For decades, African American leaders and scholars have echoed Proverbs 17:22 that “a merry heart doeth good like a medicine.” Consider W.E.B. Du Bois, the first African American to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard and cofounder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who famously said, “I am especially glad of the divine gift of laughter: it has made the world human and lovable, despite all its pain and wrong.” Civil Rights hero Martin Luther King, Jr. is often quoted as having said, “It is cheerful to God when you rejoice or laugh from the bottom of your heart.” Indeed, African Americans have long used humor to cope with the ills of slavery and the unfairness of discriminatory practices. Research suggests that humor can fortify racial identity and cultivate optimism, hope, and resilience among Black Americans. Yet, humor seems to contribute even more than this.

We interviewed 46 Black married couples, nominated by their clergy as exemplary. Our American Families of Faith research team found that positive humor contributes to strong marriages and families in vital ways. In this article, we highlight three types of humor featured in exemplary Black families. 

Humor in Coping with Racism

Using humor to cope with racism (and other forms of stress) was common among the exemplary Black families we interviewed. Dean, a Catholic husband, said: 

Blatant racism happens to this day. We talk about it with each other. We use humor as a way to deal with it, as a coping mechanism. You can either cry or laugh. We know who we are, what we are, and Whose we are … [God’s].

Gwen, a quick‑witted and candid wife, explained with a twinkle in her eye how she turned the hurt of racism over to God and trusted that justice would someday be fulfilled. Glimpses of her humorous attitude were apparent:

[The] bottom line was we both knew that [changing the heart of a certain person at my work] was a job for God. … I just said to the Lord, “You just need to help me with this, because this person has a problem.” … So, I think the Lord just … whooped them up a little bit and then kicked them out! (Laughter) So, it was just one of those things where, yes, you will encounter [racism], and I know I will, until Jesus comes and gets me out of here. But … I can’t become bitter about it … because God is not going to put up with that. So, if they want to spend eternity in hell burning … because they won’t accept me, because my color is a little different than theirs, then that’s their problem. So, I have to just rest in the Lord on that one. 

Joelle, a Christian wife, also discussed racism:

To me, it’s not personal, it’s their ignorance. I have never doubted who I am or how important I am and how much I deserve to be on this earth. See, they’re wrong for misunderstanding, and I really believe that God loves me the most. (Laughter) 

Humor was a coping device for racism and other pain points, but humor was also used as a positive lever for navigating and strengthening the marriage relationship.

Humor in Marriage

After being prompted for advice they would give to other African American couples, Amber and Duane both talked about the importance of humor. Amber listed four tips for a successful marriage: communicate, be equally yoked, forgive, and keep a sense of humor. Duane concurred, that a “good sense of humor [is important] … for it to be a good marriage.”

Many participant couples shared humor-laced stories that highlighted how they used laughter to help their marriages flourish. Gwen said,

[I]f there’s something [a wife] needs to say to [her husband], … she should do so when things are calm. … Perhaps it’s a screen door that’s quite annoying because all he has to do is just repair it quickly with the screwdriver, something which she doesn’t know [how to do], and she tells him the first time about it, and he doesn’t do anything. Then, any other time she thinks about it, she needs to tell God, because God will whoop him up. (Laughter) … God can let him have it.

An African Methodist wife from Massachusetts named Joann said:

[L]et me just deal with God and wait for Him to change Gary over to my point of view, which is the correct point of view. …[B]ut usually when I’m waiting for God to change Gary, then [God] will be changing me! [God is] sneaky.  

Annie and her husband Al shared how humor and having fun were crucial to their marriage. 

Annie: You have to … make a decision to love and have fun. See, I was determined that this house was going to have some fun and that we were going to laugh and … be happy. Not only was I going to be happy, but we were going to be happy. Everyone was going to be happy. At the beginning, I had to [help] make Al be happy. ‘Cause you weren’t used to being happy. [Don’t] you think, [Al]?

Al: [No]. That’s why I married you. … I consciously made a decision [that] she’s going to bring joy into my life. [I decided], I can’t let her get away.

Al and Annie shared the following moment elsewhere during their interview:

Al: This woman is strong, resolute, focused … .  [S]piritually [and] physically, she’s been there. She’s been there. A great comfort. A great thing for a marriage.

Annie: Like old shoes. (Laughter)  

Al: [No], like a mighty mountain. A towering edifice —  a little … more grandiose than an old shoe. [To the interviewer:  [It ain’t all been] fairy-tale perfect, but we got 30 years in, … [and we’re] still smiling about it.”

Annie: [We are] still laughing, [and I am] still laughing at him. He cracks [me] up!

Several couples also shared warm sentiments while teasing each other. Joann, an African Methodist, described how their marriage has gotten better as time has gone on: “Things change; we are not the same people that we were when we were married. … [Actually], I think he’s gotten a lot better. [Thank heaven] (Laughter).” In like manner, Jefferson, a Christian husband from Louisiana shared, “We are each other’s friends. And, believe me, she advise[s] me every day, whether I want it or not. (Laughter)” Our participant couples repeatedly noted that they found joy in playfully teasing and sharing laughter with those they love. This reportedly held true in parenting as well as in marriage. 

Humor in Parenting

The use of humor among participants was not confined to the marriage relationship; many families also showed humor in their interactions with their children. Jefferson, a Christian father from Louisiana, shared the following story of his responsibilities as a father: 

We had three girls [in a row and] after we decided to have another child, I told my wife, “If this child is a boy, you don’t have anything to worry about. … I’ll do the … midnight feeding and change and wash the diapers.” Back then, we had cloth diapers. And sure enough, along came Shaun, and I had forgotten that I had made this promise. … But believe me, [Sierra] didn’t! She said, “‘Your baby is crying in there … . It’s time to feed [him] and change the diapers!”’ 

Jason, a Baptist father from Georgia, was asked if his children had influenced his religious involvement, he joked, “Some of them keep us on our knees (laughter)!”

Joann and Gary, who were also interviewed with their teenage daughter, Jasmine, shared a humorous moment when Gary discussed how his religious views and parenting were entwined:

Gary: [There] will be times when we’ll have a blow [up], and Jasmine will come up later and just say, ‘I’m sorry, Dad.’ And, probably not as often as I should, I’ll go down and tell her, ‘Yeah, I blew it.’ But … I always believe that God has created a wonderful child, and He may not yell at her, so He wants me to.

Jasmine (daughter): Yeah, right!

Joann (wife): I don’t think that’s in the Bible (Laughter).

Jasmine: No, that’s the “Gary” Revised Version.

Humor in Religion

Many families conveyed that parenting, humor, and (often) religion worked together for a healthy family life. Jason said: 

I believe Romans 8:28: “All things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to his purpose.” … Then, I’ve got to see that there is some good in this stress. So, I try to find the good in it, and [I ask], “Okay God, what are you trying to tell me in this?” More often than not, the simple message is, “You forgot, and you needed to be reminded.” [And I say], “‘Well, Lord, couldn’t you have been a little more subtle?”’ 

Joelle explained that she prayed about everything, even picking good oranges at the grocery store. She shared: 

My mother-in-law, before she passed, she used to laugh at me and say, “You know why God answers your prayers [so fast]? Just so he can have a moment of silence. Because you pray about everything!” (Laughter) 

James, whose beloved wife Betsy was struck by a drunk driver and was in a coma for several weeks, was able to express humor in the face of life’s pain. After the accident, Betsy “flatlined” and was resuscitated 13 times. Following this ordeal, which ended in Betsy’s miraculous improvement that eventually allowed her to return home in James’ care, he said, “At least I know my wife ain’t no cat, because a cat only has nine lives.” For nearly 19 years since the accident, James has provided full-service care for Betsy, who lost both of her legs in the accident. For James, humor and an indomitable will and faith have lifted heavy loads that self-pity could not budge.

