Early Thursday morning, a link began circulating on social media which led to a realistic-looking Mormon Newsroom page, “President Nelson Meets With NAACP: Offers Apology for History of Racism.” For a Church that supposedly offers no apologies, the admission was shocking, and the link spread like wildfire.
The link is ostensibly from a site called Mormon-Newsroom.org, a close copy of the real MormonNewsroom.org URL. It proclaims itself in the footer as “the official pasquinade newsroom of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” (sharp-eyed folks noted the misspelling of Latter-day Saints). For those unfamiliar with the word, pasquinade means “a satire or lampoon, especially on posted in a public place.”
The 2400+ word statement includes scriptures and quotes from previous Church leaders. A link is provided to an associated false First Presidency letter, complete with letterhead and signatures. The “official statement” goes beyond the disavowals of racist teachings that we find in the “Race and the Priesthood” Gospel Topics essay. The wording attributed to President Nelson is emphatic,
We have previously acknowledged that the false and racist explanations for the Priesthood and Temple restriction were wrong and disavowed them. Today, I am declaring that the ban itself was wrong. It was not of God but of fallible men, born of ignorance, pride and sin….
On behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its current and past leaders and members, I offer this humble apology and plead for forgiveness in the merciful name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
An additional announcement in the release is the establishment of a “Scriptural Review Committee on Race” to review existing LDS scriptural canon and “identify those faults of men around racism which have been left uncorrected.” The committee would then make recommendations on how to resolve these embedded philosophies, and Church leaders would decide what adjustments should be made and later present them to the membership for a sustaining vote in the April 2019 general conference.
The “official” statement includes a reminder of the upcoming “Be One” conference in a few weeks. Links to the previously mentioned false First Presidency letter and the “Race and the Priesthood” Gospel Topics essay are at the bottom of the page. As a bonus, the hoaxer includes as the “next” post a legitimate newsroom piece from last March on a million-dollar donation by LDS Charities towards the “mega-crisis” in the Democratic Republic in Congo where “[n]early 8 million people in the DRC struggle to find food amidst warring factions.”
The posting was timed perfectly. It was widely known that Church leaders would meet with the national leaders of the NAACP on Thursday morning. The Church itself was publicizing a joint statement to be made by the First Presidency and the NAACP at 9:15am MDT. But when the broadcast aired, anyone who still hadn’t picked up that the statement and letter were hoaxes would’ve recognized that the ideas expressed in the fake press release were not matching President Nelson’s statements.
Church members are becoming accustomed to ground-breaking changes from this new president. In the few months of Nelson’s presidency, priesthood quorums have been restructured, the decades-old home teaching and visiting teachings programs have been replaced, and the Church announced a planned withdrawal from their century-old relationship with Scouting in association with a worldwide initiative to overhaul programs for older Primary children and youth. Perhaps this increased tolerance for what Elder Jeffrey R. Holland termed the “rush of revelation” made the wildly ambitious claims more believable to some.
For those individuals who were momentarily duped, they can count themselves in good company. Even a Salt Lake-based television station was fooled and published an article on the fake announcement (it was quickly pulled).
Given the tumultuous history with the LDS Church and race, especially against black members (men and women) affected by the temple and priesthood ban, this hoax seems particularly cruel. However, the fact that many Mormons all across the faith spectrum jumped on believing these ambitious claims seems important and worthy of discussion.
Questions:
- Did you see this link shared in your social media circles? Did you fall for it? (I did.)
- What did you think about the content of the statement?
- Why do you think members were willing to believe it?
- Did you listen to the real statements by President Nelson and Derrick Johnson (president and CEO of the NAACP) in the brief broadcast? Thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
I’m grateful that I saw posts by good people decrying this awful hoax before I saw the hoax itself.
Oops, hit submit too soon. Scuttlebutt going around is that this may have been a well-intentioned effort to draw attention to the long-unsettled issue of racism in the Church, but it just seems cruel. It was very well-crafted which is why it fooled so many people. I didn’t read the actual hoax content closely, but I found it mildly convincing until I got to the part where it proposed modifying scripture. I wouldn’t believe any statement like that until after I saw a half dozen live press conferences saying the same thing.
