The Non-Apology that Wasn’t (and still is)

Introduction

On the Thoughts on Things and Stuff blog and the Thinker of Thoughts YouTube channel, I cover various subjects including race, gender/sexuality, undue influence. While you might look at the individual posts and videos and see only the subject matter at hand, there is a common thread that is woven in each subject which is the over-riding theme: the issue of individual dignity and autonomy.

Essentially, this takes the form of two complementary perspectives. First is how our identity is framed by authorities within the power structures we inhabit and looking at how that narrative limits the choices we can make and still be seen as morally responsible agents by our community.

Second is examining how much of this external narrative we internalize and integrate into our own consciousness, thereby constraining our own autonomy.

In order to make these points, I frequently draw upon comparisons with groups other than Mormons. It is less disconcerting to look at groups other than our own and analyze these issues to understand why people would continue to participate in something that we would, ourselves, reject.

The times that I directly confront Mormonism and the negative aspects of its history are those times when I risk creating discomfort and hurt for the very people who I hope to reach. The recent satire apology was firmly in this category. In this post I would like to give some background for my authorship of the apology and then a response to the outcry that followed.

Background

A recent LDSLiving article discusses a presentation being given by Marvin Perkins in firesides around the world. In his presentation, Mr. Perkins makes the argument that words like “dark” “skin” and “curse” used in the Book of Mormon are idioms and should not be taken literally. In this way, the scripture can be seen as not attributing repugnant racist ideas to God or Prophets.

Perkins’ presentation was the subject of a 2015 post from my blog. That post was also my first attempt at making a case for an apology from the church on the issue of racism.

In 2015 I had just encountered Dr. Darron Smith’s petition for an apology and his case for the healing and accompanying institutional humility affected me greatly. His bravery in making this appeal when many others were saying that an apology was not necessary and wouldn’t change anything was inspirational. He has continued to be boldly outspoken in advocating for the healing power of apology.

“When the Church refuses to give an apology, it leaves its millions of members left to question whether this was really God’s will rather than human racist actions.”

Dr. Darron Smith Change.org

Others, such as Julienna Viegas, in a 2016 Salt Lake Tribune OpEd have bravely added their own voice to that chorus:

Until the LDS leadership openly and publicly apologizes for the hurt they have caused to women, Blacks and LGBTQ members, I can no longer take the leaders seriously. Not only sincere apologies are needed but reparative actions such as diversifying the leadership should also take place.

Julienna Viegas, Salt Lake Tribune Op Ed

While clumsy and misguided in my execution of the recent apology, I was motivated by amplifying the principles and ideals called for by people, such as Smith and Viegas, who risked much more than me in speaking their own truth.

Hoax vs Satire

Many people refuse to call the recent matter “satire” and instead use terms such as “hoax” or “prank” or “deception.” I accept that each person will define it according to their own perspective. I see a hoax or a prank as something which carries no underlying moral imperative. Satire is driven by the desire to further a moral theme. While it is most commonly and effectively paired with humor and exaggeration, it may not always be funny. The essential element is to convey a discrepancy between what should be and what actually is.

Aesop employed fable, allegory and satire with animals in place of archetypes to convey moral statements which readers could relate to and compare with their own experience and behavior.  Christ’s parables may be seen as satire in that they fictionally depicted church leaders adhering strictly to law and in so doing missing the greater imperative of love and compassion. The contrast between how the leaders actually acted and what Christ’s disciples knew to be right was palpable and transformative.

Positive Satire

While historically satire uses an exaggeration of the *negative qualities* of their target to make a point, I wanted to create something which was aspirational in that it gave people a view of what could be when leaders lived up to the high ideals that members know to be true at any level in the church – compassion, humility and vulnerability. These principles demonstrated in the words of the press release and apology spoke to the hearts of people because they are true principles. People described seeing a whole new vision of what the church could be in that moment.

The contrast would only be felt if the leaders did not live up to the ideal. Myself and many others keep hoping they live up to these ideals on many issues but, sadly, hope is all we have.

The Root Problem

You may have noticed that the apology spent an inordinate amount of time addressing the mantle of authority and those responsibilities and obligations that are attached to it. This is the real target of my efforts. Individuals affected by racism in the past and present church are experiencing the aftermath of the unaccountable and unapologetic use of authority. In the past leaders have defined exactly what black people were, their spiritual worthiness and character and their eternal potential on the strength of that mantle of authority.

Mantle or Bludgeon

As I look back in the history of the church, I see the metaphor of a brass-handled cane as more apt than a mantle or cloak. Something which was used in the past to bludgeon the spirit and identity of its targets.  That cane was used against black people before 1978 and they were told that they deserved it.

