Steve,

I want to first say thank you for the significant contribution you make to this board. I am a newbie as I've been on this site for about 12 months. On numerous occasions, you have provided excellent research/feedback to threads that I have started (many posted as anon) and questions that I have asked. So, thank you. It is greatly appreciated.

I've been following the threads discussing MLK blvd in SLC. Other posters, IMO, seem to have presented some valid points that go against your position regarding utah's level of historical racism. And I don't even care who is right and who is wrong. There are valid points on both sides. But man, you are really digging your heels in on this in your dismissal of any competing viewpoints. And If I remember correctly, I have observed this level of commitment to your position on previous occasions.

I bring this up (as carefully as possible) as we are all recovering, to some degree, from an organization that required "exactness in all things." the dogma from tssc squelches any opposing viewpoint. No questions asked. We are all likely here because we challenged this notion and allowed ourselves to think critically and to at least consider the merits of an opposing viewpoint. So, I guess the irony in all of this is that you seem to occasionally exhibit the same level of dogma that tscc is guilty of, with seemingly no consideration of opposing, valid points of view.

I hope this comes off the right way. Certainly, no disrespect is intended. I just want to get a better feel for where you may be coming from. I want to continue feeling comfortAble with the insight that you provide, realizing that you were very objective in the methodology that you used to arrive at your conclusions. I realize that I may be flamed for this.

I suspect you've just made a lot of enemies with this post.

Good luck!

Why the hell would his/her points make enemies? Maybe you should apply the points in the post to yourself if that's the way you think -- "don't criticize the exmo annointed!!"

Turd:

I think you misunderstood the intent of my post. Or perhaps I've misunderstood yours.

Peace.

Posted by: otedge ( )
Date: July 03, 2013 11:42AM
Re: To Steve Benson re MLK Blvd discussions

I suspect you've just made a lot of enemies with this post.

Good luck!

--------------

Yeah. I considered going anon but that wouldn't have been fair to Steve.

otedge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suspect you've just made a lot of enemies with
> this post.

If you mean that other posters who agree with Steve's points, or who just generally like him, would form enmities with regular board posters who disagree with a post he writes, I think your viewpoint is skewed on this.

If that wasn't your point, then I've missed it and perhaps you could explain it more fully.

After reading and analyzing this board and its participants for many years, I have seen that most posters are intent on uncovering and discussing facts. If someone posts an inaccuracy, others are quick to point it out, especially if it relates to Mormon doctrine.

This applies to Steve Benson as much as anybody else.

Perhaps the reason we don't see Steve being corrected all that often (or at all?) is not because everybody is enamoured of him personally but because he gets his facts straight, due to personal knowledge and rigorous research.

The only "danger" I see for the OP and others who want to challenge Steve on the facts he presents in his widely researched and painstakingly documented essays is that they will have to present their own facts, with citations, to back up their dissenting opinion, if possible.

There is no chance that a large crowd of RfM posters would accept or back up Steve's statements about Mormon Church history or doctrine if they were inaccurate, just to be on Steve's "side", if that's what your comment means. Not only are many RfM posters knowledgeable about church history, beliefs and practices themselves but they are dedicated to upholding facts and truth. This is one big reason why they are "ex-" or questioning members.

So, I don't think that "Hold Your Tapirs" (great board name, btw) is counting a horde of new "enemies" due to his OP in this thread. And I doubt that "ozpoof" is either, merely due to his disagreement with some of Steve's positions on that particular topic. True enough that may happen in the church. Here, I think for one thing many of us realize that life is too short for such stunted approaches to what is merely a lively debate. Not worth getting our knickers in a twist about.

If we're even wearing knickers in this current heat wave. Whew...

So, fear not and carry on I'd say. All "sides". It makes for interesting reading for the rest of us. :)


ETA: My comments were not meant to make light of the very serious topic of racism in Mormonism that is the subject of the thread/s in question. When I said it's just lively debate or not worth getting twisted knickers over I didn't intend to imply that all is well in Zion, with racist Mormon history and their current doctrines that perpetuate the racism. I hope my meaning is clear. If not, I will elucidate further.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 03:07PM by Nightingale.

Seems to me that Cosmophil. was using one metric in his rebuttal, the number of lynchings. That seemed narrow and silly.

The depth of racism in Utah is demonstrated in the successful efforts by the Cult to keep Blacks from locating in that State in the first place.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 03:26PM by sonoma.

sonoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems to me that Cosmophil. was using one metric
> in his rebuttal, the number of lynchings. That
> seemed narrow and silly.

When murder ratios are 250:1 it's not silly to point it out. Steve never addressed it except to say tell the story of one of Utah's two lynchings.

Pick your metric -- number of discriminatory laws, Klan membership, bombings, or even clergy preaching hate -- and the South will inevitably appear worse.

You've fallen for anecdotal stories and appeals to emotion in lieu of actual evidence.

At least you're not accusing me of being Mormon.

The earlier poster hit the nail on the head with "don't criticize the exmo annointed"--- that will get 10,000 word copy & paste jobs along with plenty of insults all to the silence of the admins. Even they dare not criticize the annointed.

. . . by the Mormon Church against African Americans living in, or visiting, the Salt Lake Valley.

You dismissed that ugly track record in its entirety, wishing instead to sidetrack to non-Mormon models of racial hate in Wyoming, Mississippi and Arizona based on statistical analysis of racial crimes committed by people in those states. Blah, blah and more blah.

It was a desperate and transparent attempt on your part at diversion--plus, it ultimately boiled down to a silly effort by you to get the Mormon God off the hook by essentially arguing that human beings in other states were more racist than the Mormon God or his Utah "prophets" or Utah as a whole.

And you lecture me about "logic."

Ever thought about a career in stand-up comedy?

