Bott, racism, and the role of a church

I’ve made mistakes in my life. There are things I wish I could undo and hurtful things I wish could be unsaid. And heaven knows, I’ve rarely put the kingdom first. I have sinned or missed the mark and others have suffered for it. But I have also experienced grace.

And I’m not talking about mistakes taken away on the cheap, but the redemptive change that can come from recognizing mistakes and asking for forgiveness. And certainly not the way we humans have usually done it: by putting our sins on the back of a scapegoat and getting rid of it and feeling righteous. That may pass for religion, but a god who demands the sacrifice of another isn’t Jehovah; that’s Molech. As I see it, if we substitute others for our mistakes we don’t really believe in grace or even want to change. You would think the first step would be easy. You need to recognize your sinfulness, your complicity, that is to say, hear the cock crow and ask for forgiveness. But the thing is, you have to ask. And you can’t ask to be forgiven until you recognize your sinfulness.

So what does this have to do with Randy Bott?

It seems obvious that if you don’t recognize when you are wrong you cant really change. The more I think about what happened over a week ago, the more I fear that we have been caught up in the fever to scapegoat another victim in an effort to take away our sins. I find Randy Bott’s statements reprehensible but so is the decision of many to scapegoat Randy Bott. We can’t take away our sins by venting all the evil born of sin on one hapless victim. After all, it’s not as if he isn’t a product of the past racism and racist ban the church taught.

The church’s mistakes wont be resolved by scapegoating Bott. Gil Bailie once pointed out this all too human way of trying to cleanse sins through sacrificing others:

“They go to the killing fields, to the place of stoning, to the brow of the hill, to the gas ovens, to the lynching tree, to the show trials, to the sun god’s altar, to the firing squad, to the guillotine, to the headsman’s ax; the litany is almost endless. But the essential locale is always the same. Where does humanity go to take away the sins of the world? It goes to the Cross.”

Civilization: Its Violent Roots, Part 2 of Cain’s mark Civilization: Its Violent Roots

The story of Cain and Abel is foundational. By foundational I mean the basis or the underlying support, the body or ground upon which something is overlaid or built. The story of Cain and Abel teaches us what constitutes the basis or underlying support of human civilization – the city and state. Unlike other foundational myths, this story does not perpetuate the myth by covering up truth, but instead “recounts the bloody foundation of the beginnings of culture and the consequences of this foundation.”[i]In this sense, the Bible interprets all founding myths. The first death in the Bible is a murder and the Bible’s first murderer is the founder of civilization.

The story of Cain and Abel also represents a story of two paths: the “way of the world” or the Kingdom of God; Cain’s city of Enoch or the translated city of Enoch; the Hypocritical Nation or the Mountain of the Lord’s House; Babylon or Zion. These two paths run throughout the Biblical narrative and are manifested in the political and religious body of Israel. It is in the teachings, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth that the path of Abel is chosen definitively and the Kingdom of God is revealed.

The Curse, Murder, and the State

As mentioned in part one, the typical focus on race in the story of Cain and Abel has hindered us from understanding the foundational lessons in the text about humanity, the nature of God, and civilization’s ties to violence and retribution. Let’s remember that the text tells us that Cain and Abel both offer sacrifice but Abel’s is accepted while Cain’s is not. This led to a mimetic rivalry between the two brothers. Cain is angry and this rivalry ends with Cain luring his brother out into the field where he kills his younger brother Abel. Cain in turn is cursed. But what of the curse?

“And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.[ii]

Cain’s Mark of Protection, Part 1

Much ink has been spilled over the slaying of Abel by his brother Cain. One of the more pernicious interpretations of the story is that it explains the origin of black skin. This interpretation became particularly popular during the rise of the Euro-American slave system. David Goldenberg argues that the idea of Cain’s “mark” as black skin became common in Europe during the 17^th and 18^th centuries coinciding with the rise of African slavery.[i] This justification for slavery and its racist tentacles eventually reached the early Mormon faith where blacks were later denied priesthood and temple ordinances, and black skin became synonymous with Cain’s mark. The belief that black-skinned individuals shared common ancestry with Cain was common in America of the 1800’s,[ii] but what was unique in the Mormon case was the manner in which this common belief became part of the Mormon institutional decision to deny members of African origin the priesthood and the ability to participate in certain religious ordinances.

For current members of the Mormon church, there have been public and official statements saying that past Mormon leaders “spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world,” and that we would do well to “forget everything” they have said “in days past that is contrary” to the church’s current position (i.e. that skin color is unrelated to worthiness, priesthood, and ordinances).[iii] The late prophet, President Hinckley, directly addressed racism in declaring that no one “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 of Christ.”[iv] However, in spite of such statements, certain myths persist.

