In this area, none of our members have phones. One of our member’s father has a phone, but, in order to call, I’ve promised that it won’t cost him anything. It’s a party line, something I’d heard about in the U.S. but never actually experienced. (The way it works is, 10 households share a line. Calls come to the first house in the group. That person directs the call to whomever it’s for.)

I told the person at number 1 that, when she got a call she didn’t understand to put them through to me. But, after the hour, I decide to call my parents to give them a phonetic way to ask for me. It takes some doing to figure out how to call the U.S., but eventually I succeed and, 15 minutes later, I am talking to my parents.

I ended up paying about $15 for the instructional call home, but it was worth it. I got to talk to my parents, then return to the missionary work I was in Brazil to do.

—

I spoke today with friends whose son is calling them today for Mother’s Day. They’ll talk on Skype. Frankly, that seems a better way to do it.

Happy Mother’s Day!

No, not that Jersey, the one famous for Bruce and the MTV show. Its namesake, the one in the English Channel.

Through my clicking, I learned that my great-great-great-grandmother was born in Jersey in 1838 and died in West Bountiful in 1912.

For most, this probably wouldn’t be remarkably meaningful. I didn’t do the work to get back these generations, and I have absolutely no knowledge of these ancestors’ lives.[fn2] But . . .

. . . but Jersey is a tax haven.[fn3] And I’m a professor of tax law, a researcher of tax law, and, frankly, pretty darn interested in most things tax. And so, learning that I’m descended from residents of what has now become a tax haven is just cool. Way cooler than pretend being descended from royalty.

And now I’m curious. I’m curious about when and how the Church moved into Jersey. I’m curious what life was like in Jersey (which, I assume, wasn’t a tax haven in the 19th century). And I’m curious what the Church was like in Jersey. My relationship to Jersey is more attenuated than the relationship that Ardis suggests careful family history research can develop, but, for one of the first times, I’ve found something fascinating about my family history.

And that’s a cool feeling.

—

[fn1] I suspect this is accurate, notwithstanding my run-in with royalty documented in my earlier post.

[fn2] Ardis pointed out on my earlier post that, through carefully learning about earlier generations, starting with our parents and moving back, we learn details about their lives that, in turn, help bind us closer to them (a paraphrase that hopefully does little damage to Ardis’s point). I found that paradigm-shifting in my view of the purpose behind genealogy and our current participation in proxy ordinances. That said, as I’ll explain shortly, this Jersey connection also piques my personal and historical curiosity.

[fn3] Albeit a tax haven about which I know very little. In the U.S., we generally use Bermuda or the Cayman Islands or maybe Ireland or Switzerland (though the latter two would dispute the label). Jersey is mostly a tax haven for London, from what I understand.

Before I look at that sentence, though, a couple disclaimers. First, I haven’t been to Utah in at least four years. As far as I know, the City Creek development plans hadn’t been developed yet.[fn1] Second, I can’t convince myself to care about City Creek. I’m neither from Utah, nor do I live there.[fn2] I don’t know the flow of Salt Lake, so I don’t have any idea if this development complements or ruins the city.[fn3]

In her piece, Jana says:

Moreover, such profits [from the sale of condos and lease of retail space] are tax-exempt.

To support that claim, she links to this KUTV story. That didn’t feel right to me, so I thought I’d run down the claim. And, it turns out, City Creek Reserve, Inc. (“CCRI”) may well not be taxable on rents it receives from retail tenants.[fn4] But the KUTV story doesn’t give us a good sense of why. So here’s what I can piece together:

You can read CCRI’s 2009 Business Income Tax Return here. Among other things, it tells us that, like the Church and the university for which I work, CCRI is a 501(c)(3) organization and, as such, is generally exempt from paying taxes.[fn5]

There are two big exceptions to this tax exemption, and those two exceptions apply to all 501(c)(3) organizations. First, if a tax-exempt organization borrows money to fund an investment, it will pay taxes on a portion of its return from that investment at ordinary corporate rates.[fn6] So if CCRI borrowed money, the KUTV story is wrong, and CCRI is liable for federal income taxes.