:)
_____


By the way, for your latter-day lynching enlightenment:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,944390



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 10:40PM by steve benson.

"Even they dare not criticize the annointed."

I will chalk up your ignorance to your being new here.

. . . more than once to assert that I do not get special treatment here, nor undue protection from deletion by RfM's tenacious moderators.

In fact, over my years in this forum I have been deleted more times than I can count and. through it all, Admin has reminded me (as if I need it) that they watch me like a hawk, responding accordingly with their goal being to do what is best for this forum and those who come here in the recovery process. (By the way, a post of mine was deleted today because it was too political. If I mention the topic again, it will get deleted again).

So, Coz, contrary to your assertion, I am not "annointed."

And, besides, you misspelled "anointed."

(Watch that observation also get deleted on the grounds that grammar policing is not allowed).

:)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 09:55PM by steve benson.

I already deleted you once today, wanna make it two ;)

. . . having resigned my fate to their will.

Here are some issues with your one metric. It is not normalized or adjusted for opportunity.

While I agree that 250:1 might well be significant, I don't know how many black people lived in each state (their percent of the population) without looking it up (which I'm not interested enough to do now).

Say, for example you had 25,000 black people living in the state where 250 were killed (1%) and you had 10 black people living in a state where one was killed (10%). So, depending on the actual data there are several things to consider. It could be more dangerous to live in a state where a higher percentage were killed. Or not depending on other variables.

If you had more car accidents in New York than Montana, you could not conclude that the drivers are worse in New York. You might be able to conclude that your odds are higher in New York for being in an accident.

Statistics can be misleading unless we know more variables and context. So, your single metric probably isn't sufficient alone to make your case. Also, how do we evaluate racists who don't kill but have different ways of showing racism?

The worst racists I've met were my LDS relatives. The second worse racists I've encountered were in N. Idaho. I live in Alabama. Anecdotal evidence is as dangerous as using one metric though. I suspect that the degree of racism can vary in scope within any given state as much as it does between states. I've found as much diversity within any one race as I have between races.

For support, rather than illumination.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 09:52PM by steve benson.

In another thread, "sonoma" delivers the same message to Coz, perhaps a bit more roughly:

"The evidence that you cite is crap. Why are you adding an additional 43 years, when you know that the last lynching in Utah was in 1925?

"Also to be fair, you would need to take into account the populations of blacks in Utah versus the population of blacks in Mississippi those same years.

"In 1910 there were 1144 blacks in Utah.
http://historytogo.utah.gov/people/ethnic_cultures/utahsearlyafricanamericanfarmers.html

"In 1910 there were over 800,000 blacks in Mississippi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi

"You cited a ratio of 270:1

"So much for your analytical skills.

"So much for you schooling ANYBODY."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,944390,945181#msg-945181


Ouch. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 10:14PM by steve benson.

Cosmo, your statistics are bullshit.

Population of blacks in Utah in 1910, 1,144.

Population of blacks in Mississippi in 1910, over 800,000.

Your ratios are crap. If you include black populations in these states, and an honest span of years, you're plain wrong. Utah has more lynchings per person.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 09:48PM by steve benson.

I may be Gay, but I ain't no Mary...



Poppins.

I thought you'd like that!

... to have possibly occurred in Utah.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2013 07:22PM by steve benson.

... as a sordid track record of mistreatment of, and racial animosity toward, Blacks which was led and encouraged by the highest leaders of the Salt Lake Mormon Church.

Within the context of those facts, I stand by what I wrote, especially as it played out on this board in discussions with those who attempted to minimize or dismiss the depth and breadth of anti-Black racism in Mormon Utah:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,944356



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 12:20PM by steve benson.

Steve,

Thanks for your response. The engagement with Ozpoof is maybe the best example of what I was trying to get at. I should have mentioned this in my OP.

... when it came to understanding and accepting the racially-bigoted use of the term "darkie," particularly as it has been employed in the context of racist Mormon Church history.

See the entire thread here: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,944214,944214#msg-944214, where "ozpoof" manifests what might be kindly described as basic ignorance and understanding on such matters.

I also attempted to assist "ozpoof" in better understanding "darkie"- uttering Joseph Fielding Smith's contextual Mormon racist views here:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,944246,944335#msg-944335



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 12:35PM by steve benson.

"We are all likely here because we challenged this notion and allowed ourselves to think critically and to at least consider the merits of an opposing viewpoint."

Benson doesn't do a lot of equivocating on the Board. But as you point out, he sure did when it came to what I assume was the biggest influence in his life. That didn't require just considering one opposing viewpoint - is the BoM true? No, that required considering hundreds or more viewpoints on the various subjects mormonism had supplied him with answers.

It seems like an ex-mormon has to deconstruct their entire thinking process and start from scratch - or at least they can. That requires considering a lot of opposing viewpoints. To simply talk about racism in mormon doctrine and in the mormon way of life - that took some serious consideration of opposing points of view because I'm sure mormons thoroughly reject that their church has a history of racism. He broke free from that dogma.

That journey, to me, looks nothing like that path most mormons take. So, I think your comparison between his posts laying out an argument in support of a position he has arrived at as a result of some serious critical thinking and a typical mormon's attachment to dogma fails to make a distinction at how a person arrived at their positions. Benson has shown that he is willing to challenge his entire world view and reject everything that he found are not supported by fact. I mean, he did it in his life. And that's like a TBM mormon how?

If only all mormons were willing to examine the dogma of their church as Benson obviously did. Most mormons won't even discuss the issues, let alone dig up information to support their position, along with citations to actual sources. I don't see a relationship to a mormon with his head in the sand and a person supporting their position by laying out a cogent argument.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 12:27PM by thingsithink.

Excellent point(s).