When the ban was lifted, the metaphorical beating ceased, but its victims were left with the unrepudiated ideas that they had deserved it. That same brass-handled cane was then employed against the rights of women, individuals struggling with their identity as homosexual or those who would leave the church altogether.

Whether you envision it as a mantle or a cane – the unaccountable and unrepentant abuse of authority has left a trail of the abused in the wake of those leaders who wield it and hold it aloft as a symbol of power.

Lessons from Non-Mormons

This issue has been on my mind for some time. I had written a post in 2014 about the “Humble Pie of Institutional Racism” which observed the disparity between how Mormon and other sects leaders have dealt with their racist pasts. It was an embarrassing comparison. Looking at it from the perspective of institutional repentance makes this even more painfully clear. When writing the words of the apology, I looked for inspiration in those statements of apology from other denominations.

Mormon Polity

Something that is almost universal is that these apologies were the result of the voice of the membership of the faith. In many instances, this was the natural result of the ecclesiastical polity of a faith – policies and principles determined through member representatives from the bottom up.

Mormonism has the vestiges of member level determination in “Common Consent” however that concept is all but obsolete in the Modern Church – replaced by the carte blanch of a sustaining vote and the communal self-policing of any who would dissent.

“From the top down” is how the authority and polity of the Mormon church is structured. As such, even if the voice of the members called out in perfect unison that an apology was essential, nothing would happen unless the leaders willed it.

But, even so, why aren’t the members calling for an apology when even other faiths found such measures to be essential and healing?

Moral Leadership

“What does real moral leadership look like?”

This is a question that we may all ask ourselves as we look out at the world around us and try to make sense of the complex issues we face. For Mormons, the answer starts with the one man who claims the right and responsibility to act as “the Lord’s mouthpiece” and that circle expands in order with the counselors and apostles at his side.

Blind Obedience?

Though outsiders may accuse Mormons of simply surrendering their agency to their leaders by committing to an obedience that “accepts God’s commandments unconditionally and in advance” as proffered through the Prophet, Mormons know that this is not true. From the earliest days of the Church, members were told that it is not through the Prophet that they receive a confirmation of God’s truth – but by the Holy Spirit of God:

“What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

– Brigham Young

“How shall we know that [the counsel we receive from Church leaders] is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil.”

– Joseph F Smith

This is no blind obedience. It is an obedience of discernment, guided by Spirit and conscience. Discernment is not a passive thing which happens to us, it is something which requires an active searching heart and a mind which searches deeply through the evidence of reason and evidence of the Spirit. Our conscience is the medium through which the Spirit conveys truth.

Sins of Omission

So what of the statements of Brother Smith and Brother Brigham? Mormons may say that they know it and act on that principle. When the Prophet speaks we search our hearts and if and only if the Spirit confirms its truth do we accept it.

But…

We know that there are sins of commission and sins of omission. Just as the Prophet is not infallible and may commit a misstep He is also liable to omit actions – which omissions may be in error and serve to leave correct paths yet untraveled by the Saints.

Wouldn’t this same principle of the Spirit work upon the conscience of the Members to enlighten their minds and direct them in the right way – to correct an essential omission on the part of the leaders? By definition, such omissions could only come to your attention from sources other than the leaders.

Joseph Smith himself did not limit the source from which truth could be acknowledged:

“Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”

(lds.org)

In the last 48 hours there has been a great deal of discussion regarding the piece of satire released as an apology.  I have followed the debate and listened in as many different corners as I could. Of all the comments, the one which carried the greatest impact to me was a question posed in a discussion which served primarily to condemn me as the author:

“How could I feel the Spirit telling me those words were true – but it was false?”

(Black LDS Legacy Committee Facebook Live Video 12:53)

This is an essential question. What is to be done when truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, but not from the source we expected?

Vision of the Future

In that brief moment of time when you read the apology and allowed yourself to feel the truth of those words wash over your soul – think about how you felt about the future of your faith. Think of the pure joy and hope that you had. That you could stand and embrace members of other faiths who have already gone through those intensive painful periods of institutional repentance and reconciliation and share in that experience. That you could feel that God did answer the deepest prayer of your heart.

People on all sides of the church claimed they felt the Spirit. If the spirit is speaking to our hearts, and if we, in the ecstasy of that moment, can see a bright future of hope, peace, and progress, healed wounds and joy – is that not a vision?

Waking Up

In the Book of Mormon, father Lehi experienced a vision of indescribable joy. It was manifest in the metaphor he could relate to as a tree bearing fruit.