Three decades have passed since the priesthood ban was lifted and various statements have been made renouncing racism; yet racist folklore continues among some Mormons. It is not uncommon to hear references to Cain, Ham, pre-existence fence sitting, and other attempts to explain previous policy. In 2003, the Pearl of Great Price television program, featuring prominent BYU religion department instructors as part of a discussion panel, again perpetuated some of these very myths. This program was re-aired multiple times, and as late as 2008. It is likely that these folklores will continue until these explanations are publically and formally denounced. In the interim, it is important that these myths be confronted whenever they arise. This paper is one individual’s attempt to publically denounce the folklore that individuals with black skin carry a mark of Cain, a curse, or any other racist explanation relating the priesthood ban with Cain.

One Must Pay Their Debts

The kingdom of mammon may be compared to a nation which wished to settle accounts. A bank was brought which owed hundreds of millions of dollars and as it could not pay, it was ordered that the business be sold, with its owners homes and servants and all that they had, and payment to be made. So they publicly fell on their knees, imploring, `Have patience with us, and we will pay you back everything.’ And they forgave them the debt. But that same bank, came upon one of its debtors who owed it a thousand dollars; and seizing him by the throat it said, `Pay what you owe.’ So the debtor fell down and besought him, `Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ It refused and took his home, his possessions, and left his family destitute. Then the government summoned the bank and said to it, `You righteous servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me, donated to my campaigns, provided me lucrative jobs and kickbacks; but you should not have mercy on your debtors because they have mismanaged their accounts and one must pay their debts.’ – Parable found in Gospel of Mammon

Your tax dollars at work.

Hogtied black men shot in a hospital, by forces armed, financed and enabled by the United States. I wonder if Barack Obama will include this episode in his next inspiring, patriotic “Letter to My Daughters.” – Chris Floyd

Rebels settle scores in Libyan capital

“between being waterboarded once and imprisoned for several years, which would you pick?”

As other obligations have taken up my time, I have failed to post anything for some time. In the meanwhile I thought I would try to post a News roundup of some of the more provocative things I have read each week.

1) Roderick Long, self proclaimed left-libertarian market anarchist and professor of Philosophy at Auburn concludes his discussion of our penal system with the question:

For those who doubt that incarceration counts as inhumane, ask yourself: if you had a choice between being waterboarded once and being imprisoned for several years, which would you pick?

Non-Violent Reading of Book of Mormon – Claremont Conference

You can watch my presentation here

Following our first session was this q&a

and videos for the whole conference here. Many great papers. Suggest listening to as many as you can.

http://vimeo.com/ldswarpeace

War and Peace in Our Time: Mormon Perspectives

Open Invent for everyone who wants to come. A couple of us will be presenting. Look forward to seeing you there.

Intro to a Non-violent reading of the Book of Mormon

Since the SL Tribune ran an article on my approach to the Book of Mormon I have received alot of criticism arguing that the Book of Mormon cannot be anti-war or against violence. In an article in the upcoming print edition of the Mormon Worker I will lay out some of my arguments. I would like to present a few here to help others understand why I read the Book of Mormon the way I do. I imagine I will do 2-3 posts. This will be the first laying out a couple of positions for discussion.

Within Mormon culture it has become common to justify war and conflict by an appeal to the Book of Mormon. Many have used The Book of Mormon to dismiss Jesus’ words, teachings, and life as a statement on how we should approach violence and war. Despite historical and scriptural evidence that early Christian communities refused to engage in warfare and violence, the Book of Mormon has seemingly allowed members to move the New Testament and Christian traditions of non-violence to the margins.

I believe this is a mistake and a failure to critically engage The Book of Mormon. René Girard, French historian, literary critic, and philosopher, has argued that “the gospel simply shows us two options, which is exactly what ideologies never provide. Either we imitate Christ, or we run the risk of self-destruction.”

The Book of Mormon addresses the question: how should we respond to our enemies and presents us with the same two options noted by Girard: we can either imitate Christ in loving our enemies and seeking at-one-ment with them or we can resort to violence. In other words, will we sacrifice fellow humans for our own benefit, or are we willing to sacrifice self for others? Will we follow the sacrificial economy of Satan, or will we imitate Christ in his voluntary self-giving for others? In the case of the Book of Mormon, both options are presented and the consequences of choosing violence are shown in Nephite self-destruction. Mormon and Girard both conclude, that “it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished,” and that we must “lay down our weapons of war.” Or as Girard states it, “Jesus doesn’t need to finish off all the bad guys. They finish each other off.”

Egypt, open post

I have been glued to various blogs and Al-Jazeera’s internet feed the last few days. What are your thoughts on the Egyptian revolution taking place?

update: Mubarak steps down

I would also like people to consider how peaceful and non-violent this uprising was. The protestors regularly chanted “peaceful, peaceful.” I doubt that they would have succeeded if they engaged in violence giving the regime a pretext to massacre the people.