The New York Times ran a column in this weekend’s Sunday Review by John G. Turner arguing that Mormons need to make a “fuller confrontation” with their church’s history of racism.
It’s an important question, but one has to wonder at the usefulness of raising it in the Times—not exactly a paper with a primarily Mormon staff or readership. Turner, we are told, is an assistant professor at George Mason University, but whether or not he is a member of the church he sets out to criticize goes unstated, and that is precisely the problem. It is one thing to tell your own mother she should stop smoking and quite another thing to tell someone else’s.
Even if one’s desire is to offer loyal criticism of one’s own faith, a paper whose motives are likely to be far less sympathetic is perhaps not the best place to do it.
As BYU religion historian Spencer Fluhman wrote in another Times column, too often we congratulate ourselves on our own enlightenment by drawing attention to the failings of others:
The Broadway hit “The Book of Mormon” lampoons the religion’s naïveté on racial issues, which is striking given that the most biting criticisms have focused on the show’s representations of Africans and blackness.
As a Mormon and a scholar of religious history, I am unsurprised by the juxtaposition of Mormon mocking and racial insensitivity. Anti-Mormonism has long masked America’s contradictions and soothed American self-doubt. In the 19th century, antagonists charged that Mormon men were tyrannical patriarchs, that Mormon women were virtual slaves and that Mormons diabolically blurred church and state. These accusations all contained some truth, though the selfsame accusers denied women the vote, bolstered racist patriarchy and enthroned mainstream Protestantism as something of a state religion. [ . . . ]
Making Mormons look bad helps others feel good. By imagining Mormons as intolerant rubes, or as heretical deviants, Americans from left and right can imagine they are, by contrast, tolerant, rational and truly Christian.
It’s easy, isn’t it? Draw attention to the shortcomings of Mormons (or Muslims, or Catholics, or Evangelicals, or even New Atheists) in order to feel better about one’s own. Even if Turner is himself a Mormon, his article does little more than flatter the vanity of the Times‘s readers. Given the importance of his topic, that’s a shame.
August 20th, 2012 | 4:11 pm
But the fact that faults in any particular religion can be found elsewhere, does not negate these faults. It does not mean that we should stop pointing these out. It only makes us aware of the fact that while pointing out faults in all religions, we should look for these selfsame faults in ourselves.
August 20th, 2012 | 4:27 pm
Well…perhaps. But the question is whether or not a media outlet that does reach a large (or primarily) Mormon audience would print a column like this. Turner demonstrates the reluctance of LDS leadership to address the issue. Thus he is writing as a sympathetic outside observer–Turner is not LDS–based upon his recent study of Brigham Young.
And I suspect that, in fact, the NYTimes is one of the best venues for gaining the attention of the LDS leaders in position to make the recommended fuller confrontation with the church’s past racism.
August 20th, 2012 | 4:37 pm
The author is probably exactly right, but it looks rather political for the Times to publish this during an election campaign. If Romney is elected president, I think that would be the time to publish it.
August 20th, 2012 | 4:51 pm
whether or not mormons need to confront their church’s history of racism is a valid question, regardless of where the discussion is published. if the answer is “no,” then at least demonstrate why it’s “no.”
moreover, imputing to others motivations they may or may not have — e.g. “to feel better about their own shortcomings” — amounts to an irrelevant cheap shot. even if the charge were true, the question is still worthy of discussion.
August 20th, 2012 | 7:06 pm
At first glance, the motives of critics seem irrelevant. After all, truth is truth – regardless of who says it or why.
On the other hand, motives sometimes make all the difference in the world. The act of telling the LDS Church that it needs to confront its past becomes very different things depending on who is saying so and why.
When rank-and-file members speak of such a need, it’s because they grow weary of the burden of defending the indefensible, of glossing over the conflicts and of maintaining stone-faced denial. Coming to terms with the painful past is healthier, even if it poses new challenges.
When outsiders friendly to the LDS Church say it, it’s a bit like an intervention, where friends and family come together to convince a loved one that it’s time to stop shooting oneself in the foot. Like Romney’s refusal to release his tax records, greater harm is had by failing to come clean.
When such calls are made by those antagonistic to the LDS Church, they come across as a frontal attack, one seeking the white flag of surrender. They also come across as insincere. After all, if the LDS cause is hopeless – because its ideology is either theologically mistaken or patently absurd – it hardly matters whether LDS history has been a primrose path or a Baghdad market on the wrong day. In this context, criticisms of past statements and decisions of LDS leaders are more easily dismissed as more hate-filled attacks – taking another tack.
In summary, it does matter who’s speaking and why.
August 20th, 2012 | 7:23 pm
The NY Times should have just cut to the chase by asking Romney directly if he is “still” a racist.
August 20th, 2012 | 8:51 pm
This article isn’t about racism in the LDS Church. It’s about outside critics feeling better about themselves by pointing out the flaws in others.
The LDS Church does and has dealt with racism in the church and by their members. Every active member knows the racist past and has come to some kind of terms with those issues, including black Mormons (yes, they do exist).
So, really it is exactly like telling someone else’s mother to stop smoking. Mormons know their history. You don’t need to point it out to them. They are doing just fine with it and will continue to do so.
No, the issue isn’t about Mormons and race. It’s about politics and making sure all those unfamiliar with Mormonism have the view of Mormonism that will persuade them not to vote for Romney. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blind to media manipulation of the masses.
August 21st, 2012 | 9:46 am
@David Nickol,
Is this because the New York Times does the bidding of the right wing?
August 21st, 2012 | 9:51 am
An excellent companion piece to this on the issue of judgement is this Touchstone article by A.J. Conyers, especially the closing section “The Misuse of Judgment.”
August 21st, 2012 | 2:01 pm
Is this because the New York Times does the bidding of the right wing?
Douglas Johnson,
I don’t understand the question. I said I thought the publication of the article under discussion by the Times looked political at this time, and it would be more appropriate if Romney is elected. Are you disagreeing with what I said? Could you please explain what your question means and why you asked it?
August 23rd, 2012 | 7:05 am
>> the NYTimes is one of the best venues for gaining the attention of the LDS leaders in position to make the recommended fuller confrontation with the church’s past racism.<<
It's not about LDS church leaders "confronting the church's racist past". Our church leaders HAVE confronted such issues.
But, what non-members, and the lamestream media want is not for us to confront our own issues, but for church leaders to prostrate themselves before them (non-members and lamestream media) in sack-cloth and ashes, etc.
Yes, there were some leaders in the past who were racists, according to today's standards. And there are members who are racist, to one degree or another, especially in "Mormon Central" (I lived there for a few years, so I know). But that's true of almost all churches.
But, our CHURCH has never been racist. The only thing that is the real issue is not giving the priesthood to blacks of African descent until 1978. However, we believe that this was what GOD said, and we don't apologize for God.
August 23rd, 2012 | 8:08 am
[...] http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/08/20/the-simple-pleasures-of-criticizing-mormon… [...]
August 23rd, 2012 | 10:41 am
Let’s see…. In spite of the past, the LDS Church now extends all benefits to people of every race. So why do we need to beat the proverbial “Dead Horse?” How often do we beat up on the Southern Baptists for a similar situation? People want racism to end, but when the LDS Church does so, and preaches tolerance and acceptance very openly, the persecution continues. As they say, “You can’t win for losing.”
August 24th, 2012 | 10:48 am
Don, criticism is not persecution. Also, I regularly criticize the SBC for this – but at least they do not claim that they receive divine revelations.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact