Okay...just FYI: FLDS is NOT LDS...so those questions wouldn't even apply. That would be like asking Catholics about Protestantism, vice versa.
(but you're right, Melissa, it would be interesting)
Religion must stand up to secular scrutiny. If your religion is "attacked" with reason then you should be able to validate your religion by responding with reason. Christianity is perfectly defensible in the arena of reason, when it isn't, then it isn't Christianity.
It's terrible how Obama and Rev. Wright are being talked about right now. It reveals not only racism and intolerance that informs the way this society is organised, but that we are living at the very heart of empire. It is becoming more and more obvious to see the lengths this country will go to to defend its indefensible acts and ideologies, that we live in a warp, deluded in our morality, our politics, our civil life, if we even have such a thing. I see pathology in our public discourse, we have no notion of being a part of society, of being social beings, as if things we say and do are completely autonomous and isolated from everyone else and concern noone else, as if attacking someone viciously completely marks us off from those we attack so our lives have nothing to do with theirs. As if the things Rev. Wright has said (and interestingly when he speaks of America in relation to other countries, he uses the collective pronoun we) are simply his words, a
and Obama's denunciations are simply his, and they have nothing to do with us as long as we "condemn" or "criticize" or "denounce" or "reject" them, as if everyone speaks only from their sovereign selves completely separated from everyone else, as if we have no responsibility towards each other and each other's words and thoughts. This sense that we are all isolated units responsible only for ourselves plays out elsewhere as imperialism, where we act in our "interests" as a state by eliminating others' right to even have interests. This has become obvious to me in hearing public discussions about Obama's and Rev. Wright's words. The way it is being talked about, not here, but in the wider media. How big this is, it isn't an isolated happening, a "controversy," it reveals something about us, I wonder if we have the eyes to see it.
I use we too, how can I extricate myself from the society in which I live.
Melissa,
You can hang on if you like - but I don't like where this is going.
Obama's increasing - and today outright divorce from Jerimiah Wright - the SAME Jerimiah Wright he has been with for 20 years, is more than I can take.
Yes - I became engaged like never before during this campaign. I went up to Philly from DC to support Obama's campaign for 2 days. NEVER volunteered in politics before - and I'm almost 40.
But I feel like he's selling us (black community, HIS own pastor/church) - out to gain a few more delegates by way of a segment of the population that AIN'T GONNA VOTE FOR HIM REGARDLESS. NOT NOW or IN NOVEMBER.
The Philly Speech was awesome. Had he just continued THAT message over the past weeks - this would be fine. I would be fine. The message that BOTH SIDES (black and white) are angry and have legitimate issues. BOTH SIDES need to dialogue. THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO HEAL FROM ITS WOUNDS OF RACISIM. Let's bridge the gaps TOGETHER. I CAN'T DISOWN Rev Wright's issues anymore than my grandmother's issues...yada, yada, yada.
But instead, as the time passes after the Philly speech - he only plays up the side of his message that criticizes and discredits Rev. Wright. NOT COOL on SO MANY LEVELS. Because number 1, those of us who know of Rev. Wright's ministry, messages, theology, etc - know well it's and his legitimacy.
Obama is showing himself to be just another politician. Say whatever is going to win you over.
Well -he may win over the white blue collar workers (not) but he's losing me for sure.
And as for CLINTON? Her campaign crew IS INDEED MASTERFUL because they are the ones that instigated this fabulous MESS once he took the lead.
So when all is said and done - I'm not voting for HER EITHER.
For the first time as an adult - I may not hit the polls in November.
We KNOW this was Clinton's crew and now the media that is twisting this into an outrageous weapon to shank Obama - the question is, when you are up against a wall, how do you respond?
I don't like Obama's response to this as it goes on. I don't like how this is being handled.
I'm sorry but - I don't like what I clearly see and hear. POLITICIANS AND POLITICAL GAMES.
So long as we - the African American community support and defend a person who comes out of the closet and shows him/her self to be as vile and intolerant as Jeremiah Wright then we have a problem!!! He is NOT the black church and seeks merely to tar us with his own brush. He, from his utterances (especially at this critical juncture in the democratic race) is NOT committed to the advancement of people of color.
MLK would NOT have tolerated JW's bigoted views nor the way he choose to share them, or their timing either. It's time we woke up and took our collective self back. We cannot be sold off as supporting a bigoted narrow unscientific view of ourselves by a hothead such as JW. He does not speak for me, he does NOT speak for the black church and he certainly does not desire to see any person of colour advance to the highest office in the land.