But that’s not terribly interesting, so let’s pretend that CCRI didn’t borrow any money to do the development. The other major way that a 501(c)(3) could owe income taxes is if it earns “unrelated business taxable income.”

Basically, unrelated business taxable income is income earned by a tax-exempt organization from participating in a business unrelated to its exempt purpose. So, for example, if the Church were to start manufacturing and selling macaroni, it would be taxable on its profits from those macaroni sales in the same manner as a taxable macaroni manufacturer.

The line between businesses related and unrelated to a tax-exempt’s exempt purpose can be a difficult one, on the margins, to parse. So, for example, advertising revenue the NCAA receives from the programs it sells at the NCAA tournament is not taxable as unrelated business taxable income, even though the ads may be the same ones that would appear in Sports Illustrated. Ad income from a monthly medical journal run by a tax-exempt organization, on the other hand, is taxable as unrelated business taxable income.

Intuitively, rent from commercial real estate tenants doesn’t seem to come close to the line.  And actually, it doesn’t. Section 512(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code explicitly exempts from UBTI rents from real property. There is one exception to this exemption that may apply: if the rent is based on income or profits derived from the property, CCRI would be taxable on the rent.

Taubman says that it owns the property under a “participating lease” with CCRI. I don’t have any details on how that participating lease is structured but, if CCRI participates in Taubman’s income or profits, it will pay taxes on the rent it receives. On the other hand, if that participation is based on a fixed percentage of gross receipts or sales, CCRI will not be taxable on that income.

My ultimate conclusion: CCRI will probably not be taxable on the rent it receives from Taubman. If, however, CCRI borrowed money to invest in City Creek or if its participating lease is structured in a specific way, it will owe federal income tax on that rent.

—

[fn1] And, if they had, I wasn’t aware of them at the time.

[fn2] I don’t mean this to be a subtle or not-so-subtle dig at Utah. I just don’t have any roots there, and I have very little family there, so development of Salt Lake’s downtown isn’t terribly high on my list of things to pay attention to.

[fn3] I will say, when in doubt, I don’t like malls. That said, I have a hard time objecting to the glitziness of the stores at City Creek. Its tenants read like a pretty standard list of mid-range chain retailers. But that may be because I work a block away from Chicago’s Magnificent Mile (and across the street from a Bentley dealership) and, before, I worked about five blocks from Times Square (which is not, by the way, home to upscale retailers, either). But that’s entirely to the side of the point of this post.

[fn4] I could be wrong, of course—all of the information I have about this deal is what’s publicly available on teh Internets, so there are undoubtedly details I’m not aware of. Interestingly enough (to me, anyway), CCRI wasn’t formed to do this deal: it was founded and received its tax-exempt status in 1941. (Which leads me to the question: is City Creek a geographical location in Salt Lake? or is the development named after CCRI (which seems kind of weird to me)? or is this just serendipitous naming?)

[fn5] Donors to CCRI can also take a deduction for their donations, though I’m not sure whether CCRI takes donations.

[fn6] As an example, let’s say that CCRI borrows $1 million, and invests that $1 million with $1 million of its own income in Apple stock. Apple pays a $200,000 dividend. CCRI will have to pay taxes, at ordinary corporate rates, on $100,000 of the dividend, but the other $100,000 will be exempt from taxation.

Which is why, last summer, on vacation, when my wife saw an older couple wearing missionary name-tags, we decided to confirm when and where the church met. Turns out that they weren’t assigned to that particular area.[fn1] Still, we started talking. At one point, the husband mentioned something he’d been asked to do, and said, “You don’t say no to a Seventy.”