I will admit to earlier posting a snarky comment on the Deseret News article about the real NAACP/LDS meeting, which promptly got a “Why won’t you let this issue die?” response that justified my comment.
A Salt Lake Tribune article from 2 hours ago was just pointed out to me. Covers the same ground, but you get some additional social media commentary. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/05/17/no-the-mormon-church-did-not-apologize-for-having-a-history-of-racism/
The only cruelty here is that the fake news calls attention to church leaders’ callousness by demonstrating how they should be acting. In other words, it opens eyes. I’m not sure I can fault the fake news site for that.
I’m sure there are long-term consequences that are actually undesirable, though I don’t know what they might be.
My heart aches for our brothers and sisters of color in the LDS faith, but I’m finding that it aches most because the hoax is exactly what should have happened in real life. It is truly cruel that it raised and dashed so many hopes, but I’m worried that we (the members) will criticize the hoaxers for pointing it out more than the church for not apologizing in the first place.
But the hoax could have pointed things out less painfully if it were crafted in a way that showed its satire more clearly.
The hoaxer has been outed and admitted to why he did it. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/05/17/no-the-mormon-church-did-not-apologize-for-having-a-history-of-racism/
What did you think about the content of the statement? Generally appropriate, but a bit over-the-top repetitive. Some suspicious style issues. Surprising and unlikely that any such scripture committee would be headed by the President of the Genesis Group rather than an apostle assigned to the Correlation Committee.
Why do you think [some] members were willing to believe it? Wishful thinking. Amazed and pleased that certain members of the FP could do something contrary to their prior statements and inclinations. Anticipating long-term broader consequences. Knowing that teachings of the Church and even scriptures (BoM and D&C) have been changed in the past.
Did you listen to the real statements by President Nelson and Derrick Johnson (president and CEO of the NAACP) in the brief broadcast? No. Not going to.
Answers to your questions:
1) No, I was totally late to the party and offline most of the day.
2) The fake apology was like manna from heaven.
3) Two reasons: Nelson is demonstrating an active presidency (a huge change after Monson’s declining years), and mostly because it was so healing to finally hear an acknowledgement of the racism baked into our history and even our present without these right-wing non-apology/all lives matter BS statements.
4) Not yet listened–just read the real statement, but it’s very disappointing that by contrast what we really said is just not that good. It’s more of the “Hey, don’t be racists. Oh, and don’t think we’re bigots.” It feels like we are in complete denial.
I saw and and fell for it, I think because I am desperate for my church to take a substantial moral step in the right direction and give me a reason to continue associating with it. Until I realized it was a satirical hoax, it had me seriously thinking about engaging with the church more than I have been planning with hope more progress would be coming. As Elizabeth St. Dunstan said – it was exactly what I would want to occur. I was shocked they would go this far and I was ready to celebrate. As bad as this feels for a balding, pudgy, old white guy – my heart aches for how this affects those of color.
Just heard it here.
I’m still falling for it. What if it is true?
Read the Tribune article posted above
Most satirical news sites like The Onion thrive on made up stories about things that would be ridiculous if they were real, but are too close to being true. The fake apology satire draws from that fact that it’s ridiculous that it hasn’t happened already, but is too far from truth.
I saw the story this morning but I didn’t have a chance to fall for it because it was identified as fake by the first post I saw.
1. Missed it. But it does explain a vanishing blog post title over on Mormon Archipelago… gone before I had a chance to read the post.
2. If only.
3. Because it’s needed.
4. No. I read the summary, and…. I don’t have the stomach for it given what could have been.
Too bad it was only satire and not true. Maybe Nelson and Oaks should think about walking back the “church doesn’t apologize” stance? It is a church we are talking about here and apologies seem to be what a church should be for and not against.
Mormon Heretic
We have been taught since we were children that you cannot believe anything the SL tribune prints. It is an anti-Mormon rag. My brother who lives out there won’t even allow it in his house. We must stick to the Deseret News. The article about President Nelson meeting with the NAACP does not mention a hoax so it must not be a hoax. None of his comments are inconsistent with the material in the so called hoax. I think it is plausible that President Nelson could have made the apology based on the Deseret News article.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900018840/lds-church-naacp-jointly-call-for-racial-harmony-end-to-prejudice.html
If 100,000 active Mormons know Joseph Smith was a monogamist then it is easily more plausible that there never was this hoax.
