I’m willing to have the Church and its history/doctrine/practice scrutinized, and to take responsibility for past and present racism for which we (it, I) are legitimately at fault. But I’d like to point out a thing or two in connection with that white supremacist “wife” who is currently spewing her supremacist filth and labeling it as “Mormon.”
She was baptized in 2008 or 2009, according to her participation in the Bloggernacle in those days. Before that, her religion was all over the map, most recently (at that date) paganism and witchcraft. This is relevant because if her racism came from her upbringing or early culture, Mormonism had nothing to do with it. She didn’t get these views from a bigoted Mormon grandfather. She didn’t hear them whispered in the halls at MIA or told as “faith promoting” hate stories at seminary. She didn’t find them on tattered mimeographed lectures stashed in some missionary apartment. Mormonism is not to blame for any race hatred she imbibed before, say, 2008.
Since 2008, her beliefs continue to veer all over the map: While she today identifies as a white supremacist, within the past few years she has also identified as a political liberal, what she mockingly calls a “SJW” (“social justice warrior”). This veering from one extreme to the other is supposed to give her credibility – she has “recovered” from the false narrative of liberalism and now champions doctrines of intolerance, bigotry, inwardness, and exclusion. Far from lending her credibility, however, these constant wild swings mark her as fickle, inconstant, “tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine,” and likely to repudiate her present views when the next wave of ideology sweeps her off her unstable footing.
Is Mormonism to blame for her racism?
Has it been preached over the Conference pulpit since her discovery of the Church? No. Has it appeared on the pages of Church publications in these past ten years? No. Does it appear in lesson manuals today? Not that I’m aware of. Has someone – multiple someones – who claim some association with Mormonism whispered these vile messages to her? Probably. At least possibly. She formed those ideas from somewhere — but not in a gospel setting.
There is no question that she has found, or been shown, factors of the Mormon past on which she has hung her supremacist bilge. She didn’t hear about those factors from any formal Mormon teaching in her limited connection with the Church, however – whenever reliable Mormon teachers have addressed those issues in the years of her association with us (President Hinckley’s 2006 priesthood session remarks; the Gospel Topics essay on race), those racist factors have been unequivocally condemned for our present and future. The same unequivocal condemnation has followed publicity of some claiming to speak for the Church who repeat the old errors. If she has heard these evil ideas from people claiming to be Mormons, I submit that those “Mormons” have not been acting under the influence of the Holy Spirit; they certainly do not represent the modern Church or its teachings.
It seems that she has grafted her evil philosophies onto modern Mormonism, and not that modern Mormonism is the source of those evil philosophies.
There are virulent racists – bigots, hatemongers, racial supremacists – who claim to be Latter-day Saints, and who have been especially loud on social media in the past few days. That cannot be denied. What can be denied, however, is that this hatred, these haters, represent us as a Church or as a people. They do not represent me. They do not represent the Church I know. They do not represent the gospel. I don’t suppose they represent many, if any, of you.
I have purposely not linked to this woman’s online presence, nor provided identifying information to help you find her vile presence if you are not already familiar with her. Please respect that, and do not provide such links or identifying information in comments.
I’ve seen her vile spewings a few places. I agree, that however she came to her racist views, she did that first, and then found some old stuff to support her claims after that. It’s like proof texting the scriptures. You can find it if you look for it, but it’s not promoted, acknowledged, and is condemned (usually) when it does show up. She’s a bigot first, it appears, and only Mormon by self identification. We all hope for big-tent Mormonism, but this can’t be part of that. In other words, she’s covfefe.
Covfefe!
This isn’t a well thought out post — it was a spur of the moment thing that would have been a Facebook note except it got too long. I would like to emphasize my opening line, that I’m willing to take responsibility for what is legitimate my/our fault — but I think we give this woman and her views too much power, too much ground to stand on, if we say hers are Mormon views. They are her own; that she claims to be a Mormon does not make them Mormon views.
I agree with you in principle, but I can’t in specifics, but only because I have no idea who you are talking about. Since you are not, for good reasons, sharing that, I will just have to let it go.
“Has it appeared on the pages of Church publications in these past ten years? No. Does it appear in lesson manuals today? Not that I’m aware of.”
Eh, considering I have to keep pointing out problematic passages in publications (the “White” song that was then thankfully removed from the YW/YM curriculum) and lesson manuals (intermarriage YM lesson still on lds.org, the race discussions that were in the new seminary lesson, but also, after outcry, thankfully removed) and talks (Elder Dickson’s April 2013 one comes to mind and Elder Callister’s talk the BYU-Idaho in 2014) and on and on, racist ideas (maybe not her exact flavor, but definitely problematic) still remain on the books.
More work needs to be done.
Yes, with your fine-tuned sensitivities, you do notice (and help to correct) those things, EmJen. Thank you.