He wants to leave us in bondage. We must open our eyes and see this. He has failed us collectively as a community and no amount of whitewashing or black washing is going to change that. His thirty pieces of silver ensure our continual bondage. Why is the white establishment so anti Obama, and why is JW pushing their agaenda?
Well, I've watched you on TV defend Wright and Obama. I watched Michael Eric Dyson yesterday defending Obama also.
At issue is whether the black community will support an accomodationist Obama. I've read a few posts on left of center sites and the response is kind of mixed.
I don't think I can think too closely to Mitt Romney fantasy. I knew white Protestants would vote against Romney because of the Mormonism. If I think in that vein, I think superdelegates vote for Hillary and McCain becomes president in November.
Wright showed out at the National Press Club. I've never seen a fully grown man mock and condemn the media the way he did. It was flagrant and gratifying to see. I don't agree with his assessment on AIDs nor do I think some of the stuff he said about the NOI. His continued digs and barbs was NOT NECESSARILY helpful.
That said, what could Obama do with an uncompromising black man who adheres to the Old Testament prophetic vision? It reminds me of Samuel and David's predecessor, Saul. The critics of Wright attacked him as a proponent of hate in black churches. Some of the critics expanded their attacks to the congregation and questioned what Black people really do in church. There is no way those criticisms should have waited to be addressed until after this election.
Where did that leave the beacon of hope?
Without any good earthly options. He needs some Solomnaic wisdom. Surely, Obama opened up more territory for the media to beat him up about. Surely he knows that the media was able to dissect Gore and Kerry because they demonstrated their ability to roll over.
Unfortunately, the church in question is the FLDS church, not the LDS church. Thomas Monson is the leader of the LDS church and has no say in the dealings of the FLDS church. The FLDS church split from the LDS church mainly because the LDS church stopped the practice of polygamy and were excommunicating members who continued to practice polygamy. On a final note, I love that you received "special permission" to tease about a religion with millions of members from someone that left the church 40 years ago.
Yeah, I see the editorials in the newspapers that all say things like, "See, you should have scrutinized him more closely earlier on." I hate to admit it but they're right. Romney was scrutinized early on and we found out we were uncomfortable with him, so he lost. Obama got a free ride early on so now we're late in the nomination process and feel locked in to a guy with some very out-of-the-mainstream associations. He's not going to be elected. Not unless McCain has a meltdown of some sort. Fact is, most white Americans aren't sophisticated enough to feel comfortable with having hatred and racial animosity directed at them. And they're not comfortable with a guy who's spiritual mentor is so caught up in his own rhetoric that he keeps coming on national television insisting that he's right. When he's not. Racial animus is never right. Just because we might understand why you feel that way, it's still not right. And publicly proclaiming that it is ok to hate some people is definitely not right. Obama sat in the front pew for 20 years while this guy shouted bigotry and intolerance year after year, Sunday after Sunday. It's a fact and it's going to sink his ship. Period.
Over 20 years ago, while a student at Brandeis, I got an invitation to a private discussion with Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton. In one or two sentences, during her opening remarks, Rep. Norton briefly “condemned” the “hate speech” of Minister Farrakhan’s “gutter religion” comments that had recently made people at that Jewish university angry. Audience members repeatedly explained why Jesse Jackson and other prominent blacks should also condemn the Minister. A black professor said she didn’t think so, before she left for a prior engagement.
Every time someone said something against the Minister, a friend whispered from behind, “They are talking about your boy, Farrakhan.” Eventually, I said it was wrong to denounce Louis Farrakhan because it was the same as denouncing everyone who agrees with him and/or admires him. Comments about “Hitler” and “the Holocaust” came from the small audience. When the question and answer period ended it, seemingly, “everybody” wanted to give me their personal opinion. The bombardment only ended when the Rep. Norton pushed through the crowd to give me a hug.
I have never liked Louis Farrakhan. I have never paid much attention to anything he says. I can never say that I agree or disagree with what he says because I don’t know what he says and I don’t care. I often hear what Al Sharpton says in the media because I live in NY and I think the guy is an opportunist and a clown, but I would NEVER condemn him or anything he says. In fact, I would defend HIS RIGHT to be (what in my opinion is) a clown as strongly as I would defend MY RIGHT to think he is a clown.
