Black and Mormon

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Example:

LDS
72-80: 30% either agreed strongly or slightly agreed that whites have a right to segregated neighborhoods
81-88: 20%
89-96: 10%

Other:
72-80: 37%
81-88: 23%
89-96: 17%

This is lame. There are more subtle but no less invidious forms of racism than believing whites should be allowed to segregate, like believing God cursed them from pre-birth. Mike also is right that these types of studies are easily discredited by investigating the pool, the specific questions asked, etc. It's like those polls that purport to show a majority of Americans favor abortions.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Yes

The point is you can't base your argument on a study with either few details, with possibly shoddy methods, and a possible faulty conclusion unsupported by the data.

In some ways it depends on what your definition of racism is.

What if you ask whether affirmative action should be legal? Or if underrepresented groups deserve help? I wonder what answer Mormons would give.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is lame. There are more subtle but no less invidious forms of racism than believing whites should be allowed to segregate, like believing God cursed them from pre-birth. Mike also is right that these types of studies are easily discredited by investigating the pool, the specific questions asked, etc. It's like those polls that purport to show a majority of Americans favor abortions.

That's is why I said that the study was about obvious and extreme forms of racism not all racism. Go back and read how I used the study. My statements are not extreme they are well within what the data can support. MW's questions aren't irrelevant but my claims don't outstrip the data.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Perhaps more significantly, it is a hindrance for black converts to stay active in the church. Once they try to fully integrate into the LDS society, they are met at every front by clueless members informing them that they were less valiant in the pre-existence. This is a huge hurdle for many of them to overcome.

One more point on this topic: An author in the book argues that one of the most attractive features of the church for black investigators is the concept of a literal Father in Heaven and that we are all children of God with unlimited potential. This resonates with them. When they are subsequently told, "Yes, you are a child of God, but not one of the good ones", it is shattering. I thought that was an interesting insight.

[MikeWaters]

Getting back to the original point: Mormons, now in 2008, don't believe that any mistake was ever made in the course of the whole "blacks and the priesthood" fiasco.

The Stapely letter falls to the ground, like water off a duck's back.

God, in his mysteriousness, had a reason to exclude uppity negroes from his priesthood.

And if you think that has no effect on Mormon psyche regarding race, I think that is hopelessly naive.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The point is you can't base your argument on a study with either few details, with possibly shoddy methods, and a possible faulty conclusion unsupported by the data.

In some ways it depends on what your definition of racism is.

What if you ask whether affirmative action should be legal? Or if underrepresented groups deserve help? I wonder what answer Mormons would give.

My response was a joke. The sample size is bigger than 10. I have no love for socilogical survey data but go back and read what I said and I believe you will find that my claims weren't sweeping.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Getting back to the original point: Mormons, now in 2008, don't believe that any mistake was ever made in the course of the whole "blacks and the priesthood" fiasco.

Now who is making claims without data beyond a few responses on cougarguard?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

No who is making claims without data beyond a few responses on cougarguard?

Someone who has been a soldier at the front of this battle for a long time.

How many missionaries do you think there are in the field right now, who when asked about this issue, say that it was due to the faults of men and racism?

Seriously, throw out a guess in terms of %.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Someone who has been a soldier at the front of this battle for a long time.

How many missionaries do you think there are in the field right now, who when asked about this issue, say that it was due to the faults of men and racism?

Seriously, throw out a guess in terms of %.

Oh I think you are likely to be right I just don't like how you went about. The Mauss data to be sure isn't perfect but it it is far better than the kind of casual empiricism you immediately engaged in after trying to convince people that the data were worthless (the data are limitted not worthless)

That being said I think your previous statement was far too sweeping. So I don't think it would be supported by the data:

Getting back to the original point: Mormons, now in 2008, don't believe that any mistake was ever made in the course of the whole "blacks and the priesthood" fiasco.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The point is you can't base your argument on a study with either few details, with possibly shoddy methods, and a possible faulty conclusion unsupported by the data.

In some ways it depends on what your definition of racism is.

What if you ask whether affirmative action should be legal? Or if underrepresented groups deserve help? I wonder what answer Mormons would give.

It may in fact be a shoddy study, but you are reaching an awful lot of conclusions regarding a study related by Pelagius and me based on an article written by Mauss based on an earlier study. I.e., third-hand at best. Given Mauss' previous work, I doubt he would be relating completely bogus data. He is not exactly an apologist, as you well know.