What hoax ? It never happened.
(P.S. There is also the other little matter that I have been kicked off the SL Trib web site so I can’t just go and read their articles any more.)
No Hoax Mike, no worries. You have other news outlets covering the hoax now.
KUTV: http://kutv.com/news/local/fake-version-of-lds-website-fools-readers-and-media-with-fake-apology
FOX 13: http://fox13now.com/2018/05/17/man-behind-fake-apology-for-lds-churchs-history-of-racism-says-he-wanted-to-start-a-discussion/
Jana Reiss/RNS: https://religionnews.com/2018/05/17/fake-mormon-news-story-goes-viral-claiming-the-lds-church-has-apologized-for-racism/
The fake news ruined my day yesterday. I initially saw it as thoroughly justified and experienced righteous indignation. As the day wore on, my mood got progressively worse, and my anger didn’t let up. I eventually figured out that the hoax had dug at a really sore spot.
As a lazy, offended, sinful, deceived, forgetful, slander-of-the-day apostate, I’m *currently* publicly derogated by church leaders and devalued by most believing members. I’m also owed an apology for the church’s bullying and abuse, but it’s even further behind on mine. Leaders have to recognize the institutional sin before beginning to repent of it. The hoax drove home just how far they have to go to eradicate the collective narcissism that drives their inability to admit weakness and wrongdoing, and renewed my fear that the church will turn my children against me to save them from my darkened, terrestrial fate.
So I’m updating my characterization of the hoax to “brilliant and painful,” and withholding moral judgment for now.
I’m not arguing with any who felt the hoax was “cruel” – I’ve not been in their shoes so I am not qualified. However, I wonder WHY it feels cruel. Is it because it’s what they wished would have happened, and were hurt and disappointed because it drew attention to the reality that actual church leaders won’t actually say such words?
I would be fascinated to see survey data that reflects how members felt about the “press release” before and after learning it was a hoax:
Were you happy about the press release when you thought it was real? Why or why not?
Did you initially feel the church was doing the right thing by making the announcement?
When you discovered it was a hoax, were you more upset that the church did not actually make that announcement, or that someone was trying to embarrass the church?
This may be an early indicator of the difficulty ahead in pulling off a 40th anniversary “celebration” and persuading anyone other than the most faithful members that the ban was all about ‘just doing what God was telling us to do’.
“I would be fascinated to see survey data that reflects how members felt about the “press release” before and after learning it was a hoax:”
That’s hard for me. I heard it was a hoax before I knew anything.
AlwaysWorthy, “Is it because it’s what they wished would have happened, and were hurt and disappointed because it drew attention to the reality that actual church leaders won’t actually say such words?” That’s part of it. The other part is that IT WAS CRUEL. PERIOD.
Imagine you have a difficult relationship with a parent. You have a strong belief that the parent loves you, but man they were dysfunctional and abusive in the parenting department and you have some scars. At the same time, you are trying hard to love that parent now and be forgiving, hoping that relationship will continue to improve in the future.
You have a sibling who is estranged from that parent. They know what that parent did to you. They know the scars. They know that you have been trying hard to make that relationship work. As a JOKE, they write a letter. They send it to you, making you think that it’s from that parent. The letter says everything you were ever hoping to hear from that parent – I love you, I was wrong, I’m going to work hard to make this up to you. You get the letter and are overcome with emotion and call friends to rejoice. Then a friend gently points out to you that it was from your sibling, not the parent.
So, does it hurt because that letter brought up the fact that your parent hasn’t done what they should? Yes. But given that your sibling is in a unique position to know your scars and how badly you would want this, do you have a right to be angry at that sibling for pulling the prank? Absolutely. That sibling is a jerk, no matter how noble he views his intentions.
We always want to kill the messenger. In this case, the church blamed god for generations for its racist policies and still hasn’t come to grips with the racism that is part of its supposedly god-inspired scriptures. It doesn’t ask for apologies and certainly doesn’t give them at this point. This tells me that the church still wants to imply that god was somehow behind all of this and that we just need to obey. One may not like to hear reality but maybe one needs to in order to deal with it properly. Wanting to kill the messenger isn’t the right move when the church is clearly responsible for perpetuating this nonsense. An apology should happen and the scriptures should be changed.
