of course, I’m glad that cartoon ‘blackface’ is long retired…
MH: “In a recent MHA presentation, it was noted that when the Deseret News reported President Kimball’s 1978 revelation, on the adjacent page prominently displayed was an announcement (probably recommended by Mark E. Peterson) that interracial marriage was officially discouraged as LDS Church policy. Pres. Kimball, while he thought interracial marriage was inadvisable, gave his blessing to interracial couple to marry. (Two other apostles had strongly discouraged the couple.)”
IDIAT: “”His words weren’t “terrible.” They were good advice for the time and place they were given. Statistically, interracial marriages were doomed for failure.”
So wandering from the topic of the OP somewhat. In my ward, well before 1978, as well as at the time of the change and after, there was an interracial couple members of my ward, raising their children successfully. A really lovely family. And I think, how the heck did they react to this kind of thing? I have to hope they weren’t aware of it. To my knowledge ward members never treated them with any other than love and respect.
On the OP, I do think folk are over-reacting to some of the comments. Douglas certainly has an idiosyncratic way of expressing himself, but some of his observations do have a point. Jenner has a child still a minor, albeit only just. What are we to make of the manner of the publicity etc.? How is a child to feel when a parent makes a public spectacle of themselves in whatever way, for whatever reason?
I tend to agree with Nate #26 on this one.
Some of you seem poised on a hair trigger here, making rational discussion difficult.
I even find myself, a shock I know, having some sympathy, in part, with Ken’s #22, specifically:
“We are much too worried about what does not matter” and “it is what we are neglecting when we do—the opportunity costs of focusing on sensationalism if you will.”
Though I may not agree on the how and why.
I see these issues as being personal to the individual, to live their lives as best they see fit. And not really my business. I do not like the sensationalism, hype and celebrity culture. This screams all of those at maximum volume.
#42 – I’m glad that the Church has backed off from all but banning IR marriages (“Well, if you insist…but we WARNED ya!”). Imagine being the bishop of a YSA ward, especially back East or in the South (or even the Bay Area), which might be quite racially diverse. Regardless of how I feel about marrying a non-white woman myself, I’d much rather see the youngsters first picking their dates from active, worthy members available, and definitely not marginalize ‘minority’ members in any way that would compromise their marital eligibility. Methinks the counsel at the time to ‘marry your own kind’ within the Church would have that unintended consequence.
If not discouraging dating outside one’s race produces a slew of mixed-race marriages that are nevertheless solemnized in the Temple, so be it. Mission accomplished.
#43 – Thanks. The LORD can get away with “what I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself…” (D&C 1:38). No one, knowing who He is, would heave insults or overripe fruit His way if they didn’t like what He said. I, on the other hand, present an easy target, so I ought not to complain if I look like I got run over by a produce truck.
Nate,
Duggie has a LONG history of racist, sexist, and bigoted comments. This isn’t a one-time thing. He is a troll who seems to enjoy inciting others. Brjones, on the other hand, has a history of insightful comments. His threatening violence is an aberration in otherwise good behavior. There’s a big difference here, and it makes me wonder if you have any idea who you’re defending. In short, I’d love to have lots of brjoneses comment, and no Dougs. Doug incites, and is never insightful. Brjones is usually insightful, and this is an aberration.
Tolerance is interesting. Should we as a blog tolerate pro-Nazi messages, pro-ISIS messages, anti-feminist messages? Absolutely not. I think we should be extremely intolerant of these types of messages. I do not want jihandists, racists, and sexists to feel at home at this blog. The internet is large, and they can spread their hateful messages somewhere else. Now Doug’s messages aren’t pro-Nazi or pro-ISIS, but they have often been racist, sexist, and bigoted, (perhaps in some cases unintentionally, but usually it is intentional) and this isn’t the kind of environment I want here. For you to defend Doug, to me means you just haven’t paid attention to his terrible behavior.
If you want to discuss this with me offline, please email me. It is distracting from the discussion, and I don’t want to derail the conversation beyond what Doug already has done. He has a BIG habit of trollish behavior and derailing things, and I am tired of it. It needs to stop or he can move on to another blog. I would personally encourage him to move on, because his schtick has not only worn thin with me, but some of our other readers as evidenced in this post. I will not tolerate bigotry, and make no apologies for that intolerance.
I disagree, Hedgehog.