The problem comes from the belief that black people can ONLY expect equal treatment if we all; act in unison, always agree, and ask for “the right things” from “the right people” in “the right way.” From this point of view a single black person who is stupid, incompetent, or disagrees with anybody (in any way) justifies all past and future mistreatment of black people.
What bothers me about what Barak Obama did in denouncing Rev. Wright is the same thing that has bothered me from the very beginning about his campaign – they continually divide people into those who support his campaign and those who have “something wrong with them” because they don’t. Every time somebody questions HIS decisions, his campaign comes up with nonsense about why he HAD to do what he did.
He didn’t HAVE TO claim to be a member of that Trinity Church. He made that choice. He didn’t HAVE TO remain a member for 20 years. He made that choice. He didn’t HAVE TO say what he did about what Rev. Wright said. He made that choice.
It’s always “the Clinton campaign did it,” “Bill Clinton did something worse,” “white people who disagree are “racist” and black people who disagree are ‘haters’ or the ‘old generation’.” The problem is that when you keep rejecting people who disagree with you, eventually you end up alone.
Every time his campaign makes up another excuse to cover up his weaknesses, they put down yet another group of people. It’s the pattern they have practiced from the very beginning with “black votes are afraid to vote for a black candidate” and accusing Bill Clinton of “playing the race card” and continued with their attacks on Tavis Smiley and Sen. Obama’s “bitter” voter theory. Yesterday’s press conference doesn’t surprise me any more than his so called “groundbreaking” speech in Philadelphia about race. It’s all just conflating questions about Barak Obama with issues of race in order to divert attention from HIS qualifications, or lack there of.
In 1911, former slave Booker T. Washington prophetically wrote about "black leaders" like Cleaver, Jackson, Sharpton and now Jeramiah Wright: "There is (a) class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. … There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."
Now you know that if Romney were in the race, the Texas situation regarding the Mormons would NOT be an issue!
Race and Religion only applies to black folks! Wake up and join the real world.
from http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120956688571556385.html
Harris-Lacewell claims that her own mother is a lapsed Mormon, which, if true, makes the professor's ignorance rather stunning. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did originally sanction polygamy, but you have to get up pretty early in the Mormon for that. As LDS Church Web site2 notes, the church banned polygamy in 1890, "and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church."
The FLDS, to which Harris-Lacewell refers, is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a group that split with the Mormons precisely because of the latter's rejection of polygamy. Were Romney the nominee, his foes might well try to suggest that his LDS membership somehow puts him in league with the FLDS. But they would be arguing in bad faith.
Since Harris-Lacewell brought up the comparison of Mormonism to "black liberation theology," it's worth noting that early Mormons suffered persecution at the hands of their neighbors in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois. They ultimately settled in Utah in 1847, and their abandonment of polygamy 43 years later was a price they paid for integration into American society.
It was just about as long ago--44 years this summer--that America took its most definitive step in ensuring equality for blacks, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Progress toward integration has been uneven since then, and the antagonistic attitude toward America of black leaders like Jeremiah Wright is arguably the greatest remaining hindrance.
Wright and Obama both need to undergo the 12-step program at Narcissists Anonymous. Wright is angry at Obama for distancing himself from his former pastor--in other words, it's all about Wright. Obama is angry at Wright for being inconsiderate of him--in other words, it's all about Obama. These two deserve each other.
And they will, in well-deserved obscurity on Nov 5, 2008!
This is about the dumbest thing I ever read. Get a clue Melissa and take some time educating yourself about Mormons before embarrassing yourself with this worth piece you have written.
I am a white 43 year old woman who goes to a predominately black church, (I am one of maybe 10 whites in a church of aprox 300)
and have NEVER heard a single racist or judgmental comment from my pastor, as a matter of fact, when a guy burned our church down 15 years ago, not only did my pastor forgive him, he visited him in jail every week until he was released.....
Hate the sin, LOVE the sinner!
There are black churches that live in the now and preach love for all. I am honored to be part of one!
To the blogress Melissa Harris-Lacewell
I suggest you and your readers read "The Best of the Web Today" by James Taranto: the lead story concerns Miss Harris and a comparison of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints. The anrtagonist attitudes, says Taranto, to America of black leaders is arguably the greatest remaining hindrance toward integration.
I personally believe that most blacks in the United States do not agree with the views of Wright.
I suggest you and your readers read "The Best of the Web Today" by James Taranto: the lead story concerns Miss Harris and a comparison of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints. The antagonistic attitudes, says Taranto, to America of black leaders is arguably the greatest remaining hindrance toward integration.