Let me interrupt myself right here to emphasize that it was a throw-away line. They had been asked to report on establishing some program or committee or something. He was not implying that, if a Seventy asked him to do something immoral or illegal or even questionable, he would mindlessly obey. I assume that, if pressed, he would admit that he would say no in that situation, except that he couldn’t imagine that situation actually happening. But we were in a pleasant social situation, he was a pleasant missionary, and there was no point in pressing him on a laugh-line.

I’d been thinking about writing this post for a while,[fn2] but in light of Ronan’s excellent post, which makes clear that some people seem to believe that Mormons literally do not say no to a leader,[fn3] it seemed like an opportune time.

See, I suspect that the attitude of we don’t say no is fairly prevalent in the Church. Not, of course, because we’re mindless zombies,[fn4] but because of some combination of belief that our leaders are inspired in their choices and an aversion to conflict. But that seems like a bad organizational trait, if it’s true. Not bad because we’ll commit every evil asked of us, but bad because the Seventies (stake presidents, bishops, RS presidents, etc.), though inspired, are human too. And if we just do whatever is asked of us, and accept that they have all knowledge and inspiration, they won’t get decent feedback to know what works, what doesn’t work, and how the average person will respond to their requests/ideas.

So let me know:

(a) Do we say no to Seventies (or better, is there a level at which we stop providing honest feedback)?

(b) Should we ever say no to Seventies or whomever (with the caveat that I’m assuming we won’t be asked to do anything immoral, though we may be asked to do something inefficient)?

(c) If we ever should, how should we go about saying no?

—

[fn1] Actually, they weren’t even assigned to the mission we were in; they were, however, headed home in a week or two, and were doing some sight-seeing before they left.

[fn2] About nine months now, actually.

[fn3] If you’re one of those people, btw, this may not be the comments section for you. If you actually believe that we will obey every edict that comes out of Salt Lake, you either don’t know us very well (see, e.g., many wards’ home and visiting teaching numbers contra this), you’re an ideologue, or you’re an idiot. (Sorry—as my daughter tells me whenever she hears me say “idiot,” that’s really not a nice thing to say.)

[fn4] Though that could be kind of cool.

(Poll inspiration here.)

Randy Bott

Since Wednesday, when I read the Washington Post article that cited BYU Professor Randy Bott, I have been surprised at two elements of the news and commentary I’ve read about it. First, I’ve been pleasantly surprised at the unanimity of the response—no one that I’ve seen has tried to defend the ideas that Bott expressed. Second, I’ve been surprised at the speed of the official response. If it is possible, the response makes the views expressed by Bott seem anachronistic to Mormonism today. And I hope this response will make clear to those who still maintain some version of these racist views that they are no longer tolerated among Mormons.

In order to gain some sense of how these events occurred, I’ve put together a chronology of the events, and in the process, I think I’ve learned a little about how the reaction to news items like this and who is reacting. I’ll let you make your own conclusions about this chronology, except for two observations that seem important:

First, I am very favorably impressed with FAIR and Mike Parker, who were apparently either first or very early in publishing their reactions to the publication of the article on Tuesday. In addition, the response was quite comprehensive. Best of all, my impression of FAIR was that they usually sought to correct non-Mormons or apostates, not those who would normally be considered orthodox, so the response to the ideas Bott expressed was a very pleasant and welcome surprise.

Second, the online reaction to the article seems to be confined to the bloggernacle and BYU students. I haven’t seen reactions on other blogs, or in many facebook posts or twitter feeds that weren’t somehow also connected to the bloggernacle. While I assume others at BYU and elsewhere noticed the issue and made complaints, they didn’t seem to talk about it online.

[FWIW, I've chosen to call this a "gaffe" because I think the term best fits the events. On twitter the hash tag has been "Bottgate," but I think that term is unnecessarily harsh, giving a sense of intentional criminality that is certainly not here.]

Please feel free to add to the information below in the comments, and I’ll try to update the post as I can.