Douglas does not have an “idiosyncratic” way of expressing himself. It appears to me he made every effort to be as RUDE as possible. Insisting on calling Caitlyn Jenner a “boy” repeatedly, which is very rude in and of itself, but then saying there is hope for that boy yet and that boy aint right in the head. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for this HATE. And assuming she is harming her children, give me a break. What do you or Douglas know about how this is affecting her children?
It’s one thing to disagree about this issue. But Douglas’ comments were intentionally rude, insensitive, and flamboyant.
IDIAT,
Interracial marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in the 1830s I believe. One of the biggest scandals in Mormonism occurred when Elder Appleby discovered a black Mormon (Enoch Lewis) with priesthood in ~1845 married to a white woman and had a baby together. Appleby wrote Brigham Young and asked if this was right. Within about a year or two, Brigham Young, who previously thought blacks with priesthood was fine, changed his mind and prevented priesthood and temple in an attempt to stamp out interracial marriage. 100 years later, even after civil rights of the 1960s, Pres Kimball endorses such thinking (even though he personally didn’t agree with the policy.)
While I greatly appreciate Kimball’s willingness to get the ban reversed, there was no need to continue Brigham Young’s thinking here. I don’t expect to change your mind, but I find both Young and Kimball’s views unenlightened when it comes to interracial marriage, although Kimball was miles ahead of Young on the issue. I will add that the RLDS church was much more enlightened on race, and had no bans on blacks or interracial marriage for the past century and a half. So I find statements defending Young and Kimball to be without merit. The RLDS Church is proof that such positions were not only tenable, but meritorious. To argue otherwise is to ignore or misunderstand history. A prophet should lead, not lead from behind.
Nate,
I find your position to be completely lacking in common sense. Regarding Caitlyn Jenner, Douglas said, “that boy ain’t right in the head,” among other offensive comments.
Then you defended Douglas and said, “If Douglas committed any error…” HUH? IF????? And then you said, “Douglas is not hateful, and such an accusation is as gross an assault on his true nature as any stones he has thrown at others.”
Sorry, pal, but calling out someone for their hateful comments is NOWHERE NEAR the same as making hateful comments. If A hurled a racist remark at B, and then C called A out for his hateful comment, according to your logic, A and C were equally in the wrong. THAT IS PURE NONSENSE. I don’t see why so many people are having trouble calling a spade a spade here. And I do not appreciate being labeled equally in the wrong as Douglas for calling him out on his HATEFUL speech.
#44, Douglas,
Now, you are playing the victim?!?!?!?!?!?
PLEASE GIVE US A BREAK!
Oh, and whoever moderates, thanks for posting the “Coal Black” cartoon. I really didn’t expect it, but for something digestible in this forum as an example of changing societal attitudes on race, I thought it’d be the best fit. I suppose I could have posted D.W. Griffith’s ‘Birth of a Nation’, but at over three hours, it’s WAAAAAAYYY too long, and being from 1915 (coinciding with the resurgence of the KKK, many say not a coincidence at all), it translates even less well into our time (in some way, thank “Gawd”!)
‘Birth of a Nation’ is on YouTube if you’re interested. Me, I rarely have three hours to kill…the J.O.B., my Church callings, and most important, my one remaining minor child (she’s 14), my grown kids, my grandchildren, and, of course, my beloved Snips, all ensure I have precious little time for diversions.
1. I don’t think Douglas or brjones should be banned.
2. I didn’t actually think brjones truly intended to commit violence. I just wanted to point out how awful and spooky his/her statement was. I was surprised that no one called brjones out. Even more surprised that people actually ‘liked’ the comment.
3. Douglas did not say anything hateful. His comments don’t convey any sense of hate. His biggest crime I think is having politically incorrect ideas. Also I noticed that no tried to reasonably dispute his ideas—they just started calling him names and shouting him down. So, why resort to these tactics?
Nate,
Calling an adult a “boy” is insulting. Calling an adult who identifies as a woman a “boy” who “aint right in the head” certainly is hateful. I never resorted to name calling. I correctly labeled what Douglas was saying as insensitive and offensive. Whether or not it fits your definition of “hateful” is irrelevant. If you don’t agree that Douglas’ comments were offensive and insulting, that’s fine, but you’re wrong.
Brjones’ comment is irrelevant. I can’t call out Douglas unless I also call out brjones? Sorry, I don’t have time to call out every comment I don’t like. Should the cops let criminals go free because someone out there committed the same crime and wasn’t caught? No. And like MH made perfectly clear, each of them has a history.