Such is the state of analytical thinking at our most prestigious universities.
Others have addressed the fatuous comparison to Romney, so I will simply point out why Obama's Wright connection matters. "Black Liberation Theology" creates and perpetrates a paranoid fantasy world that in its way is as damaging to black America as the crack epidemic was. It doesn't hurt whites or the status quo. It hurts the balcks who fall prey to it, much like the "Oppression Studies" departments in our universities. It programs failure, as any honest mind not "educated" in the grievance religion of modern higher education can plainly see.
Obama used Wright and his malignant hold on his congregation to establish and expand his own political career. Maybe Obama buys into some of the hateful myths of his church and maybe not. But he certainly trafficked in it and benefited from it. He therefore bears culpability for purveying a product that weakens the lives of individuals and communities. It's the culture of "I'm owed," and it is an ironically real opiate of the masses, as opposed to the imagined one of the "clingers" in Crackerville. I doubt Obama has ever really thought this through himself, which may be why he has painted himself in this corner, so foolishly. He will be forced to do so now.
Obama now faces a choice. He csn stay in and loses big. Or he can withdraw before the convention and spendsthe next 4-8 years re-establishing himself as the genuine post-racial candidate who faces up to the irreconcililable contradictions of bringing America together post-race, or continuing with an ideology of hate and resentment that no one anywhere. Those who attend black liberation churches and Ivy League Oppression Studies classes (or teach them) need to do the same. But that would require courage and intellectual honesty, not moralizing posturing and righteous outrage. Or fatuous analogies.
Ironically, a valid analogy would be available if Romeny had belonged to the FLDS (not the mainstrwam LDS) for 20 years, been married by the leader, praised him in his book for being his spiritual mentor, and raised his kids there and then pretended to be shocked when it was discovered that 60% of the underage girls there are pregnant (after first claiming the group was not particularly radiucal.) Wouldn't that be a howler?
Are you freaking kidding me! How could someone intelligent enough (perhaps their standards have lapsed) to be hired by Princeton be so uniformed.
If there isn't an agenda here, then there is stupidity.
Which is it, Mellisa?
Having some idea what you're discussing is sometimes helpful, even in the hallowed halls of Princeton.
PingBack from http://www.millennialstar.org/2008/04/30/stunning-ignorancefrom-a-princeton-professor/
Yeah, I miss Mitt too - because he wouldn't be so stupid as to think he could hang for 20 years with a race hustler like Wright and then run as 'post-racial'. Mitt wouldn't have the #1 most extreme left-wing voting record in the Senate and then call himself a 'uniter'. Mitt wouldn't enter with a zero record of accomplishment and try to fool us into believing he could get stuff done. Mitt wouldn't start out ignorant of economics and history, and propose that we raise taxes even higher, and talk to Iran while bombing Pakistan. And on, and on. Obama seems to be a nice guy, and he sure is a sweet talker, but he is as clueless as Jimmy Carter. All his lame ideas are failed liberal retreads from the 60's.
I sure do hope he wins the Democratic nomination, though, because anything is better than the Devil in a Pantsuit.
I COSIGN WHOLEHEARTEDLY...and I'm glad i'm not the only one who feels this way!
"Instead of us Obama supporters sweating, Romney and his supporters would be fielding calls all day to explain Mormonism, polygamy and the relationship of Romney’s faith to the cult compound in Texas."
You mean the relationship of total non-association and sometimes even antagonism between the LDS faith and the Texas compound? I don't think Romney would have much trouble explaining his church's anti-polygamy position and teachings regarding obeying the law of the land.
Wow.
This fact that you equate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the FLDS church displays a sizable amount of either ignorance or disingenuousness (I suspect the latter), along with a good helping of good-old anti-Mormon bigotry. What passes for scholarship at Princeton, I suppose.
As a member of the "Mormon" church, I can assure your readers that neither Mitt Romney nor Thomas S. Monson would ever throw the other under the bus, nor would they have need to, as the FLDS church is not related to (and in fact is condemned by) the LDS church. Equating the two is like equating opus dei with mainstream Catholicism, or likening Muslim terrorists to faithful, peacable followers of the Islamic faith. Bigotry is bigotry (and is ugly), whether aimed at blacks or whites.