We conclude with a report that seems to capture the ebullience, the faith, the passion, and the shared joy of life amongst our interviewees. Destiny, a Christian wife from Oregon, served up this gem eliciting explosive laughter and delight from her husband:

He is my lover and he’s an awesome lover. [Laughter] … And our children, we always said to them … “If you want to know what’s going on [in our bedroom], Mama and Daddy are just keeping Jesus happy.”

Bonding Humor as Healing Medicine

To date, our American Families of Faith research team has identified and published studies on numerous strengths in the exemplary Black families we have interviewed including faith, prayer, unity, egalitarianism, and serving others. The present study adds positive humor or “bonding humor” to the list. Some forms of humor (e.g., profane humor, ill-intentioned sarcasm) are explicitly incongruent with many religious beliefs and principles, but the exemplary couples who taught us present evidence that religion and positive humor can both play important and vital roles in building strong marriages and families. Hearkening back to Proverbs, these strong Black families echoed the value of that healing medicine to address life’s challenges in their words and lived experiences. Their examples offer much to contemplate.

The post The Power of Positive Humor in Strong African American Families appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

This article is part of a four‑part series that draws from insights in our forthcoming book, Exemplary, Strong Black Marriages & Families (Routledge, in press).

My journey as a researcher of strong African American families of faith begins with a short story about my paternal grandmother. As a highly religious, praise-dancing, Bible-quoting woman of faith, my grandmother based her every thought and decision on a religious foundation. After being diagnosed with colon cancer, she faithfully tucked her prescriptions into her Bible in lieu of having the prescriptions filled. If she was here today, my grandmother would argue that she won that battle against cancer. She would emphasize that she was faithful to the end, and she trusted that God would have healed her, if it was His will for her to be healed on this Earth. However, for a 16-year-old kid who just wanted his grandmother, her death left me with more questions than answers. Unbeknownst to me at the time, her death would plant in me a seed to understand religion and its role in Black families.

One day, while sitting in Loren’s office during our weekly Monday meetings, and while expressing my frustration with my dissertation proposal, he revealed that he had something for me. Handing me a massive 4-inch binder with over 1,000 pages of narrative interview data, Loren asked me if I would like to read the interviews of the married, strong Black couples that he had researched for over a decade. I read all 1,000 pages of interviews over a single weekend. I was fascinated! The stories of these marriages were so rich, so detailed, and so sacred. I was amazed that it could even be considered “research.” The role of religion in building a strong marriage was central to each interview, and this further ignited my desire to understand religion in Black families. The Monday after I had been handed a binder too big to fit in my bookbag, I asked Loren if I could utilize the interviews on strong Black families to examine how religious coping had contributed to their strong marriages. He enthusiastically agreed. We have now been research partners for 13 years.

Despite my desire to study strong Black marriages, I was not necessarily surrounded by these types of relationships growing up. Neither of my grandmothers were in long-term marriages. In addition, my parents divorced around the time I graduated from high school. My parents had separated long before their divorce, so most of my memories of “family” came from looking at old pictures and seeing us all smiling together. Growing up, the best example I had of a strong marriage was a set of my great-grandparents, who were married for about 60 years before the death of my great grandfather, Paw-Paw. Paw-Paw was a minister in Southern Louisiana. He was deeply grounded in his faith, and he raised my highly-religious, praise-dancing, Bible-quoting grandmother that I mentioned earlier. I never thought much about my great-grandparents’ marriage, nor did I have a real opportunity to understand it because I only observed it as a child. However, I do know that they shared many similarities with the married, strong Black couples I have interviewed for my research. They saw their marriage as a sacred bond. As the grandchildren of slaves who were legally unable to marry, they were determined to honor their marital vows and build a family on faith and religious beliefs. I wish that I had been able to witness more of my great-grandparents’ marriage, but I am also thankful because I recognize the privilege of having a strong Black marriage in my family’s history.