Background

• Bott has expressed these ideas before on his blog. (see ldskyr.blogspot.com on Blacks and the Priesthood – pdf of blog post from Bott’s “Know Your Religion” blog from 2008)
• Bott will retire in 2 1/2 months
• A 2008 Deseret News article reports that as many as 10% of all BYU students take his classes, especially his popular Mission Prep class.
• The same article indicates that in 2008 he led the nation in ratings on the Rate My Professor service (link is to Bott’s page).

Chronology

[Times are those stated on the item as I saw it, or on the comments or replies to that item when a time isn't given. I have ignored time zones.]

• BYU Religion Professor Randy Bott gives an interview (reportedly 2 hours long) to Jason Horowitz of the Washington Post.

28 February 2012

• 9:37 am: Washington Post publishes Horowitz’ article
• 12:43 pm: David Heap posts link to the article on Facebook without comment [added 3 Mar 2012 00:02 am]
• 3:40 pm: Nate Oman criticizes the article in a Facebook post [added 2 Mar 2012 11:48 pm]
• 3:59 pm: Tamara Kemsley calls Bott’s reasoning “unfortunate” in a Facebook post [added 3 Mar 2012 00:05 am]
• 4:17 pm: BYU Professor Margaret Young says Bott is “dead wrong” in a Facebook post [added 3 Mar 2012 00:25 am]
• 4:43 pm: Joseph Trevor Antley links to the article in a Facebook post [added 3 Mar 2012 00:08 am]
• 4:51 pm: Post on Feminist Mormon Housewives Society Facebook group calls attention to the Washington Post article [added 2 Mar 2012 11:59 pm]
• 5:35 pm: Post on Mormon Stories Podcast Community Facebook group calls Bott “a racist moron.” [added 2 Mar 2012 11:54 pm]
• 5:35 pm: Post on Feminist Mormon Housewives Society Facebook group points to Botts views on women and the priesthood as found in a post on his blog. [added 2 Mar 2012 11:57 pm]
• 5:43 pm: Mike Parker makes a point-by-point rejection of Bott’s reasoning on the FAIR blog.
• abt 10:00pm: Sam Brunson posts My Cri de Coeur to Randy Bott on Times & Seasons
• abt 10:00 pm: ByCommonConsent posts excerpt from Lester Bush’s article on the priesthood ban.
• 10:53 pm: Fellow BYU Professor Daniel C. Peterson writes a blog post strongly disagreeing with Bott’s comments and calling them an “unfortunate attempt to explain the priesthood ban.”
• 10:55 pm: SLC’s ABC4 reports on controversy
• before 11:52 pm: BYU student Joseph Trevor Antley reports that BYU students are planing a protest against Bott’s statements.