There is nothing as blatant and virulent as what she preaches, though, in your examples — they give her an excuse to tie her racism to Mormonism, but none of those examples are anywhere nearly developed enough to be the source of her own extreme racism, or to support a claim that Mormonism is responsible for inculcating those views.
I don’t think this woman’s hateful ideas originate within Mormonism. I expect that she probably found support for them in Mormonism, though. It’s easy enough to read the Book of Mormon and conclude that God is really okay with racism. This isn’t a uniquely Mormon problem — you can get the same idea by reading the Old Testament, and even Jesus isn’t shy about basically calling a Gentile a dog — but the Book of Mormon amplifies it.
Then, there is any amount of apologetics justifying various priesthood restrictions by analogy to the Levites. I’ve heard it often in the last 10 years, without having to resort to seminary teachers or tattered mimeographs. Of course “all are alike unto God,” but it’s easy to semi-independently conclude that maybe God means that in a sort of “separate but equal” way.
Of course, there a web page that will tell me that the Church unequivocally condemns all forms of racism — but I have to go there to find that out. I can get bad Levite analogies and old advice about interracial marriage from well-intentioned people in Sunday school.
When I look at old church curriculum, I’m glad to see that there’s a lot of bad doctrine that we’ve taken out. There are vestiges, but the correlation committee has clearly done a lot of work there. It’s left a bit of a vacuum, though — formal publications are pretty sparse, and people still just teach whatever they believe, even if the church contradicts it somewhere else. Plus, where the problematic teachings of our past arose from people doing their best to make sense of things, it’s easy to engage in the same reasoning and arrive at the same conclusions. We’ve got a lot better about removing explicitly racist ideas from formal publications (other than the standard works themselves). But there is still a lot of work to be done to explicitly contradict racism, and to work against the factors that push us in that direction.
I’m regretting posting this, because it makes me look like a crank, contradicting people and perhaps trying to absolve Mormonism of racism. I’m really not — I acknowledge what’s happened in the past, and have done my share here at Keepa exposing that with actual historical example, not hearsay and assumption. I believe the voices in #DearWhitePeople telling what they have experienced and are experiencing from Latter-day Saints in the present. So I’m not trying to sanitize anything.
But: I can get bad Levite analogies and old advice about interracial marriage from well-intentioned people in Sunday school. Really? You hear this in Sunday School? Because I don’t. I hear lots of weird stuff at Church, but racist “doctrine” isn’t part of it, unless perhaps misguided hatred of Islam counts as racism.
We could stand for stronger sermons on just about every topic, including racism — heck, we could stand for actual sermons instead of the ill-prepared drivel we usually get on a ward/stake level, and the uninspiring, routine stuff we too often get on a general level. But I don’t hear racism taught, or discussed with any pretense of authority. I’m active. I pay attention. I read the publications, or at least scan the ones I can’t bear to read. I don’t take my marching orders, much less my doctrine, from the woman in Sunday School who quotes a verse of the Book of Mormon out of context — I know she’s nuts. I knew Randy Bott was a generation out of date the moment I heard him, without needing anybody to teach me so. You’re apparently saying that other people don’t recognize foolishness when they hear it — and that they’re hearing a lot more than I am.
I was in one of Randy Bott’s mission prep classes. A *lot* of people thought he was just great. The Levite analogy is one I’ve heard from at least one person in authority in the last 5 years, although that was in a private interview. But the biggest problem is Nephi himself. He takes effort to explain away, as I think many people prefer a simple reading to a nuanced one. And, no. I do not think the sort of people who become online racists are particularly good at recognizing foolishness.
I appreciate this bit of context about APW, which helps us to understand her without either blaming the Church for her or letting us collectively off the hook for the work we still have to do.
To your point, Ardis, it’s been less than a year since we had the lesson from the Howard W. Hunter manual that says this:
“[The pure love of Christ] does not countenance evil or ill will, nor rejoice in iniquity; it has no place for bigotry, hatred, or violence. It refuses to condone ridicule, vulgarity, abuse, or ostracism. It encourages diverse people to live together in Christian love regardless of religious belief, race, nationality, financial standing, education, or culture….We are called upon to purify our inner feelings, to change our hearts, to make our outward actions and appearance conform to what we say we believe and feel inside. We are to be true disciples of Christ.”
The passage struck me as quite timely, and prophetic in the tough-love kind of way. I wonder how many of us barely noticed it, either due to boredom or self-assurance.
I definitely hear the Levite excuse every time race is mentioned at church. I’ve also heard, within the last five years, people in church meetings criticizing blacks for being unhappy about the fact that they couldn’t have the priesthood until 1978.
(Mormon Corridor but outside the Wasatch Front.)
I spend a lot of time kicking around the more conservative side of the bloggernacle. And I have no idea who this woman is you are talking about.