Mary Ann, I think your analogy is spot-on. I was trying to come up with one along the same lines.
I think it’s likely that Streeter is more than merely estranged, though. Speaking from personal experience, if you leave the church, it ignores your humanity and dignity, and if your family is still in, thereby repeatedly hurts you in and endless cycle of judgment, devaluation and rejection.
It seems to me more like a currently abused kid reminding all the kids – most of whom deceive themselves into thinking that the father can essentially do no wrong – that the father still hasn’t apologized to the kids he has *obviously* hurt. I don’t know what that does to the calculus of cruelty.
Thanks Mary Ann for the Letter story. I knew the article was in bad taste but I was having a hard time bridging the gap where it was cruel until I read you analogy and then everything became crystal clear.
The problem is the hoax sounded better than the actual statement. Which seems to make some people upset with the hoaxster! They ought to be upset with the Church and its still lame position (God made us do it) but that would be too much to ask, it seems. Kind of like if you are unhappy with the boss at work — but you can’t yell at the boss so instead you come home and kick the dog.
If this was a big mess, imagine what the actual “celebration” is going to be in a month, given that LDS leaders still cannot bring themselves to give a clear, coherent, historically accurate explanation of those events. They should defer the “celebration” until they can get their story straight. Repeating uncredible claims (“we just don’t understand where the Ban came from, but we’re really happy God finally gave us permission to end it”) won’t make anyone happy.
Now that I have experienced my faith crisis of the hoax and lost my testimony of it, I think it was sort of funny.
I agree with AlwaysUnworthy: “Is it because it’s what they wished would have happened, and were hurt and disappointed because it drew attention to the reality that actual church leaders won’t actually say such words?”
However, I just don’t see the cruelty. No blood no foul. I tell you what is cruel. I live in a stake in a metro city with about 2 million black people, second largest in the US after NYC. We convert a few of them. One ward is over 50% black and a couple others are over 10% including mine. We set every one of these black converts up for a faith crisis on race. We pretend and lie by silence. But we eventually can’t hide it. It is a crisis that is rarely weathered. The hoaxer is not responsible for this, the leaders of the church are responsible. Put the saddle on the right horse, this hoaxer is not even a tapir.
It brings joy to my heart to hear that so many people did believe the hoax. At the ward level most people seem to be trying to do the right thing and have remorse for what we did and didn’t do. Many people want to finally come clean so that we can say in 20 years that in 2018 we gave a complete and total apology and a have a squeaky clean record on this issue and done everything we can since then to treat black people well. It could have been since 1978, but we can’t pretend that unless we join the ranks of the hoaxers ourselves..
Mary Ann, I disagree with your implied intent of the writer of the hoax. It was not like a sibling who merely knows about the other sibling’s abuse, and writes a letter saying everything the abusive parent should say. To me it feels much more like it comes from a child who was also abused and is dreaming of what they would like to hear. They write down this wish, and their sibling finds it and takes it as actually from the parent.
I can see no intent to hurt our church siblings, only point out what the church really should be saying to all of us. I do have some experience with this as an abused child. Part of what I did for my own mental health was to write down the things I needed my sexually abusive father to say to me and clarify what I wanted, so that I could begin to accept that I was never going to get it. If it was just a vague hope of an apology, then the longing never really goes away. But there in black and white, I could see just how unrealistic my hopes were from my sociopath of a father. Then I could let go of that vague, unrealistic hope.
So, friends and fellow abused siblings, a member of the first presidency has said that the church does not apologize. For our own mental health, let’s start believing Elder Oaks that we are never, never going to hear the apology we need from the church. Let’s stop being unrealistic is wishing the church was something it is not.
Mary Ann, I think the issue is how to effectuate change in a top-down organization? The hoax was as good a way as any. It didn’t really hurt anybody, and it brought the issue to the attention of the GA’s.
It took the Church ten years to correct the problem (civil right’s movement until 1978). Then 35 years to address the issue on Gospel Topics, and they still haven’t satisfactorily dealt with the origins of our racism. Many members still are throwing God under the bus. Things are still screwed up. And we “don’t apologize.”