DocRupard,
Well said, but I also haven't ruled out the possibility that she is just joking, and the joke is on us. If so, the fact that many people are not well informed about Mormons and might believe her makes it not funny.
Or, she is being deliberately disengeneous in order to make the point about how crazy the argument against Obama is. If that's the case, the above still applies, but in addition the comparison is significantly flawed as already described in numerous comments. It's very likely that Mitt Romney has never set foot in an FLDS church, let alone sat through an FLDS meeting.
I took an African American studies course as I was exploring the possibility of a minor in that area. I was so appalled at the presentation of false information as fact and lack of actual research that I abandoned the matter completely. I read your post and can’t help but, remember how angry I felt at being so poorly represented in the academic community.
PingBack from http://www.liberallyconservative.com/?p=2380
America won't become "post racial" until the folks who benefit from racism (and they do) decide to stop playing the white-privilege card. What a wonderful country this would be (talk about sci-fi scenarios!). As for the digs at Ivy League oppression courses, etc., many of us were essentially forced into these departments because we were not the right complexions for tenure-track positions in history, English, the sciences, etc. To pretend that this is not the reality is nauseating and faux-naive. The post-Civil-Rights generation took a wrong turn after integration--we so desperately wanted to be seen as equals that we settled for academic, political, and corporate careers that are sneered at by the people who cracked the door to let us in. Perhaps those sneering will begin to understand what oppression is about as the economy continues to tank--but they're probably so insulated by generations of wealth that they won't be affected. They'll probably just sit back, martini in hand, and laugh as the have-nots duke it out.
YOU'RE A MORON - Did you see the WSJ today? Why don't you get your facts right before you try to obfuscate the facts about Wright/Obama et al ...
Harris-Lacewell claims that her own mother is a lapsed Mormon, which, if true, makes the professor's ignorance rather stunning. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did originally sanction polygamy, but you have to get up pretty early in the Mormon for that. As LDS Church Web site notes, the church banned polygamy in 1890, "and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church."
The comparison between Black liberation theology and the FLDS is a little weak because, as a legitimate outlet for the injustices suffered by Black Americans, the teachings of the Black church are suffused with righteous indignation about these injustices. The clips of Rev. Wright's sermons are shocking to the average American--who thinks that America's racial problems are largely solved--but Wright's recent statements have attempted to put his comments in the historical context of Black church in America as a function of the Black experience in America.
As a breakaway sect of Mormons, the FLDS is easily distinguished from the official Mormon Church but I'm sure the media--in its confusion--would be asking Romney "hard questions" about his faith.
I can admit a certain level of ignorance of both religious traditions but, at least with Romney in the race, the media scrutiny would likely be more diffused. Although Mormons themselves have a history of oppression, it is the fact that it is self-chosen that makes it more laughable.
The comparison between Black liberation theology and the FLDS is a little <br>
weak because, as a legitimate outlet for the injustices suffered by Black<br>
Americans, the teachings of the Black church are suffused with righteous <br>
indignation about these injustices. The clips of Rev. Wright's sermons are <br>
shocking to the average American--who thinks that America's racial problems are<br>
largely solved--but Wright's recent statements have attempted to put his comments<br>
in the historical context of Black church in America as a function of the Black <br>
experience in America.
As a breakaway sect of Mormons, the FLDS is easily distinguished from the official <br>
Mormon Church but I'm sure the media--in its confusion--would be asking Romney <br>
"hard questions" about his faith. I can admit a certain level of ignorance of both <br>
religious traditions but, at least with Romney in the race, the media scrutiny would <br>
likely be more diffused. Although Mormons themselves have a history of oppression,<br>
it is the fact that it is self-chosen that makes it more laughable.
I can admit a certain level of ignorance of both religious traditions but, at least with Romney in the race, the media scrutiny would likely be more diffused. Although Mormons themselves have a history of oppression, it is the fact that it is self-chosen that makes it
You must be more than embarassed today, poor thing. Mortified is more like it... You sit and read comment after comment exposing your ignorance, exposing your agenda, wondering if your collegues and your department and division chairs will somehow overlook your poor research and presentation that has again exposed Ivy Princeton to ridicule. You want to claim special insight into Mormonism, yet fail in a spectacular manner to distinguish between LDS and FLDS. I learned the differences in Primary (where Jesus wanted ME as a sunbeam!). Yet you, presenting yourself as a scholar no less, fall flat on your face after taking such a big, big swing at the softball. Yes, it will be a long day for you...and a longer night as you realize how vacuous and difficient your education has been and how ridiculous you are to so many. Good Luck with that!