For what it’s worth, Nate, I was also surprised that no one called me out for that. I think the comment I made toward Douglas was unquestionably a line crossed, and I obviously thought so when I made it. That said, I don’t regret it at all. I think Douglas’s attitudes are reprehensible, and if I were discussing these things with him face to face, I would tell him exactly what I thought of them and him (although I would in all likelihood not resort to violence). Speaking theoretically (as applying it to my own behavior would be self-serving and unobjective), I agree with MH and Dexter on the issue of hate speech and people’s reaction to it. I have no issue being judged harshly or dismissed for my reaction to Douglas, but I do not think the two comments are equivalent. I’m even ok with someone thinking a threat of violence is worse, but I think it must be conceded that they’re fundamentally different things. Similarly, if someone saw a person beating a child in public and proceeded to beat the abuser up, who would reasonably say that the two beatings were substantively equivalent? Better or worse, they’re different.
brjones–
To me it doesn’t matter if you crossed a line, or broke a blog rule. The reason I chimed in was b/c the belief that someone expressing an opinion you don’t like deserves to be physically injured and forcibly stopped is one of the most evil ideas out there. To me, it doesn’t matter how offensive the opinion is.
It’s sickening how much harm this evil idea has done, and continues to do, in the world. It’s an arrogant and vile idea. It’s indefensible. And I didn’t want it to go unchallenged. Especially since I saw several people ‘liked’ your comment. That is why I commented on it.
And I hope you rethink and abandon this awful idea.
Right now I’d like to call a ‘halt’ to this tempest in a teapot and appreciate ALL opinions, even those that I objected to. I just learned of what happened in South Caroline yesterday about three hours ago doing ‘cardio’ at the gym. As Ken previously mentioned for a different reason, this sort of frivolity diverts us from what’s really important. This tragedy felt like a gut punch, especially as I saw the faces of the victims, and it got to me.
I was able to quick Google and through TIME magazine there is a fund already set up for the victims. There undoubtedly will be parallel efforts. The standard disclaimer to beware of posers and scammers applies. Let each of us find a way to put money where our ‘mouths’ are…I can live w/o Siriux XM another month.
I’ll ask those that can do the OP to somehow either do a tribute or a call for reconciliation or something like that. I like what one woman being interview by Geraldo Rivera said: (I’m not sure I’m quoting accurately, so bear with me)…”this cretin thought that he’d divide us all like some modern-day ‘Helter-Skelter’ (Manson’s plan for inciting a race war by carrying out the Tate-LaBianca murders back in ’69), but instead he brought us together.” If that sort of effort is to be made at all, I have neither the privileges or the talent to pull it off.
If any posts seem somber or kinda ‘downer’, it’s because I don’t feel jovial and probably won’t for some time. Like many that I’ve seen interviewed, I feel hurt and saddened for the victims and their families, and want answers and JUSTICE. Especially for Pastor Pickney, his legislative colleague that was interviewed on Fox gave tribute to this great man.
Nate, I’m extremely confused by your logic on this issue. I don’t want to prevent Douglas or anyone else from holding or expressing any ideas he holds. That said, our actions have consequences. If I went into a crowd of African americans and shouted racial slurs, I would expect and, in my opinion, deserve the violence that would surely ensue. That has nothing whatever to do with censorship. I should be free to express my opinions, but I cannot make demands about how those opinions will be received. You’re advocating a position, at least indirectly, that anyone should be able to hold any opinion without consequence. And furthermore, you seem to be advocating the position that every opinion or position is equally as good as any other position. Talk about insidious beliefs. That’s a ridiculous notion. I have to assume that you think the boycotts against businesses of Mormons who contributed to Prop 8 in California amounts to censorship, when in reality it’s simply the give and take of an open marketplace of ideas and opinions. Douglas should be free to think and say whatever he wants. I will fight to the death to defend his right to do so. That does not mean I must respect or value his opinions as equally valid as those with which I agree, or even at all. And obviously I don’t. I think his opinions on this issue are less than worthless. If you think that amounts to forcibly stopping someone from believing or expressing what they want, then you’re simply confused about the meaning of censorship.
And just as a point of clarification, I didn’t threaten violence against Douglas to stop him from believing what he believes. I did it because I believe it is a just and appropriate reaction to his behavior. If you don’t like the idea of threatened violence (which was, I repeat, hyperbole), then your issue may be with that aspect of what I said. Otherwise, I think your complaints are utterly misplaced and misguided.