29 February 2012

• 2:48 am: Student Review tweets about controversy, creating #bottgate hash tag
• 7:56 am: Joanna Brooks reports on the controversy on Religion Dispatches.
• morning: Bott is replying with a generic email messages to those complaining, saying that his comments were misinterpreted.
• morning: Armand Mauss replies to Bott’s comments on ByCommonConsent
• before 10:52 am: Guest post by BYU professor Rachel Cope on Juvenile Instructor mentions the controversy [added 3 Mar 2012 00:13 am]
• 11:09 am: Tweet from Hunter Schwartz: Best post I’ve seen re: #Bottgate #BYU: I wrote this man a two page email while I was in his class to keep his opinions to himself and just teach the scriptures… he told me to be more humble…. guess he should have listened…
• 11:22 am: BYU student Craig Magnum reports that Bott’s comments had become the topic of discussion in his illustration class.
• afternoon: LDS Church responds to controversy by disavowing Bott’s comments and issuing a statement on Church doctrine about race.
• afternoon: Bott’s email replies on the subject now simply refer to the Church’s statement.
• afternoon: Bott’s blog, “Know Your Religion” goes off-line.
• 1:46 pm: Salt Lake City’s ABC4 reports on the Church’s response.
• 2:52 pm: Nate Oman’s column on the controversy published in the Deseret News‘ website.
• 3:17 pm: In the Salt Lake Tribune’s On Faith blog, Peggy Stack reports on the controversy.
• 3:31 pm: McKay Coppins reports on the controversy on BuzzFeed. [added 6 Mar 2012 9:42 pm]
• 5:15 pm: BYU’s Student Review reports on reaction to Bott’s statement.
• 5:17 pm: On the Huffington Post, Sam Brown sees the potential death of a “Racist Mormon Fringe.” [added 3 Mar 2012 00:22 am]
• 5:34 pm: Fox 13 Salt Lake City reports on the criticism of Bott [added 3 Mar 2012 00:15 am]
• 6:12 pm: Post in Mormon Stories Podcast Community Facebook group suggests Church’s statement condemns past Church racism. [added 2 Mar 2012 11:52 pm]
• 6:34 pm: Salt Lake Tribune reports on LDS Church’s statements
• before 7:40 pm: This Week in Mormons podcast covers the controversy.
• 9:57 pm: KSL TV reports on LDS Church’s statements [added 3 Mar 2012 00:17 am]
• 10:18 pm: BYU’s Daily Universe reports that Bott didn’t follow BYU policy when he talked to the Washington Post reporter.
• evening: ByCommonConsent looks at what Bott controversy means for members.
• 11:25 pm: Brazilian blog Vozes Mórmons reports on the controversy in Portuguese.
• sometime: Australian blog at all times and in all things, and in all places comments on the controversy. [added 3 Mar 2012 00:11 am]
• night: Jana Reiss summaries the controversy on Religion News Service. [added 3 Mar 2012 08:10 am]

1 March 2012

• 1:22 am: Provo Daily Herald blogger Randy Wright says the controversy is a “question of clarity.” [added 3 Mar 2012 00:47 am]
• before 8:21 am: Doves and Serpents has fantasy press releases from the Church on the priesthood ban—what would you write in such a release? [added 4 Mar 2012 11:26 am]
• morning: 4th ByCommonConsent post on Bott blames correlation for the fact that Bott could continue to teach his ideas on the priesthood ban.
• 11:07 am: BYU student newspaper The Universe posts article about Bott’s blog going down and continued controversy, but the article is soon removed for unknown reasons (cache of the article here). [added 4 March 2012 11:33 am]
• 1:04 pm: Huffington Post reports on LDS Church’s statements [added 3 Mar 2012 00:19 am]
• 1:28 pm: Joanna Brooks on Religion Dispatches discusses the Church’s statements and reactions to the Bott controversy. [added 3 Mar 2012 01:19 am]
• before 3:00 pm: FMH observes that the Church’s statement about Bott’s comments arrived at the end of Black History Month and just before Women’s History Month begins — and makes some points from this coincidence.
• before 3:45 pm: Ogden Standard Examiner says Bott’s ideas have been taught for decades.
• 4:40 pm: Joseph Trevor Antley reports BYU student protest planned for tomorrow.
• 8:07 pm: UPI reports on Church statement rejecting Bott’s remarks [added 3 Mar 2012 00:40 am]
• before 9:13 pm: Juvenile Instructor Guest Paul Reeve discusses Elijah Abel’s experiences in response to Bott’s comments. [added 3 Mar 2012 o1:03 am]
• evening: Ben Park sees difficulties in how Mormons understand an open canon in the controversy. [added 3 Mar 2012 08:02 am]

2 March 2012

[all added after 3 Mar 2012 00:30 am]

• before 4:04 am: Ronan Head looks at how another faith apologized for historical racism. [added 4 March 2012 11:22 am]
• 8:30 am: Academic Max Perry Mueller reviews the controversy on Slate.
• before 10:16 am: Kevin Barney takes a strategic look at disavowal of the priesthood ban. [added 4 March 2012 11:22 am]
• before 10:26 am: A guest post on Keepapitchinin by Gabriel Gomes Fidalgo looks at the cost to black Church members of racist attitudes and former teachings.
• 11:43 am: Juvenile Instructor adds a Black Latter-day Saint’s Response.
• 3:01 pm: KSL reports on BYU student group Provo Peace Forum which protested by handing out flyers.
• 5:56 pm: Deseret News columnist Vai Sikahema discusses the controversy.
• sometime: As Sistas in Zion gives a very charitable response to the controversy. [added 4 Mar 2012 11:15 am]