Mr. Intellectual: What is laughable about oppression? Moreover, are you saying that Mormons are oppressed or did it mostly end when they decided to assimilate into society decades ago? I don't see them asking for apologies or harboring any bitterness about what happened generations ago. Do you get it?
Oppression is not laughable. Self-chosen oppression, when it is truly
a free choice, might just be.
The Black experience and the Mormon experience in America are
not comparable, however. You say that assimilation ended the
oppression of Mormons but Black Americans have been denied
that right historically. That, and Mormons were never enslaved nor
place at the bottom of a social hierarchy based on an unalterable
characteristic about themselves.
Do you get that the past is not passed? Even with ostensible removal
of legal barriers to full participation in the political, social, and economic
spheres of broader American society, the footing for Black Americans
entering the meritocratic race was grossly unequal and it is plainly
mistaken to think otherwise.
I think it's funny how Melissa's post has a jocular tone but the comments
below are dead serious.
Difficient? Deficient. But then you admit you are not a scholar. Nor am I.
PingBack from http://kvnuforthepeople.com/?p=1940
Intel: Melissa's post is perhaps the most ignorant POS I've read from a supposed scholar.
I agree that blacks like Am. Indian, Chinese, Japanese and any other new ethnic group in this country has experienced oppression. All but the blacks have moved on. Guys that talk like Wright don't help the progression at all. It's time to move on and become an American. I'm a caucasian american and I've never owned a slave and I've never met one, hence I don't know for what and who I'm suppose to apologize to. I suspect you don't know one either so get over it.
Are you for real????
You are the most ignorant, uniformed, uneducated, person I have ever read. I had to read this twice, because I thought for sure that you must be joking. . THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE MORMON CHURCH!!! Read the Mormon church's stance on polygamy www.mormon.org
Get a clue. Your ignorance is painful.
Intel: BTW I never said I wasn't a scholar ... but I'm thankful you had the sense to admit that you're not.
It is an injustice, a legacy of the racist threads of this nation’s history, but prominent African-Americans are regularly called upon to explain or repudiate what other black Americans have to say, while white public figures are rarely, if ever, handed that burden.
New York Times
Yo Cora: Than don't allow someone else to speak for you! There is a freedom of speech in this country ... It is not in injustice to speak your own mind. But why do blacks allow Wright to speak for them as he portrays? Does everyone feel compelled to defend something this nut says just because he is black? How ridiculous is that?!
Seriously, how often does it have to be said. MORMONS [LDS] DO NOT PRACTICE POLYGAMY. Geez, it isn't even funny anymore. I mean, they dress like standard americans, work like them, and gasp, live and breathe as monogamous married people. They would be excommunicated if they were polygamists.
Seriously, just because you are descended from polygamists does not give you "special permission" to further confuse the public.
Frankly, I find your level of ignorance appalling. The fact that you are a professor is terrifying. The LDS church banned polygamy 120-years ago; furthermore the church excommunicates members who practice polygamy. The Mormon church believes in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. The FLDS church is an extreme splinter group whose beliefs are completely antithetical to Mormon theology. There absolutely is NO association between the Mormon LDS church and the FLDS church.
Have you been to Utah lately - how many women do you see wearing pioneer clothing sporting a "fishtail in a bun" haircut?
What also is disconcerting about your post is that the implication is that you do not like the derision that the Wright issue has caused yet you revel in the vitriol and the contention that would develop in attacking a Mormon. I guess discrimination is okay since it is only against some Christians.
You reference Gov. Romney's speech...did you listen to it? I think not. Similarily to the black community, Mormons faced significant injustices and prejudice throughout the churches history. They were driven like cattle from 4 states finally finding peace in the Salt Lake valley. The govenor of Missouri even legalized the murder of Mormons!
By your absolutely stunning post, it is apparent that not much has changed. The same misconceptions, ignorance, and prejudice continue to be perpetuated. I just would have expected more from a Princeton professor, especially one who teaches African-American studies and who should understand the danger of irrational and unfounded prejudice, bred from ignorance, against a minority group.
What an absolute fool you are. How is it you were able to get your own column? You claim you have special permission to discuss Mormonism (which you are not, the flds is to Mormonism what violent jihadists are to the religion of Islam) because your mom was a member. Well obviously you are very ignorant about the history of that church. Mormons would never say god d*** america, we love our country. We pay taxes and pray and give and respect people of all faiths. To compare the vile hatred of that preacher to my faith is not only insulting but frankly quite ignorant. Before you write a column and congratulate yourself on how clever you are, why dont you actually research what it is your talking about.