I missed the initial hoax, and was first online when it was being widely warned against. If I had seen it earlier I would’ve fallen for it and been delighted. But learning it was created by a white guy to embarrass the church, I was disappointed, and further learned that it was traumatizing to Black members.
I haven’t read all the comments, just skimmed through looking for this. I can’t copy the link to the specific Facebook post on my phone, but I can link the page for Sistas in Zion here, in an effort to amplify the actual lived experience of Black Mormons regarding this hoax. For those of you with Facebook accounts and an interest in learning about this, it should be the first or second post on their page. It has a longish video, about the length of sacrament meeting, which has been edited and transcribed. Someone with a computer could do a better job than me of including the voices of Black members in this conversation. Nobody can speak for them better than they do themselves.
https://www.facebook.com/sistasinzion/
Rogerdhansen, the hoax DID hurt people. If you still don’t get why, I highly recommend you watch some of the videos on that Sistas in Zion Facebook page that MDearest referred to. Here’s a more direct link to one of those videos made by someone who was personally hurt by the hoax, Zandra Vraynes:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156816607512971&id=149782452970
Short-term people may be hurt, but long-term the hoax may produce benefits. There are few avenues to encourage change in the Church. Members have to use the routes available.
That Black members are hurt indicates the church has a huge problem that continues to fester. Maybe the hoax will encourage change.
roderdhansen, I have to agree with you that this is one of the many sorts of damage that can and will occur because the leadership has so thoroughly insulated themselves from the thoughts and needs and wishes of the membership.
If I could give you ten thumbs up you’d deserve every one and more!
Roger D Hansen:
Throw God under the bus, or throw President McKay under the bus; take your pick:
“I remember one day that President McKay came into the office. We could see that he was very much distressed. He said, ‘I’ve had it! I’m not going to do it again!’ Somebody said, ‘What?’ He said, ‘Well, I’m badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro. I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone.’” (_David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism_, p. 104.)
Interesting that people here have totally reject that God is the one who started and ended the racial priesthood ban. Its like you don’t believe in revelation and prophets or something. No one here seems to understand that an apology like what this hoax presented is a direct attack on God and His prophet’s authority. How DARE anyone assume that God or his servants have something to apologize for. It is a false understanding that God cannot or would not have race based policies when the Scriptures from the both the Old and the New Testament are filled with ancestral judgments. People need to stop putting modern political morals into God’s mouth and expectations. Isn’t there a warning about making God into our own image? Conservatives have a problem with it too, but Liberals thrive on this abusive interpretive framework of History, Scriptures, and Belief to the point of rejecting the words of Prophets who they stone in their minds.
Thanks MaryAnn both for this recap and for your letter analogy in the comments. I was, as a white man, struggling to understand why people were angry at the hoaxer. The analogy helped me understand. That said, I do think there are key differences between the letter analogy and the hoax. In the letter analogy, the mean-spirited sibling fakes a letter and sends it directly to their sibling, in an attempt to hurt. The letter was written with the intent to harm the sibling. In contrast, the hoax was not sent directly to black members of the church. Also, I don’t think the intent of the hoax was to cause hurt among black members; I think the exmormon author’s intended target was Church leadership. (Note: I’m not saying members weren’t hurt; I’m just saying that unlike the letter analogy, in the hoax, members were likely not the intended target.)
For my part, I hope the hoaxer apologizes for any hurt he has caused even if by accident. That would be a perfect way to end the hoax AND show church leaders that apologizing is a sign of strength, not weakness.