“I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit.”

(1 Nephi 8:12 lds.org)

We see that tree and fruit depicted in a breathtaking glory in church art which could only pale in comparison to the vision Lehi actually saw.

At some point, however, Lehi awoke from that dream, brought back to a reality which was not marked by beaming joy he felt in that vision. His joints probably ached, the air was cold, the ground under his feet rough and his own earthly fruit could not taste as sweet – but he remembered the dream and it drove him to action.

I think many people could relate to that when comparing the vision of the future they saw in the apology with the present reality of race relations in Mormonism.

The Pain

I want to acknowledge and validate the pain that those people went through who read and accepted the truth of the ideas and words of the apology and then only later discovered that they did not come from the Prophet as depicted.

Even though I am half hispanic by my mother, I look for all the world like a white guy. I have a family history and childhood experience that is of mixed race, but primarily white and Mormon because that is the primary culture of my youth. I am absolutely in a place of privilege and with that comes all of the ignorance, myopia and self-centeredness displayed in much of my life. Ethnocentrism is a reality for everyone and my privilege blinds me to the racist nature of my words and actions all the time.

I caused unimaginable pain for countless Mormons who read and accepted the apology and were then confronted with the harsh reality of its fiction. Your pain was real. It was raw. It was bone deep. I understood that an apology would be healing, but I was absolutely blindsided by the extreme depth and intensity of the spiritual need for an apology that exists to this day in the hearts of Mormon persons of color.

Years ago I discussed the issue in forums with black mormons and upon raising the question of apology was told in those discussions that many feel that an apology isn’t necessary and wouldn’t make much of a difference – the church is looking forward, not back. A past effort to petition for an apology received lackluster support. Past public appeals for apology launched with little effect.  I had no concept of how universally starved people are for the healing that comes with an apology.

Like someone who extended a drink of water to someone starving in the desert and then snatched it away just when the glass touched their lips – it was cruel and heartless, even if i didn’t know the intensity of the thirst.

The Sin

A great deal of discussion has been had over exactly why the satirical apology was wrong and hurtful. I have been listening to everyone I could. Some of the strongest cases have been made for key aspects:

• It was cruel.
• It used the lives and emotions of black members as pawns in a white man’s game toying with them as though they were an afterthought.
• It exploited a key moment in time in Mormon race relations diminishing the import of a historic meeting with the NAACP.
• It preyed upon the willingness of members to take seriously the written words of the Prophet.
• It was a ploy to embarrass the church because I knew it would be accepted and I knew the church would not be able to match its message.  
• It didn’t declare itself to be satire visibly enough and so was outright premeditated deception.
• It was an attempt to make Mormons embarrassed because they would inevitably share the good new with friends only to later have to retract it.
• It is cruel to joke around in a way that gives people false hope about something that matters deeply to them.
• It would impress non-Mormons as much needed progress – only to then further diminish their respect to learn that it was not real and that no apology has ever preceded it.
• It was an expression of white supremacy because the very act of it implied that a white person knows how to handle the issue of racial reconciliation better than a whole black community who are in the trenches living it every day.

Every single argument I heard was filled with truth. I have to acknowledge that consciously or subconsciously I acted in a way which justified every one of these criticisms. Each person who saw the problem and took the time to put their pain into words and the thought to express the reasons for it did so with conviction and power.

I will offer no excuses or counter arguments.

The Judgement

In the course of these discussions, a number of judgments about me personally were made. Each of these descriptors was found in various responses online:

• “You are trash. Straight garbage. A flaming piece of racism wrapped in male white fragility.”
• “you are conceited and wrong and a disgusting human being.”
• “You are a jackass. …You have done more harm than good. You are the menace.”
• “You committed emotional rape”
• “White savior complex”
• “ideological terrorist”
• “No better than [forger and murderer] Mark Hoffman”
• “Jerk”
• “scum”
• “human garbage”
• “hot potato”
• “Satan”
• “Pure evil”
• “Lucifer”

Another commenter hoped that I would be put in jail for my deception and my family should live in squalor.

I received voicemails from someone who later described this action as using his privilege to correct my white savior complex:

One friend whom I had worked with in activism around child abuse in Mormonism described me as a “sadistic prick.” Still, other people – historians, feminists, and intellectuals who I respect, who themselves have written and published things which upset the church and its members – denounced and unfriended me on social media.

These were strong words. I listened.

I have written before about Stewart Udall and his collection of letters for speaking out and using his prominent position to “embarrass” the church on the issue of race and I understand the feelings behind these words are powerful and real.