When I ask Black couples who have been married for up to 60 years how they have done it, I am documenting their experiences for the many Black people who, like me, have rarely (or never) witnessed a strong Black marriage. I am documenting their experiences for the many Black couples who, like my wife Tasha and me, are still figuring out how to grow closer together each day. I am documenting their experiences for the many Black communities around the world that, like mine, are burdened by external stressors (such as financial strain, racism, and incarceration) that constantly threaten the stability of the Black family. Every moment, every interaction, and every opportunity has carried a purpose that has brought me exactly where I am, doing exactly what I am called to do at this moment, which is studying strong Black families and loving the journey. 

Never in my wildest dreams did I think that my conversations with Dr. Loren Marks and a weekend with 1,000 pages of narrative data would change my life. Yet, they have. Each time I speak about my research, Black communities and families share with me that there is a need—an unquenchable thirst—for stories of Black couples deeply grounded in faith and unwaveringly dedicated to marriage. I have been a witness and recorder of profoundly sacred family moments where husbands have poured out their hearts to their wives and wives have found comfort in the arms of their husbands. I have been invited to vow renewals, wedding anniversaries, and family dinners. A few months ago, I received word from a husband I had interviewed that his wife had recently died. He thought enough of our interview to let me know the news. For me, that was deeply powerful, and as I revisited their interview, I thanked God for allowing me to share in such a sacred experience. 

I am indebted to Public Square Magazine, as they will be running three additional articles during Black History Month to highlight our team’s work with Black families. I urge you to stay tuned as you hear directly from the voices of strong Black families this month. These articles will focus on: (1) serving others, (2) using faith to cope with racism, and (3) the power of positive humor. As you engage these stories, I invite you not simply to read them, but to receive them. Allow the lived faith of these families to speak to you, to teach you, and to bless you and those around you. These stories are not ours to own, only to share. They are reminders that Black love grounded in faith can be profoundly powerful— capable of overcoming even the highest hurdles attempting to impede familial stability. May their faith strengthen yours, and may we continue to go forward as one people, as brothers and sisters, just as civil rights leader John Lewis urged us to do. 

The post Studying Strong Black Marriages Changed My Own appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/amos-c-brown-fellowship-ghana

Part of the Church’s partnership with the NAACP included starting the Amos C. Brown Fellowship. This trip is intended to let students learn more about Ghanian culture.

The NAACP and the Church started their relationship in 2018 when they held a joint news conference to call for racial harmony and the end of prejudice

The post Amos C. Brown Fellowship Lifts Off appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Obscuring something meaningful. I don’t see color. I don’t see color. I don’t see color. I don’t see color. As I let the phrase roll over my tongue, I couldn’t help but pull it apart and wonder if it wasn’t saying something else that wasn’t readily apparent. Although meant to say “I see everyone the same,” an image popped into my head of horses with blinders on. While intended to block the horse’s peripheral vision to distractions that could compromise their performance or demeanor, what this essentially means is the horse is prevented from seeing the whole truth of its surroundings. Could saying “I don’t see color” be kind of like putting on blinders—obscuring meaningful ways we are different, in an attempt to blur out the full nuance of our surroundings?

Or maybe “I don’t see color” was supposed to mean “differences don’t matter.” Yet I can’t help but think of the many times in my own life when differences definitely did matter, and it was obvious that the thing that made me different was altering my life experiences. It’s hard not to notice when the car salesman that you’re trying to negotiate with is constantly looking over your shoulder and asking if you brought your husband with you. It’s hard not to notice that I got asked different questions in a job interview that never even came up with my male friends—like:  “So what are your family plans for the future?” And sometimes these differences are more glaringly obvious, like when a male leader told me I’m too pretty to be in leadership with him. If someone were to tell me, “I don’t see gender,” they would be denying something real and consequential—reflecting various experiences and treatment that I and many women receive, and which have a real influence on our lives (and clearly not always in a good way). Yet you can’t fix something if you don’t realize it’s broken or, worse, refuse to recognize it’s broken. This train of thought helped me to see why someone would be upset by the phrase “I don’t see color” because no matter how you slice it, saying that either denies the truth that differences do exist or suggests that differences don’t matter.