I hope future readers note the different viewpoints on the origin of the ban. At this point (May 2018), there is still significant disagreement among members about whether or not the priesthood ban was inspired. Godisgreat’s comments are not unusual in my circles. In spite of a special 2013 Gospel Topics essay “Race and the Priesthood” disavowing racist justifications for the priesthood ban and condemnation for racism in general, Andrew S insightfully pointed out that the essay never answers the question of whether or not God was behind the priesthood ban: “If you read closely, the church never disavows the priesthood ban itself. The church never calls the ban itself to be racist. There are enough dots to allow people to connect them that way, but there are also enough dots to allow for people to believe the ban was inspired (and therefore presumably not racist).” (See Andrew’s post for more info: https://wheatandtares.org/2017/08/14/rorschach-revelations-race-in-mormonism/ )
As late as summer 2016, a NEW seminary curriculum manual had the priesthood ban listed as a policy directed by the Lord. Concerns were raised and that section was removed. Clearly, we still have some in leadership who are of the opinion that the ban was inspired, and, clearly, there are others who are not as comfortable with such a public declaration. (See this post for more info: https://wheatandtares.org/2016/09/02/doctrinal-mastery-changes-to-the-prophets-and-revelation-section/ )
Members who defend the ban as inspired point to the experience of David O. McKay as noted above by Nathan Whilk. If McKay was expressly told no by God, then obviously God has his reasons for the ban to stay in place, right? If it took a revelation in 1978 to end the ban, then obviously God had full control over stopping it, right? It doesn’t matter that there is no known revelation to explain the beginning of the ban. It doesn’t matter that we know exactly what Brigham Young was thinking when he determined the ban was necessary (in spite of several men of African descent having been ordained to priesthood offices in the 1830s and 1840s). In January and February of 1852, Brigham announced the ban would be put in place because those of African descent were under the curse of Cain, a belief that the Church now explicitly disavows in the 2013 essay. The Church loves to quote that February 5th address by Brigham, because he says those of African descent will eventually get the priesthood. What Brigham actually said was all those descendants of Cain wouldn’t obtain the priesthood until the “redemption of earth,” because all the posterity of Abel needed to get the blessings of the priesthood first (the redemption of the earth was in 1978, I guess). (See links in footnote 9 in the Race and Priesthood essay: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng and this post at BCC: https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/05/09/no-known-records-exist-the-fallacy-of-racial-restriction-origins/ )
It doesn’t matter that we can’t find evidence of revelation guiding the beginning of the ban. The revelation governing the *lifting* of the ban is good enough for many members to see it as obviously inspired, but it’s not enough for all members to be convinced God intended the ban in the first place.
The false apology was welcomed by many members who already believed that the temple and priesthood ban was NOT inspired. It was confirmation of long-held beliefs that the ban was born of racist 19th-century theology (the 2013 essay goes into quite a bit of detail about the racial climate the Church was born into, after all). As Zandra Vraynes said in her video, there’s no way she can possibly be in the Church if she was required to believe the ban was inspired. If the Church tries to push that, she said, it will break people.
So the Church avoids the issue and thereby forces members to remain in limbo. No debates on the issue can be firmly won or lost, because both sides appear to have institutional support. That apology felt like much-needed closure to the question. I’m just not sure Church leaders ever want to provide that type of closure.
Well written Mary Ann, thx.
Mary Ann – Thank you for the analogy. It helps my understanding. I’m learning that of the countless things to be justifiably upset about, there are some that I’m not upset about because I don’t have the knowledge, perspective or experience to “get it”. I’m working on it.
Am I off-track to reformulate your analogy like this: the estranged sibling – knowing that others were aware of the abuse and had been abused in other ways by the same unrepentant parent – posted a fake apology publicly on the parent’s Facebook page, hoping to draw attention to the parent’s behavior? I have not gotten the impression that Mr Streeter carried out the hoax to hurt the people who are owed an apology, although it clearly had that effect. Respectfully, I also don’t know how well “cruel” fits here. I understand cruelty to be associated with intent to harm or gross disregard for those who are harmed. There are probably words that describe the harmful impact that don’t imply that the author of the hoax had cruel intentions or gross indifference to those hurt. I could be wrong, but Mr Streeter did not appear to be targeting those who were hurt, and did not seem to have cruel intentions towards them. He may even have felt that what he was doing would help them. I have not read his recent apology. On the other hand, I think “indifference or disregard for the pain of those who suffer due to the lack of an apology and corrective actions” could apply to the church. I hope my comments are not seen as downplaying the suffering of any who have been hurt, that’s not my intent. I’m just seeking more understanding.
Former brown skinned TBM here. I loved the hoax apology. It said every single thing that should be said. I’ve read it half a dozen times or more and printed it out for safe keeping. The church can’t and won’t apologize for the hurt they caused my young teenage self but Streeter has apologized completely for and in behalf of the church that is unable. I’ll take what I can get.