3 March 2012

[all added after 4 Mar 2012 11:10 am]

• before 1:51 am: John C. at BCC talks about “How I learned to stop worrying and love Mormon racism.”
• 12:06 am: Ray of Things of My Soul says “God bless you, Bro. Bott – even as I condemn your words and beliefs regarding this particular issue.”

5 March 2012

[all added after 6 Mar 2012 9:30 pm]

• 11:03 pm: Ohio State University newspaper sees discomfort among African Americans there connecting Bott controversy to Romney campaign.

6 March 2012

[all added after 6 Mar 2012 9:30 pm]

• 1:15 am: Dave Banack reviews who were the winners and who were the losers in the controversy.
• 9:00 am: Deseret News reports on response of Genesis members to the controversy.
• 2:32 pm: Kaimi Wenger sees similarities between the Bott affair and writings of fellow BYU Professor Ralph Hancock reacting to Joanna Brooks.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.

(In both, emphasis mine.) The first excerpt is wonderful, not pulling punches against our own. And the second, although it’s phrased in the passive voice, is pretty much as explicit a renunciation of previous thought as I’ve seen in the Church, and I know that I’ll be pulling these statements out when (or, I hope, if) I hear these repeated again.

—

Aaargh!!!

I thought we were past this. I really did; I’d heard rumors on the internet for years of people teaching offensive racist folklore about the long-repealed priesthood ban. But I had never actually experienced anybody seriously making those arguments—I had only heard them in the context of, This is what some people claim. And I know that anecdote is not evidence, but I’ll put forward my anecdote anyway:

Once, while I was in high school, I asked my dad why black members of the church had been prevented, until 1978, from holding the priesthood. Dad’s answer? “I don’t know.” He didn’t try to make up or come up with an after-the-fact excuse. He confessed that he didn’t know, but that he nonetheless believed that the Church was true.

And then, today happened. A Washington Post article, looking at the history of the priesthood ban in the Church, cites and quotes extensively from Randy Bott, a BYU professor of religion, who repeats a number of the racist folkloric justifications for the priesthood ban, and provides some I hadn’t heard before.

I’m not going to respond to Dr.[fn1] Bott’s arguments. Others have done so far more thoroughly and eloquently than I, and I don’t want yet another written record of the poor thinking of our past. But if you want authoritative refutation of the folklore, you can look to our prophets, seers, and revelators (e.g., President Hinckley,[fn2] Elder Holland,[fn3] Elder McConkie[fn4]). If you want detailed explanations of why these explanations are folklore and how perpetuating the folklore is actually harmful to real people, you can look to FAIR, Edward Kimball, and especially pretty much the entire oeuvre of Margaret Blair Young.[fn5] I realize, of course, that we abhor a doctrinal vacuum, and rush to fill it with whatever justification we can think of. But these individuals and so many others have worked hard to brush this explanatory detritus out of the way. I think it’s fair to say that, if you know why God didn’t allow those of African descent to hold the priesthood, you’re wrong.[fn6]

[Update:] BCC has a must-read response from Armand Mauss and a link to Lester Bush’s “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine.” Both are must-reads. I’m sure that others have responded and will respond, too.

Rather than a rebuttal, then, this is my cri de coeur. I’ll address the rest to Dr. Bott:

Dr. Bott,

I’ve never met you, nor have I taken any of your classes. (I may, however, have been given one of your books before my mission, or maybe I found one on my mission.) And I know that you aren’t the only member of the Church who espouses these folkloric justifications. Moreover, I assume that you are a faithful member who wants what is best for the Church and its members.