Differences all the way back. Most of us learn early on that we’re all different. Some of us also go on to learn that it’s okay to be different. However, not everyone is given a chance to appreciate what our differences can mean for our individual lives. To illustrate, I was running alongside my daughter one day, who was in training for a Cross Country meet. I had some long-distance running in my history, and so I thought I’d “help her train.” At the time, she was a good eight inches shorter than I with much shorter legs. I ran at a very easy pace. My stride was even, my breathing flowed effortlessly, and I was enjoying myself. My daughter’s stride, by contrast, was chaotic as she tried to keep up with me, her breathing heavy, almost gasping. She was not enjoying herself. Two people, going the same direction, doing the same thing but having two wildly different experiences and outcomes.

If, after the run, I had looked into her beet-red face as she winced from a side-stitch and said, “You and I are the same. I don’t see any difference between my run and yours,” how could she not be confused—or even upset?  Of course, her run was different than mine. Yes, we both went the same distance. Yes, we both moved our bodies in a similar fashion. Yes, we both wore running shoes and stylish headbands. But because my daughter’s shorter legs simply can’t produce the gait that mine can, her run was never going to be the same as mine. And how could I forget a similar run I had with my husband, a man whose legs are much longer than my own? As I tried to keep up with him, I struggled to match his stride, and I was the one with the beet-red face at the end of the run. Differences matter. Differences might change outcomes. And differences should be recognized.

When we take for granted unrecognized racial bias and stereotypes, we inadvertently produce a whole host of differences in our life experiences. At any moment, simply for the color of our skin, we can be treated better or worse than others. To my knowledge, I have not experienced unfair treatment because of my race. I am aware, however, of having been treated better than others due to my skin color.

Not denying meaningful privilege. As a kid living in California, I was the lone white kid in my friend group, which included one black boy, and several Hispanic girls and boys. While I noticed I didn’t look like my friends, kids were kids and friends were friends—and together, we generally represented the full spectrum of skin tones. I remember one recess, our group did something the teachers didn’t like. Time has erased the memory of what exactly we did, but I’ve not forgotten the displeasure of the attending adults.

My friends were the ones reprimanded for whatever we did, but I was never called over and reprimanded even though I was playing with them at the time and doing everything they were doing. At the time, I think I was just mostly glad not to get in trouble. But I imagine my friends might have wondered, “So, why didn’t Anna get in trouble?” None of us would have ever conceived it was about our skin color—and I admittedly don’t really know what was in the minds of the adults that day. But skin color seemed to be the most salient difference between us. Whether I was treated better, or my friends worse, because of the hue of our skin, of course—both would be wrong. And so also would be not recognizing the differences between our experiences—and how an unconscious bias may be contributing.

Anyone can experience discrimination in many forms, of course, no matter their skin color. However, it’s worth recognizing that statistically, I as a white woman am far less likely to ever be a target of a hate crime compared with my black neighbors and friends. There’s also evidence that the tone of skin inside the same ethnic group can impact our experience—with 2021 statistics confirming that Hispanics with a darker skin tone reported more discrimination than Hispanics of a lighter skin tone. (Discrimination ranged from being told to go back to their own country, verbal or physical threats, or being called offensive names.) So while I and my darker-skinned friends will both go to the grocery store, send our kids to school, cross streets, travel on airplanes, apply for jobs and loans, and do other things we all do, this one variable, skin color, means their experience and outcomes may be significantly different than mine.

Non-hostile differences still matter. One could argue that if we can all stop treating each other differently because of our skin color, then we could say “I don’t see color.” But even if we all ended up evolving past this illogical notion that something as uncontrollable as skin color can determine someone’s perceived worth, we still wouldn’t experience life the same way.