AlwaysWorthy, so when Streeter was describing his “social experiment,” he said he wanted people to feel happy and joyful when they thought it was real and then he wanted people to feel depressed to find it fake. He wanted people to look at the difference in how they *felt.* So there was emotional manipulation going on – this is not a matter of just intellectual awareness. So, who do you think would be the *most* emotionally invested in an apology for racism, with the temple and priesthood ban getting special mention? The higher the emotional investment in this issue, the more extreme the highs and lows would be if you fell for the hoax.
So anyone who defends this as just getting people “aware” of the problem is missing that he was doing serious emotional manipulation – that was, in fact, the point. Look, I got suckered in. I felt the embarrassment of falling for a hoax. More importantly, I felt an emotional high when I thought it was real, followed by the crash when I realized it was fake. I’m still grappling with those emotions a week later, and I’m white. When a lot of black Mormons say they were traumatized by this, I know that they are very much NOT exaggerating. Purposefully doing emotional manipulation of that magnitude is cruel.
I am NOT excusing the Church on this. They are plenty guilty of emotional manipulation. They bear huge responsibility of traumatizing black Mormons in the first place. But if you think that somehow means people should not be incredibly angry at Streeter, then you’re wrong. This is not an either/or situation.
Mary Ann, thankyou for the much needed light you have brought to this conversation. GOG, I think you miss the issue, both in medium and message. All God’s children got travelling shoes, and the right to be dealt with respectfully and with love. I’m assuming that those with your views claim to be part of God’s family, but seem to have a problem seeing others as equally human. Whatever God’s law is, I assume the intent to be enacted love.
“Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the Priesthood, and if no other prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ.”
— Wilford Woodruff, January 1852 journal entry.
“That slavery will continue, until there is a people raised up upon the face of the earth who will contend for righteous principles, who will not only believe in but operate, with every power and faculty given to them to help to establish the kingdom of God, to overcome the devil, and drive him from the earth, then will this curse be removed. . .
“. . . If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the residue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the priesthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from Michal’s seed. Then Cain’s seed will be had in remembrance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off.
Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of priesthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one partical of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more. In the kingdom of God on the earth the Affricans cannot hold one partical of power in Government. The the subjects, the rightful servants of the resedue of the children of Adam, and the resedue of the children through the benign influence of the Spirit of the Lord have the privilege of seeing to the posterity of Cain; inasmuch as it is the Lords will they should receive the spirit of God by Baptism; and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power.”
— Speech by Gov. Young in Joint Session of the Legislature. Feb. 5th 1852 giving his views on slavery.
It seems there are a few things going on here. First, it isn’t clear how literal Brigham Young is in associating Blacks with the seed of Cain. He wasn’t always fond of literal interpretations (See for instance, remarks about Creation). He could be comparing the situation of Blacks with the seed of Cain and coming to the conclusion they are (at least by condition) one and the same. Not neccesarily literal blood relatives of Cain, but certainly spiritual relatives. In fact he claims the Priesthood ban of the blacks will be lifted once slavery is abolished and those who ” help to establish the kingdom of God” drive out the devil (assuming this to mean the practice of slavery). Still, it is clear Brigham Young sees the ban as a revelation to him as a Prophet and Apostle with authority to do so in the name of Jesus Christ. This is not a simple statement of personal opinion as he, and apparently other Prophets after him, saw it as a divine instruction. In other words, there is enough evidence to indicate that it originated with Brigham Young first and foremost, but also that it had the (by him as an authorized leader of Christ’s Church) stamp of Divine Approval or Request. It came by revelation by the witness of a Prophet and therefore required a revelation by the witness of another Prophet. An “apology” is a rejection of both recorded history and doctrine of Priesthood Authority.