So why am I (and so many others) so outraged at your comments? Because you are immensely influential within the Church; you are a popular teacher at BYU, you are a popular author, and people respect and believe what you say. Which means that, when you repeat these problematic statements, they get taken seriously, and they get new life. And wrong thinking that I (and others) though was behind us rears again its ugly head.

I hope, sincerely hope, that, when my daughters are in high school, they ask me why blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood. And I hope, in answering them, that I don’t have to address these same ideas that have sadly floated through the ether of Mormonism, because I hope that they haven’t been exposed to such horrific statements. But every time they are repeated, they regain new life, and there’s a greater chance that my daughters will hear them.

I know that you’re a teacher, and that you want to provide knowledge to your students. I’m a teacher, too. But when I don’t know the answer—and by “know,” I mean, know exactly where in the tax law it is cited—I tell them I don’t know. And I tell them that I will research and find the answer. And I research and find the answer. I learned as an associate at a law firm that saying, “I don’t know,” is better than giving an incorrect answer, because the incorrect answer could cost my client millions of dollars.

But that’s the thing: should I give my students the wrong answer, it may cost them or their clients money. It may cost them significant money. But my wrong answers have no salvific consequences. Yours, however, do.

Please, please, please repudiate what you said to the Washington Post. Please tell your current and former students that you were wrong. There is no shame in being wrong, as long as we can fix the problem and move ahead. And you can fix the problem and move ahead.

Yours truly,

Sam

—

[fn1] I’ve agonized over whether to refer to him as “Dr.,” “Professor,” or “Brother” Bott. Ultimately, because the reporter appears to have looked to him in his role as a professor at BYU, I’ve decided to go with “Dr.”

[fn2] “I don’t know what the reason was.”

[fn3] “We don’t pretend that something wasn’t taught or practice wasn’t pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we’re absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that’s not perpetuated in the present. That’s the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic.”

[fn4] “And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

[fn5] Need more? The Juvenile Instructor also has a whole lot of links. And check out Ardis’s links in comment 4.

[fn6] Note that this isn’t meant to assume that God was behind the ban; my personal view is that fallible leaders incorporated their preexisting beliefs into their structuring of Church policies. But I realize that not everybody agrees with that; even those who denounce the racist folklore of the past can argue that we don’t have enough evidence to pin the blame on past leaders. Which is why, in the end, no matter what our beliefs and suspicions, the only completely true answer seems to be, We don’t know.

—

Official Church statements:

The Church and Race: “All Are Alike Unto God”

The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world.

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject:

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

Church Statement Regarding ‘Washington Post’ Article on Race and the Church

The Church issued the following statement today in response to news media requests:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

When I got back from my mission, I spent two semesters teaching Portuguese at the MTC.[fn2] One morning, one of my fellow teachers came in with a new ring on her left hand. After our morning meeting, she went in to teach. She didn’t say anything to the Elders (it’s been a long time, but I think she only had Elders) but, after about 10 minutes, in the middle of a lesson on conjugation, one of them noticed her new jewelry. They got excited (remember how close you felt to your teachers at the MTC? They were basically your only connection to the outside world) and she was giddy.

Especially when she reminded them it was April 1.

So this probably isn’t the place for your sweet, heartfelt Valentine’s Day memories. Actually, this is the place for those. (And seriously, you need to read that post.[fn3]) This post is for your other Valentine’ Day (-esque, at least)  memories.

Oh, and happy Valentine’s Day!
—

[fn1] Or at least I assume they will, though I base that assumption on the fact that my sister’s Helaman Halls RA got engaged on the evening of February 14, 1998. But if I can’t project a trend from a single isolated data point, what fun is blogging?

[fn2] At 6:30 am, actually. If it hadn’t been so early, or maybe if I’d been more of a morning person, I might have taught longer than two semesters.