I recall one sunny afternoon hanging out with my best friend at her pool, sometime around 2nd grade. As we sat there with our feet in the water, she turned to me and said, “You know, if we melted right here in the sun, you’d turn into vanilla pudding and I’d turn into chocolate pudding.” The absurdity of us melting into pudding made us both giggle. She then slightly amended that statement, “Actually, you’d probably be more of a strawberry pudding because you’d get all burned first before you melted.” We laughed harder. I was the white kid who was more likely to burn under the sun than my black friend who had much darker skin. (Yes, we both wore sunscreen by the pool, as her mother insisted.) Skin is skin and it needs protecting, but my friend knew that if one of us turned red by the end of the day, it was most likely going to be me.

The differences in our skin tone mean we won’t all interact with our environments in the same way, and it also means we have to take care of our bodies differently. We could all be living in a utopia with racial equality where “we don’t see color,” yet we would still have to take note of our differences and what they mean for each of us. Everyday life is altered for each of us by all of the things that make us different from someone else.

“I don’t see color” goes beyond just desperately trying to equate the masses; it ignores the fact that it’s just not possible to look at someone and not see color or any other differences. And by denying what we actually see, we can blind ourselves to subconscious judgments we make based on what we do see. And those subconscious judgments, if not well understood and recognized, can alter the way we make decisions and how we treat each other.

Our brains seem to do a lot when we first see someone. Researchers Johnathan Freeman and Kerri Johnson have explored what happens in the brain when viewing someone. They write, “Initial social perceptions are, in fact, hardly ‘initial.’ They reflect a dynamic cascade of interactive influences, wherein factors that were long presumed to be ‘downstream’ products of social perception, such as stereotypes, attitudes, and goals, constrain initial perceptions.”

Essentially, as we lay eyes on someone, we move through a thought process riddled with preconceived ideas and stereotypes we’ve been exposed to. During this process, our brain is also calculating the similarities and differences between us and the person who captured our attention. Since we tend to prefer and gravitate toward people we perceive as being similar to us, (and are, in fact, wired to find similarities), it may be physiologically impossible to ever not “see color.”  Since all of our brains will inevitably make judgments upon similarities and differences, to consciously ignore meaningful distinctions may conceal unfair or flawed judgments we’ve made about people; judgments we need to reconcile.

But the opposite is also true: we can gain more power over our thinking if we simply pay more attention to it. Bringing more awareness to our thought process would mean paying attention to the differences we see each day.  This can cause us to better understand what a difference in skin tone, gender, age, or other factors can make.

Proactively socializing children in the right direction. Another video circulated around social media for a time that showed a parent pointing to pictures of mixed-race children, asking their own child what they saw.  The child said something like “kids” or “friends” but never pointed out any of the differences between the kids.  That video, very reasonably, touched a lot of hearts, and the message attached to that video was “Racism has to be taught.” I agree. However, what also has to be taught is how to guard against racist views we can all pick up and absorb.

The way we help our kids remain loving towards all types of people is not to encourage them to ignore differences. I’d rather help my child see differences and consciously reject racist views and stereotypes they are definitely going to encounter throughout their lives. I need my children to be conscious of their thoughts. I need my children to view and understand differences so they can better empathize with others, rather than pretending to “not see color” in their interactions throughout the day.

Maybe the more precise way to communicate the feeling and principle we’re trying to convey is “I will not treat you differently because of something like your skin color.  At the same time, I recognize this may mean we have experienced life differently.”

Reading clearly our aspirational texts.  In Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” I no longer believe he meant for anyone to not see or recognize the color of his skin or his children’s skin as he asked not to be judged for it. The color of his skin was part of who he was.  It was one of many variables that shaped how he experienced life.  He wasn’t ashamed of his skin color.  He didn’t want people to pretend that he wasn’t different from them.  He asked that if he was to be judged by others, it would be for his character or, one could say, the sum total of his choices. This also brings to mind the New Testament scripture that reads, “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

God focuses on our choices, our use of the agency He bestowed upon us.  That doesn’t mean He doesn’t see our differences. On the contrary, to be a perfect and compassionate judge, God would have to be very aware of all the factors that may influence us here on earth. So I believe God sees exactly what makes us different.  The variety of creations on this earth is witness to God’s recognition of differences, and even the need for and love of differences.  Seeing us as we are (and are not), He then chooses to pay attention to our characters, our choices.