“First, it isn’t clear how literal Brigham Young is in associating Blacks with the seed of Cain.” Really? Because based on the transcription of that February 5th speech that the CHURCH links to in footnote 9 of that essay it’s pretty clear: “I tell you this people that commonly called Negros are children of Cain I know they are I know they cannot bear rule in priesthood” Here’s that link: https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE4530989&pds_handle=21020148512617724584716481153489
But we don’t have to take the Feb. 5th word for it. Let’s look at Brigham Young’s January 23rd speech, “I know it is right, and there should be a law made to have the slaves serve their masters because they are not capable of ruling themselves. When the Lord God cursed old Cain, he said, ‘until the last drop of Abels Blood receives the priesthood, and enjoys the blessings of the same, Cain shall bear the curse,’ then Cain is callculated to have his share next, and not until then; consequently I am firm in the belief that they ought to dwell in servitude.” (p. 3)
It is perfectly clear that Brigham Young was under the impression that those of African descent were under a curse, “Inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and [?] of God, we must believe in Slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses, which they have in their families, and their classes, and their various capacities brought upon themselves. And until the curse is removed by him who placed it upon them they must suffer under its consequences; I am not authorised to remove it. I am a firm believer in slavery…
The African enjoys the right of receiving the first principles of the Gospel , this liberty is held out to all these servants, they enjoy the liberty of being baptized for the remission of sins, and of receiving the holy Ghost by the laying on of hands; they enjoy the priviledge of living humble before the Lord their great master, so as to enjoy the spirit of the Lord continually; in short as far as the common comforts of life, salvation, light, truth, [?], and understanding is conserned the black African has precisely the same privilege as the white man. But they cannot hold the priesthood, and inasmuch as they cannot bear any share in the priesthood they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them; they are a servant of servants;…”
Here’s the link that the Gospel Topics essay has to that January 23rd speech: http://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE2343323
Now, let’s compare this to what is said in the Gospel Topics essay, “The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.10 According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.11 Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.12 Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.”
And then at the very end of that essay, approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24” The Church says all previous theories were false. So if Brigham was working under a false and racist theory in establishing the priesthood ban…
Now, the theories of why the Ban was in place might be rejected and disavowed, but the fact of the matter is that the Ban was real and was of God according to Brigham Young in his position and authority as Prophet of God. And yes, really I do believe that Brigham Young associated the Blacks with the curse of Cain without actually believing they were more than spiritual inheritors of the Curse. That it was a subtle difference make it hard to see, but the Speech by Gov. Young in Joint Session of the Legislature. Feb. 5th 1852 that I quoted hints at the non-direct relationship. To put it another way, the Curse of Cain was transposed onto Blacks, essentially making them one and the same with a few differences.
The essay might have been approved by the First Presidency, but it is not revelation or doctrine. What Brigham Young testified of time and time again was that what he learned he did so by revelation and not simply “policy” as its detractors want to push. As such, it took a direct revelation to de-apply it to the Church as happened with Pres. Kimball. If one is to be forced to choose between (and I refuse to be put into such a position) what the essay says and what is clearly taught by Brigham Young, then one or the other is lying.
“…then one or the other is lying.” On that, we are agreed.
No, we don’t agree because I don’t think either of them are lying. My interpretation is just not as “literal” as yours.
In Australia we have just had a royal commision into child sexual abuse. The Catholic Church was responsibile for 60% of it, and other churches mostly for the other . Most of this happened well in the past.
These groups are now all apologising, and paying compensation, of up to $15000 .
Would we be joining in the apologising.
I see this as a comparable situation. The present day church apologising for the previous generations abuse. Those who are apologising are regaining some respect for their organizations, where they remain unapologetic they are unable to regain respect.
What happened in here in San Antonio in July is much more important than what happened in May: From the SLT: “The May summit between top leaders of the LDS Church and the NAACP planted seeds of cooperation that are already bearing fruit.
On Sunday night, Mormon general authority Jack N. Gerard announced that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was teaming up with the nation’s oldest civil rights organization on a schooling and jobs push on the East Coast. “I’m pleased to announce that we will together launch an education and employment initiative with an eye towards national impact beginning in cities like Baltimore, Atlanta and Camden, New Jersey,” Gerard said at the NAACP’s national convention in San Antonio. “We envision joint NAACP and LDS activities and projects all over this nation. We do not intend to be a flash in the pan; that is not our style, and we know it’s not yours.” Gerard is the first high-ranking LDS authority to speak at the group’s national gathering, according to a news release from the Utah-based faith. (President) Nelson pledged then that the two groups would “explore ways” through education and humanitarian service to lift “our brothers and sisters who need our help.”
The latest initiative, the news release states, will attempt to do just that by offering courses — taught by Mormons, NAACP members and others — at houses of worship and community centers to help students find better jobs, enhance their incomes, manage their personal finances, and start and grow their own businesses.