The 'scholar' comment referred to someone else in the thread.
By the way, I'd have <i>never</i> guessed that you were white.
Picture the italics in your mind.
Wow. Talk about ignorant. I can't believe you're a professor AND you have family who was in the Mormon church and you still have no idea that whatever religion the cult in Texas is practicing resembles NOTHING of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Your blog is slanderous and misinformed.
Having grown up as a Mormon and still being part of a large Mormon family, I have to agree with most of the commenters here that these were ignorant remarks. The LDS lifestyle is completely different from the FLDS group, and even had the Mormon church not abolished polygamy there is no evidence that it would have evolved in a similar manner as that secretive sect. The FLDS group promotes the subjugation of women in the most gross manner possible, forcing young teenage girls to have sex with and bear the children of older men. It also kicks out the excess Males. To perpetuate the ignorant idea that Mormon culture in any way replicates or condones such practices among its members adds to misconceptions that, believe it or not, do lead to isolation and mistrust of its members, especially outside Utah. Having said this, the commenters here also should acknowledge a few things. One, while the Mormons repudiate these practices, they also let them continue within their midst. As one Texan friend said...look, it may be alright with the people of Utah and Arizona, but this kind of thing doesn't fly in Texas. Texan bravado aside, I think what he says is true...other states, not just Texas, hardly register polygamy exists in the U.S. But in Utah its common knowledge, and for the most part tolerated. Finally, while the Mormon church abolished the practice of polygamy, it has not repudiated the belief that it is the natural order of relations. Afterall, it is a mandate from God, and how can God be wrong?
I may not be an active, 10%-paying, funny underwear doffing, teetotalling, Mormon but I was baptized into the LDS at 8, attended for many years, and am knowledgeable enough about the church to appreciate its many strengths and to reject the unfairness of those who detract from the religion out of ignorance…
And like many people who are not really Mormon but know the basic truth about the religion (like, I don’t know, someone whose mother told them about it because she had been a member?) I have set the record straight many times and will continue to, despite the fact several of its members have called Ms. Harris-Lacewell “ignorant,” “uneducated,” “incompetent,” “a fool” and have denigrated the US academic system (and Ivy League, in particular) because of their own inability to identify SATIRE. I learned about satire in high school but apparently I was very fortunate because the number of times I find people unable to identify it constantly astounds me. The “uneducated” insults are my particular favorites due to that little irony.
The point was not a comment on Mormons… it was a commentary on the media’s handling of this situation, the way the masses get all inflamed over sound bites taken out of context, the way people jump to conclusions about something as complex as faith, and ultimately the way that Obama and Wright failed each other. She never said the FLDS and the LDS were the same at all-- she simply acknowledged that the media would have had a field day, regardless of what is the truth!
Her point was well made, even if apparently not altogether obvious to many. It really takes the out-of-line defensive comments of LDS members (that is Latter Day Saints, what Mormons prefer to call themselves) to drive in her point ever more vehemently.
Dear LDS, you can’t see that your religion being misunderstood (How many times have you heard that Mormons aren’t Christians?) is the same as Rev. Wright’s (and Ms. Harris-Lacewell’s, I am guessing from her comments) being misunderstood? How presumptuous it is for people to assume they understand the intricacies of another’s faith. As members of a faith so often misunderstood, you should know all too well how hurtful that can be—and how stupid it can make those who do it appear to those who know better.
If Romney was the Republican candidate and you think that this FLDS mess would not be thrown up in his face and made into a circus of which he would be forced to be the ringleader you are kidding yourself. Mormon-persecution is almost a recognized sport in some states. You were quick to incorrectly assume Ms. Harris-Lacewell was a complete buffoon and knew nothing about the LDS Church even though her own MOTHER had been a member and she is an accomplished, widely recognized person in academia on the basis of comments which she labeled a “fantasy” and did not a single time claim anything untrue about the LDS, yet you think that average John and Jane on the street would have a BETTER and more FACTUALLY-BASED understanding of LDS?