If that’s true, then would not the same God have us learn to see and understand differences as well—perhaps even as the only real way to be someone acting with eyes wide open to the realities of this life and not be acted upon by the consequences related to the denial of meaningful difference? We don’t need to try and deny our differences in order to be free of bias.  Rather, we need to get better at seeing differences and understanding what they mean and do not mean.   Instead of refusing to see people as they are in all their varieties in order to declare ourselves at peace and harmony with all our brothers and sisters, let’s become more mindful of how our differences shape our experiences—and learn more about how others experience the same existence we occupy.  At the same time, let’s gladly become more conscious of how we make judgments and whether those judgments are unfair.

My parting encouragement. In the end, if we think that when we say “I don’t see color,” we actually mean, “I don’t see color,” please know that we do see color.  You can’t help but see your own color and someone else’s color.  You can’t help but see that you’re short and they are tall.  You can’t help but see that they are female and you are male, etc. You can’t, in my estimation, really mean it when you say “I don’t see color.” And I hope you don’t want to actually mean “I don’t see color,” which translates into ignoring the life-altering force of differences.

Yet giving people the benefit of the doubt, let’s also appreciate that when someone says “I don’t see color,” they are most likely trying to demonstrate that they don’t want to be biased.  They want to treat people equally. And those are good things—and good thoughts, which can hopefully translate into good actions.  However, for the sake of better communication, better thinking, better understanding, and even faster growth toward a more equitable future, we need to learn what we actually mean—or want to mean—and say that instead.

The post What I Hope You Mean When You Say “I Don’t See Color.” appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Reports are currently suggesting that the shooter engaged in this act specifically to kill black people because of the color of their skin because he was afraid his own race was losing power.

If these reports prove to be true, it is a despicable act. It mocks the Christian faith his despicable manifesto claims he wants to protect.

As Latter-day Saints, our scriptures teach of many anti-Christs who teach damnable philosophies, and then murder to try and make them come to fruition. This murderer then joins a list of anti-Christs—a man who pulls people away from Jesus by perverting the gospel of peace.

President Russell M. Nelson’s well-timed words the day after the attack remind us that we are all children of God. This senseless murder took the lives of ten children of God.

Rather than allow ourselves to be desensitized to the racism around us by the constant calls of those who have diluted this idea, we should each work to root out the hate, racism, and identity politics that motivated this killing from our nation, communities, and our own hearts.

The murderer hoped that his killings would intimidate those who looked like his victims. We pray this is not the case. We need all of our neighbors to feel comfortable, confident, and safe in their communities. We must do our best to stand shoulder to shoulder in ensuring that these intimidation tactics will not succeed.

The post “Black lives matter! That is an eternal truth.” appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

I get together with some friends to discuss Brad Wilcox’s recent comments–and the strong response they received. We talk about intent and circumstances, but also the reason the comments were hard for so many.

Note: we tried to get this right. I guarantee we didn’t manage perfectly. A group of thoughtful people talking it out helped me though. There were some really good moments and insights, and if nothing else, I think we modeled what it looks like to grapple with something hard in as faithful a way as possible. That sounds me as worth doing.

The post Brad Wilcox’ Recent Comments appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In the last hundred years, we have seen a tremendous change in society. In the West, human rights and privileges have expanded and there is relative peace and prosperity.  Until recently, it looked as if Martin Luther King’s dream for his children “not to be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” was a real possibility.

But today, in academic and cultural spheres group identity is increasing in importance- whether about race, gender or other categories.  Rather than seeking to look beyond race, at the University of Minnesota, it is deemed a “microaggression” to say, “There is only one race, the human race,” because it denies that the individual is a “racial being” belonging to fundamentally different categories.  It’s not uncommon now to see little girls’ clothing bearing girl-power logos like, “The Future is Female.”