I think that’s reason for celebration, if you follow me.
Perhaps someone needs to contact this person to warn her that her email address has been hacked by a crazed person and that she should change her password.
If you would like an example of racism in the church, type in Arrow of Light into google and look and the pictures that pop up. We do not have the ceremony in Canada so I missed it as Akela, and was horrified when I discovered this existed. This is vile. This is a church sanctioned event. As long as this event continues we can not deny racism in the church.
By the way, I know you are having seconds thoughts about the OP, but I’m still glad you posted because these are conversations we need to be having
I think if I had thought this through better, Nicola, or were writing it again, I would highlight an idea that doesn’t come through very clearly in what I did write: I don’t think anyone becomes a racist today — a white supremacist, a nationalist, a neo-Nazi — by joining the Church and adopting its teachings. Bad as Arrow of Light is in terms of cultural misappropriation and the cartoon-izing of an entire race, it wouldn’t teach you to hate Native Americans or to insist they had no right to citizenship or to participation in American life. Neither, I think, do any of the other offered examples: the stupid “Tribe of Levi” analogy — which I tackled myself here at Keepa a year ago — doesn’t teach someone to think blacks are inferior, unless they already have that idea, in which case the analogy could reinforce that. The “White” song was astoundingly insensitive, but I can’t imagine any teenager hearing or singing it, and making the leap to “Oh, I guess only white people are pure, and everybody else is dirty” unless they already felt that way.
I think it is very much like the case of the verses in the Book of Abraham once used to explain the priesthood restriction: People had read them for years without connecting them to a priesthood restriction, because they don’t really dictate that. It was only when people went looking for scripture to explain the existing restriction that those verses came to be used how they were used. The racism came first, and linking it to some obscure tangent in Mormonism came later.
This white supremacist blogger and tweeter (who is now being featured in the British press as a representative of Mormonism) didn’t learn her racism from the Church. She either brought it with her, or, more likely, she adopted it from her political tutors when she made the wild swing to her next ideology. Mormonism didn’t teach it to her.
I’m a little bit familiar with this woman as she homeschools and uses the same educational method that I use. I had previously been aware of her in online groups. I had even read her blog in the past and never been aware of racist postings–Until recently when a justifiably livid black friend of mine linked to her blog on facebook. I was stunned when I went to the blog, saw her picture, and thought, I know this lady. I could not believe it as I read through the mounds of absolute garbage she has written. My honest thought is that she has gone off her rocker. That’s the only explanation that makes any sense to me.
The way that you feel about her association with Mormonism and labeling herself in that way is how I also feel about her representing herself as a homeschooler. I sure hope people don’t think that any of the rest of us using this particular homeschool philosophy are somehow linked now with something so unbelievably hateful.
Understandable, Lisa.
I wouldn’t doubt that people have been known to take the Arrow of Light award in an unfortunate direction. But I did the recommended Google search and saw somewhere between virtually none and zero images that seemed potentially problematic, unless the arrow and sun symbol is offensive, because that’s the main thing that comes up. The Arrow of Light is a Cub Scout thing, not a church thing, so if there are issues, I don’t think it’s really fair to lay them at the feet of the church. If some packs have adopted inappropriate practices, then those are fair game. But I’m not seeing much of that in my Google search or in my personal experience. Of course, an arrow is a ubiquitous symbol and I’ve seen lighting of candles, and perhaps some limited use of feathers. But vile and horrifying wouldn’t be my adjectives of choice for that.
I’d be open to hearing about any ways that cultural sensitivity needs to be improved, generally or in individual cases. But I can’t find anything remotely horrifying, vile, or racist in the award itself or in the usual implementation.
The Scout version is “Order of the Arrow” which has ceremonies that are much more controversial than the Cub introduction. There may or may not be images available, and I have only word of mouth to go on, but it seems that Order of the Arrow ceremonies could easily be offensive. My standard test is whether or not I would be bothered by an analogous Mormon reference, and if what I have heard about Order of the Arrow is generally accurate, I would be highly offended at analogous ceremonies parodying Mormon temple rites.
But again, I don’t think you learn the kind of racism spewed by white supremacists from Order of the Arrow.
The Order of the Arrow does use considerably more Native American imagery than the Arrow of Light (and within the context of scouting, the two are completely unrelated, by the way). I don’t have any direct experience with OA, but I will certainly respect the perspective of Native Americans. From what little I know, legitimate criticisms of OA would probably be closer to culturally insensitive than horrific and vile, which are adjectives I would probably bring out for lynchings and actual white supremacy, and wouldn’t apply even to temple parodies. Aside from genuine issues with the result and implementation, the professed intent of OA is honoring native lore, not parodying it. Though I resist going as far as horrific and vile, I wouldn’t argue with someone who feels that OA imagery crosses a line.