Comments like “Wow. Talk about ignorant. I can't believe you're a professor AND you have family who was in the Mormon church and you still have no idea that whatever religion the cult in Texas is practicing resembles NOTHING of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Your blog is slanderous and misinformed.” are priceless. I mean, can you read? First of all even a 5 year old can tell that the names of the churches “resemble" each other more than a little bit. Since that is as much as most people know about churches they don’t belong to, that alone would have provided ammunition aplenty for a media battle. Instead of video clips of Wright’s arm waving, singing, and dancing the anachronistic images of the women and children and pregnancy statistics would have provided the necessary jaw-drop for Mr. and Mrs. Average American despite the fact that Romney was not a member of the FLDS and more than Obama had appointed Wright the medium through which his spirit speaks.
Ms. Harris-Lacewell never claimed a perfect analogy and she even said that the taking-all-the-negative-attention-away-from-Obama scenario was a FANTASY. She actually used that word. Of course we will never know for sure what would have happened, but I think anyone who believes the typical-American-Christian would NOT have started asking all those questions and doubting all the answers, no matter how factual, and allowed their fears they had about that non-Christian cult member (as they see the LDS) lead their country run amok, at least for a while…. Well, really you are the one in fantasy land.
Facts have precious little to do with fears. People are suspicious of people who are not like them, especially where religion is concerned— something that can’t be easily seen, something that shapes the fundamental belief system, something that might mean the person could be condemned to everlasting hell— those not-so-secret fears can be exacerbated so easily by a few inflammatory comments and a less-than fact-driven media.
Despite what would have almost certainly been an initial melee, I personally do not think Ms. Harris-Lacewell’s fantasy would have come to fruition… I don’t think that Romney would have taken much attention from Obama at all, primarily because neither would have put on a show (Wright, not Obama) and it would have died down after a thoughtful, intelligent speech setting the record straight, like Obama's Philly speech except without painting Monson as the lovable family nutjob, thereby removing anticipation of a possible bump-bump of either gentleman “under the bus wheels.” But I can see where it would be nice to imagine members of another minority group enduring the same unpleasant media coverage, facing the same ignorant wide-spread slander of their religion, and key members feeling the need for such tactics (I assume Obama felt he needed to reject Wright as he did or else why would he?) so I think I understand the fantasy.
To anyone who finds themselves commenting on the writing of others, so you can perhaps not make the same conclusion-jumping simplistic interpretation of an intelligent person’s musings as this post has spawned I recommend reading more carefully in the future. When something gets you emotionally riled up, force yourself to re-read it intellectually. And learning about satire will help you recognize it in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
See especially, the “Misconception of Satire” heading which explains how it is hardest to see the satire when it is about something the audience has a personal stake. It is human nature, it seems, to miss the satire when your emotions get in the way of your wit.
But seriously, the in-a-tizzy LDS comments made the whole article really work for me. Thanks for playing.
sharedsky,
I agree with you to some extent. Even though I am a Mormon (of the LDS variety, not FLDS), some of the comments here made my uncomfortable since some crossed the line into personal attacks. Even mine might have been too harsh, although I stand by the points I made in my previous two comments. We Mormons, as a whole, do tend to be sensitive about these sorts of things. Whether that is justified or not is arguable.
However, I don't think "this is just satire" is a complete defense. For one thing, as I mentioned earlier, some people might believe it, so putting this out there is somewhat irresponsible. Also, "it was just a joke" is not always a valid defense. I can't go out and say something completely insensitive or inappropriate in other ways, and then say "hey, I was just joking" and expect everyone to be ok with that. What if it had not be Mormons? What if it had been Jews? Would you not have expected Jews to have been offended, even if it was satire.
Additionally, you mention that she didn't say it was a perfect anology, and so doesn't derserve such scrutiniy. It is a far from perfect analogy. As I have pointed out earlier, it is completely wrong. The fact that she made the comparison, even in jest, seems to indicate that she considers them to be similar
As for your point about the media, I disagree. I don't think it would have been as much of an issue as the Wright issue. Unlike Obama, Romney would have been able to give a very solid response: "They are not my religion. I don't agree with them any more than I agree with Muslim extermists." He could be questioned: "Don't they believe in the Book of Mormon, as you do?" He could respond: "You'd have to ask them. But even if they do, the scriptures I read say that man should have 1 wife (see Jacob 2), and that anyone who abuses children would be better off dead." What more is there that a reporter could ask? Sure, there would be some wisper-compaign that might influence some poeple who were already leaning anti-Mormon, but I don't see this being a huge media issue. Of course, since Romney isn't in the race, I can't prove that.