[fn3] Seriously. See, I’m no Valentine’s Day cynic; I love most holidays, including today. We had heart-shaped chocolate chip pancakes (though I substituted white chocolate chunks for half of the chocolate chips) for breakfast, my daughters will have heart-shaped peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch, and heart-shaped personal pizzas for dinner, as well as plenty of homemade hearts and cards and other celebratory celebrations.

No surprise, I know. However, I also can’t say that I’ve seen many violations here in my ward and stake — perhaps I’m just out of the loop in some ways, but I haven’t seen emails from fellow ward members using the ward list for political or marketing purposes. Nor has anything appeared on the unofficial ward facebook group. Many years ago I did see one attempt to start an LDS bookstore by putting flyers up in chapels, but I haven’t seen anything since.

Nevertheless, I’m sure that this happens, as Coppins makes clear in his article. [I should point out that Coppins doesn't make entirely clear the distinction between official resources, like the online ward directories, and the 3,500-strong "Colonial First Ward listserv," which is likely unofficial given its size (10x or more that of a singles ward) and the fact that it is apparently an email group like you can set up with yahoogroups or google groups (and many other places).] Unofficial groups like the ones he discusses are particularly ripe for issues like this, since no one will be called into their bishop for violating the policies of an unofficial group.

What is perhaps confusing in the case of the “Colonial First Ward listserv” is that, apparently, those on the list didn’t complain about the clear violation of the listserv rules! Surely not all 3,500 in the group want the political adds and solicitations (assuming that they actually read the email from the list). I’m sure that there are at least a few Democrats in the group, and I’d bet that more than a few Republicans wouldn’t be happy about the violation of the rules, if they noticed it.

Despite my preference for following the rules, I think there are times when I would support some, limited, violations of the policy — like for the struggling member trying to find an audience for his catering business or something. I can see how some situations might be reasonable exceptions, even if it means that one member can do it and I can not.

Also, its not always clear that these messages ARE a violation of the rules. Did the offender spam the ward list? Or did he just collect the addresses of those he thinks are his friends? Can you make your own email list, and just use the ward list to collect information for it? Why? or Why not?

Regardless, I’m interested in how often others see violations by Mormons of Church policy like this, or even violations of the policies or norms of unofficial groups, blogs, websites, facebook groups, etc. Does it happen much? How do you feel about it? What, if anything, do you do? Do you tell the Bishop when the bulletin board is used for personal gain? or do you just take down the offending item? Or are there times when you simply leave the item in place?

How do you handle these things when you see them? What have you seen?

I confess that I wasn’t familiar with Lomax until after I got married. The long and the short of it: Alan Lomax was a folklorist and an ethnomusicologist. He took his recording equipment around, and recorded people performing the music they performed. He recorded them talking. He taped their dancing. He worked to document and preserve cultures, both within and without the U.S.

His prodigious legwork provided the first recordings of, among others, Woody Guthrie and Muddy Waters. He met and recorded Leadbelly in jail. He didn’t really create folk music culture, but he certainly introduced it to those of us who otherwise wouldn’t know it. In the end, the New York Times tells me, he collected 5,000 hours of sound recordings, 400,000 feet of film, 3,000 videotapes, 5,000 photographs, and all sorts of memoirs.

—

The Church is amazing (though not unique) in its attraction of people from all sorts of cultures, countries, and regions. In my ward, we have Utahns, Idahoans, Midwesterners, Easterners, Californians. We have immigrants from Central America, refugees and immigrants from West Africa, members from Korea and Mongolia. We have people whose history intersects with the Church for generations, and people whose history intersects for months.

In 1997, speaking at BYU, President Hinckley said, “Bring all the good that you have and let us see if we can add to it.” It seems to me that this is a call for us, as church members, to become amateur folklorists and ethnomusicologists. Through our fellow-saints, we can learn and experience other cultures, and in our ward families, we can preserve the cultures the mix by virtue of geographic, and not self-selected, boundaries. And, by doing so, we can benefit from the good that people bring with them on Sundays.