Even more than the Arrow of Light, OA is strictly BSA, not LDS. OA events are run by the regional BSA council, and never by an individual troop, LDS or otherwise. And I do agree that an OA lodge is not going to make anyone a racist if you weren’t already going there.
Ernest Thompson Seaton, one of the founders of BSA, is the source of the scouting movements use of Native American imagery. He sought go honor those he saw as a noble branch of the family of man, one that he saw as sorely mistreated, by making young men aware of the beliefs, traditions and lore of Native American people, by immersing them into the culture. I suppose it is more a sprinkling than an immersion, but that was the idea. Certainly on the frontier the Mericats saw the Indians as dangerous foes and sought to put them down. The fighting was over by the time of scouting’s birth. Seaton looked upon Native Americans much as soldiers often feel about their enemies, at least after the fighting, with honor of their soldierly virtues. Read Seaton’s Gospel of the Red Man and you can see from where he was coming.
Not having been in OA, I am I’ll equipped to comment on their practices today, but anything that teaches people to learn from one another I believe to be a virtue, not a vice. We all are richer for the exchange.
I understand the intent, eric, both originally and by the current BSA, and believe that no ill will is meant.
But we also need to see it from the point of Native Americans who find Order of the Arrow as controversial as using “Redskins” as a sports team, or a caricature of an Indian as a mascot: Order of the Arrow uses dance and feathers and face paint and other elements of Native culture, much of which is closely tied to religion. Some of it is the Native equivalent of blackface, as Scouts try to assume the physical appearance of Indians. Native Americans had no say in how their appearance, culture, ritual, etc., was adopted and adapted, and while from white perspective it may look like an attempt to honor another people by perpetuating their culture, from the Indian point of view, it can look like a caricature of their culture, a superficial awareness of that culture, adopted for a weekend at camp and then discarded until the next ceremonial event.
I can’t help but liken it in theory to, say, a girls’ soccer team somewhere along the Mormon Trail that wants to honor its brush with Mormon culture by calling themselves “the Saints,” adopting a mascot image of a bearded man in pioneer garb representing the coach surrounded by girls in pioneer garb and labeled “Wife No. 1, Wife No. 2,” etc., which adopted an initiation rite that parodied baptism, and a tradition that every time the team scored, its fans would rise in the bleachers and perform, in unison, some of the signs and names that used to be part of the temple ritual. They wouldn’t mean any harm, they would intend to do honor, but we would have every right to be aghast at their superficiality, sacrilege, and condescension.
That’s really the hard part of acknowledging racism when it appears in forms other than violence and obvious hate speech. It can appear in ways that aren’t necessarily recognized as racist by those doing it, but which can hurt and legitimately offend those who are its objects.
That’s certainly one major way that Order of the Arrow differs from the nationalism and white supremacy of the so-called “alt-right.” They have no intent of honoring the minority cultures they want to eradicate, or at least quarantine.
I think it is best to let the offended speak for themselves, rather than speaking for them. Isn’t that itself a form of cultural appropriation?
Regarding the BSA Order of the Arrow, I know from personal experience that many Native Americans are supportive of the BSA. They ask for sensitivity in certain matters, and the BSA is quick to understand. I also know from reading that before the OA was formally adopted nationwide, the Church was invited to review its traditions or rituals and concurred with them.
It saddens me to see the BSA and the Order of the Arrow in a discussion of vile racism of the sort that started here.
I usually try to be supportive of your positions, ji, or at least your right to state them — but this is silly. You don’t accept “cultural appropriation” as a legitimate complaint, judging from earlier comments, and now you invoke it in an attempt to shame me … and then go on to speak for Native Americans yourself?
Racism appears on a sliding scale. Most of us define racism as some step beyond what we ourselves perpetrate. I have tried to explain why Order of the Arrow is perceived as racist, without equating it to the hate of the “alt right Mormon conference.” It is not entirely benign, and whether it “saddens” you or not, it is worthy of discussion. Here. By me. Now.
Still, regarding the BSA Order of the Arrow, I know from very real and personal experience that many Native Americans are supportive of the BSA. In the absence of any “some” or other qualifier, I read your no. 23 as suggesting that all Native Americans are universally offended by the OA, which would not be true.
By lumping the OA with the Internet poster that was the object of the original discussion, it seems to me that the moral high ground is at least partially ceded, and the effectiveness of the opprobrium (shaming) intended for the subject of the original posting is lessened. I’m saddened because I know that the BSA and the OA are trying to do good for those they serve, in a world where that good is greatly needed.
Both the Church and the BSA unequivocally oppose racism in any form. Both teach and encourage respect for all peoples. In my mind, there is no valid connection between the woman you introduced to us and the Church or the BSA. You defended the Church from the woman — and since the BSA had been introduced into the discussion, I wanted to defend the BSA. We’re on the same side.