Others, even some in the church, looked at the experience and found a different judgment of it and me. Seeing a brighter future possible for the church, they have defended the apology as a provocative satire on an important issue.

The story of racism in Mormonism includes the black experience as well as native Americans, Hispanics, Polynesian, and even Caucasians – whether they were given a racist false narrative about Lamanite heritage, dark skin and the whitening of generations or whether they were unknowingly fed a diet of white supremacy under the heading of the Word of God – shaping them into religious bigots because they had no way to know better.

Each of them has their own different pain and each of them deserve their own voice in the dialogue with the church and with their friends.

Hypocrisy

One of the most common criticisms I saw was that I was an utter hypocrite for having the audacity to shine light on the absence of an apology on race in the church and in doing so retraumatized countless Mormons – but I was unwilling to apologize for this.

I want to respond to that now:

I. will. not. apologize.

I know that you reading this cannot probably understand why I would be so callous and cruel and unabashedly arrogant and heartless. For me to not apologize is all of those things.

Is an apology the right thing for me to do? Absolutely. No question about it.

So I acknowledge that everything I did was wrong. I caused deep wounds in an already traumatized group. I gave no thought but to my own perspectives and manipulated emotions to attempt to achieve my own goals. This I did on the strength of the argument that apology is the most powerful tool in restoring goodwill and mending wounds.

There is nothing that I can say – no argument that I can make, no rationale or clever quip which could justify the hurt and pain felt so deeply by so many because of my actions. The only thing that I could possibly do to have any measure of goodwill for myself in the public space again is to apologize.

But, I am not going to do it.

Repercussions

Since I am recalcitrant and refuse to apologize – I anticipate well-deserved repercussions:

• People will leave my association and unfriend me in social media. I deserve that.
• People will actively warn others of my unrepentant racist ways and advise them to not associate with me. They would be justified.
• People will talk about how my arguments and hypocrisy are ill-informed, provincial, and closed minded. They would be right.
• People will declare that I have no moral standing and that people should have no reason to listen to me on any other moral issue. They would be right.
• Any time I try to discuss positive change on race or justice people will remind everyone that I hurt people with my racism and have yet refused to apologize and so have no right to claim to be in the fight for progress. They would be right.

People who spoke up and made the arguments to warn and correct and shame me would be acting in good conscience to correct a great injustice perpetrated by an arrogant privileged racist.

What it was

Let us not forget what I did. Many people simply reading the headline describing a “hoax” may not read further and assume that it was a degenerate depiction of the Prophet saying terrible racist things.

It was the opposite. The apology attempted to portray the Prophet and the church in the best light possible on a difficult subject – and do so in a way that mirrored its own moral principles of humility and repentance.

I put words down that reflected what I felt to be true in my own heart about what needs to come from the Prophet in order to make meaningful progress on race relations in the LDS church. I have not lived the black experience in the church. I have only had access to privileged white spaces in the church and it was only the latent racism that I saw blindly passed around in those areas that informed me of the need for a new approach in the discussion on race in the church of my upbringing.

I endeavored to create an aspirational depiction of a Prophet of God living up to that mantle in a language of repentance, scriptural context and full institutional humility that Mormons would respond to because of their own high ideals. I chose a place and time to present this view of a man of God boldly speaking the truth at the very time that it should be spoken and I did it in the only way that compelled people to honestly share in the potential reality of that vision.

If the Prophet actually lived up to this ideal, such an action would be meaningless and amount to a simple waste of time and effort.

The Beam and the Mote

I understand that my refusal to apologize will inflame people more. It shouldn’t. I am nobody. I am some guy with a computer and a webcam. I do not claim special priesthood authority. I do not claim to speak for God.  People do not and should not look to me for moral leadership. Whether or not I apologize will not affect how people think on a spiritual level.

But also..

I did not use a claimed divine authority to tell people that they were cursed or spiritually less worthy. I did not endorse slavery as a divinely ordered and scripturally justified institution. I did not shackle the souls of the most vulnerable on the strength of my claimed godly sanction and compel them to see that as a kindness. I did not fight tooth and nail at every step of progress in their liberation to keep them segregated and apart. I did not cast a false narrative of whitening of the skin on Native Americans tied to their allegiance to my authority.

I did not invalidate the very people I cursed by denying the reality of those actions and asserting that from the beginning I had “stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations.” (lds.org)

How many more times greater is the need for a meaningful unqualified apology from the Church because of the depth of their sin and the weight of their influence in the lives of their members?