The website for the charity FUND for the families of the victims isn’t itself up yet, but this was on TIME’s site:
“The website for contributions to this fund is expected to be functioning by noon on Friday. Those wishing to contribute will also be able to do so at any Wells Fargo branch by specifying that they’d like to donate to the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund.”
I support Douglas’ declaration of a cease-fire, and to my astonishment agree with him concerning the tragic news in South Carolina today.
(Just FYI brjones, I wouldn’t engage either Nate or Douglas anymore. I thought an email exchange with Nate would clear the air. It did, but in the exact opposite way I expected. Nate’s reasoning skills are abnormal to put it extremely charitably, and any conversation with him is going to be fruitless. To quote Douglas above, Nate “ain’t right in the head”.)
This conversation should end now. There will be no meeting of the minds. The gulf is as wide as the solar system. Rather than attempting to build a bridge, you’re going to need a space ship.
I’m ok with that, and I think I owe Douglas an apology for calling him a terrible person. As strongly as I disagree with his positions on this and other issues, I don’t know him well enough to make a judgment like that or to express it to him in this venue. So, I apologize, Douglas. Until next time…
Apology…accepted (and not like Lord Vader).
Heretic, any thoughts on how to OP for those folks in SC? It’s been a real bummer ever since I found out about 1830 hours PDT. This seems to be a case where D&C 58:26 can be put into action, but all I know to do is pony up cash, what little to spare that I’ve got. It’s truly a small world, and some of the victim’s were “friends of friends” etc…
brjones
#56 is just a long, winding straw man. You are attacking views I don’t have and never expressed.
You say you don’t want to prevent anyone from expressing their opinion, but also that you will beat them up for expressing certain opinions.
Don’t you see that beating someone up does forcibly stop them from expressing their opinion? And deters them from doing so in the future?
Why do you think it’s okay to use violence in response to words? How do you justify it? In your examples, you say they deserve it. Is it a punishment? What is the reason for it?
Yes, Nate, it’s a punishment. If you think that no expressed opinion could ever rise to the level of deserving action in response to it, then I guess there’s nothing else to talk about. If you concede that there’s EVER, ANYTHING, ANY PERSON could EVER say that might justifiably be met with a physical response, then we’re not really in disagreement on philosophy, we’re just arguing about where to draw the line. If you think words can never rise to that level, then I’d suggest that may be the most unfortunate thing I’ve heard in this entire discussion.
More to your specific questions, Nate, I agree that using physical violence in response to expressed opinions I’d likely to have a chilling effect on future expression of certain opinions, and could accurately be described as a type of constructive censorship. That is not my motivation, however. I felt like Douglas’s comments were deliberately derisive and hurtful, and if I witnessed someone attempting to intentionally harm another person in that way, I would feel that harming that person I’d justified. Not to get him to stop feeling that way, but as a consequence of his harmful and, in my opinion, unacceptable behavior. I’m ok if you disagree with that position. I do feel confident I could come up with a scenario in which you would feel that physical action of some sort was justified in response to the expression of a verbal opinion. We just likely have different standards for what qualifies.
I thought we called a cease fire.
So did I, and its hilarious to me that brjones is the only one who has apologized. [staring at Nate and Douglas].
MH–Well, interestingly, you called for a ceasefire and then immediately launched into a series of personal attacks on me (#59). So I concluded your ceasefire was phony and ignored it.
Dexter–To whom and for what did you want me to apologize?
The record is clear. Give me a break, Nate.
Douglas said very rude stuff, and you accused my calling him out as just as bad, or even worse, WHICH IS RIDICULOUS. SO YOU SHOULD APOLGIZE TO ME.
I actually didn’t do that Dexter. Maybe you you have me mixed up with the other nate that commented on this thread?
There’s 2 Nates? The one with the sunglasses picture.
brjones—
Yes, we are arguing about where to draw the line. But we don’t need a hypothetical example b/c you already gave us two.
And in those two scenarios which you gave, tell me why you reject a nonviolent solution. Why not engage in conversation? I think if someone is hurt by words, you can step in and protect them with words. And if you want to fight an idea, you can fight it with words.
Many, many people have insulted me and thrown hurtful words my way. But I would never wish physical harm on them for it. And if someone insulted me and you beat them up for it, I would horrified. Probably more people feel this way than you think.
What if the person who you think Douglas’ words are hurting isn’t as fragile as you assume? What if douglas’ words don’t hurt them? What if it gives them an opportunity to engage Douglas in a positive way?
Same with your example of the person yelling racist slurs. Why not talk to them?