My sin here was real. How does it compare with that of the church? When examining them – which is the beam and which is the mote?

For every one of the repercussions of my refusal to apologize, listed above, how much more strongly should they apply when considering the current state of the church?

The Challenge

I refuse to apologize.

I accept and encourage every person who feels moved to make a case against me for that decision to do so. Please call me out. Disparage and ridicule me and denounce my motive and my methods.

It is safe. You risk nothing for doing so.

You will not be criticized for calling me a racist. You will not risk being cast out of your spiritual home for pronouncing my sins and calling me to repentance. People will praise you for the moral courage it takes to call me out in the most forcible manner you can bring to bear. Your family and friends will not feel compelled to shun you for publicly shaming me.

I previously posed the question “What does real moral leadership look like?” I think the community response to this satirical imposition has provided an answer. Everyone who has spoken out against my actions so far is an honorable person of conscience and has demonstrated real moral leadership. You have been right to do it. The voice that you have given to the pain and indignation that I inflicted is powerful and right. Do not stop.

My refusal to apologize is not a statement that I was right. I was wrong. It is not an expression or moral superiority. I have none. I don’t hold myself up as a source of virtue who will never lead people astray.

I offer myself to you as a scapegoat. It’s okay, I was already placed in that position.

I ask that you consider one thing, however.

Remember that every time you make an argument against me – there is another who has withheld an apology which also deserves the exact same argument with infinitely more force because of the exponentially deeper pain inflicted and a tremendously greater potential for healing and joy.

If you feel the need to receive the meager sense of satisfaction an apology from me might offer – how much more should you strive for the overwhelming peace and joy that an apology from the church would bring?

A Simple Thing

People have explained to me that it would be a simple thing for me to do the right thing and to apologize.

They are correct.

In the space of 48 hours, a lone nobody was able to put together an apology that was openly accepted, celebrated and shared the world over. I only have my conscience and my voice. I have no PR department or teams of CES faculty or a committee on correlation.

Just because I have done a possible apology as satire does not mean the church cannot immediately do the real thing. There is so much more depth and eloquence they could add. There are complex and meaningful aspects of racism in the church and deep theological themes which were not addressed.

The spiritual and intellectual resources they could bring to this prospect are tremendous. There are so many more and beautiful ways to affect this healing than I was able to scribble down in the late hours of the night.

The motive

I wasn’t trying to send a message straight to the black people of the church. The debate on race in Mormonism has always focused on the negative past. My misguided satire was an attempt to change the discussion and create a hopeful sense of what the church could be in the future so that people – all people, inspired by that unprecedented experience would work in their own spheres towards that goal.

The side effect

One of the most surprising things coming out of the reactions was that a number of ex-Mormons confessed to feeling the spirit while reading the words and ideas of the apology. Some stated that a church that would show the degree of humility and introspection reflected in the letter was one that they could see themselves coming home to.

Possibly the most characteristic quote of someone raised Mormon, now distanced from the church, upon reading the apology:

“I was totally feeling the fetching spirit when a church leader spoke for the first time in a long time.”

-anonymous apostate: reddit.com/r/mormon

Even black Mormons related stories of their friends, who were on the cusp of leaving the church, being willing to return – if the apology was real.

Those hearts are clearly still open to the healing that an apology would bring.

How powerful is the possibility that the lost sheep would want to come home on their own because they saw that it was more inviting by the balm of reconciliation alone?

The words and ideas of the apology are true. They are the hopes and aspirations of everyone who grew up with the idea that God still communes with men and those ideas still speak to their hearts even if they find God or truth through channels other than the church.

People who have left the church, even when white and privileged, frequently include among their reasons to leave that there is an absence of an unqualified apology about past racism and institutional humility and moral clarity which would accompany it.

When you resign from the church you get a pamphlet that invites you to return and “feast at the table laid before you in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” The reaction to this apology from former or marginal members is a clear sign that the church is missing an amazing opportunity by not adding fruits of the Spirit such as an unqualified apology for racism to the menu.

Conclusion

If the history of the church bears witness of anything, it is that saints inspired by the Spirit can move mountains.

I am not the mountain that needs moving.

If sins of commission may be repented of and rectified even by our leaders, so too can sins of omission. There has been a long season of waiting and hoping and even uncertainty on the question of an apology.

There is no longer a need for an expensive survey to see if the membership would welcome it or if it would erode faith as a result – we saw a universally powerful and positive response. The answer is crystal clear: the members are thirsty for the healing that we all caught a glimpse of for just one small moment in time.

An apology from me is small and meaningless, but one from the church would inspire the world.