Is our culture moving backward? 

Many say these efforts are to correct imbalance and educate children about bigotry and their own “implicit bias” (depending on their race), but these attempts at achieving equity turn out to be extremely divisive.

Douglas Murray, in his recent book, The Madness of Crowds, told of a recent speech given by a professor at Boston University, a leader in the critical race theory movement, where he said, “I’d like to be less white, which means a little less oppressive, oblivious, defensive, ignorant, and arrogant.” Murray writes, “To her audience in Boston she also explained how white people who see people as individuals rather than by their skin color are in fact ‘dangerous.’” He concludes, “It took only half a century for Martin Luther King’s vision to be exactly inverted.” (This interview with Douglas Murray discusses the modern epidemic of Identity Politics). 

“Every human being is intended to have a character of his own; to be what no others are, and to do what no other can do.” ~William Henry Channing 

Supremacy of Group or Self?

I remember in high school that I loved watching the skateboarders do their tricks during lunch. I was so impressed by what they could do. I knew some of them from middle school but they were different now. I wondered why they all ended up dressing and speaking the same way—baggy pants and long hair? They all did pot behind the school. They seemed to be rebelling against the world’s expectations, but they were all rebelling in exactly the same way. They were only creating a smaller world of expectations.

“The person who follows the crowd will usually go no further than the crowd. The person who walks alone is likely to find himself in places no one has ever seen before.” ~Albert Einstein

My kids’ favorite football player is Russell Wilson.  He was once asked to respond to statements made by some other football players complaining that he wasn’t “black enough.”  I found his response interesting:

In terms of me, “not black enough” thing, I don’t even know what that means. I believe that I am an educated young male that is not perfect, that tries to do things right—that just tries to lead and tries to help others and tries to win games for this football team, for this franchise. And that’s all I focus on. … I think, for us, there are no distractions at all. I think it was people trying to find ways to knock us down.

He seemed confused and uncomfortable by the line of questioning. Our view of ourselves is largely determined by where we place our attention and what “identities” we give most thought and energy to developing. Some of those identities, like “skateboarder,” we may allow outsiders to define for us, while others we define for ourselves. It can be disjointing to have outside presumptions placed on these more “sacred” identities. It is obvious that in his own personal hierarchy of identity, Wilson saw himself as “Russell the individual”—with his own distinctive interests and passions near the top of the ladder. Who knows where his other identities were positioned?  Maybe he put quarterback above African American; maybe he put Christian even above Russell (he is devout). Maybe his definition of “black” didn’t match the interviewer’s. But where we place our various identities on this ladder is also where we place our value, our responsibility, our actions, and our worth.

Group Identity: Glory and Blame

The other day I was listening to a classical radio station and the male DJ said, “This was conducted by the first female conductor from Hungary. What a step for women everywhere and a sign of a progressing society!”

I found this statement very patronizing. Perhaps I was projecting, but I assumed this woman had the same personal hierarchy ladder I did—putting her individual self on top. If I were this conductor and heard women and society given the glory, and my own name mentioned as an afterthought, I would have felt cheated. She likely did have to overcome a lot because she was a woman, but she is the one who overcame it all! Yet instead of honoring her personal accomplishment, the credit went to her gender and society at large.

The downside of placing the individual on the top of the identity ladder is that each of us has to take the responsibility and the blame for our own lives. It’s tempting, then, to opt to stand on a group identity rung because responsibility can be swallowed up by the group. When fighting in a crowd, you become a nameless and faceless actor. But more importantly, you can be a victim of an entire group’s circumstances—whether or not it is an honest reality for you. I personally am only too willing to step down the ladder a few rungs and say it was not me that was at fault, but the repression brought upon me by one of my identities. I can step down to my mother-rung and complain, “Our society is not family-friendly anymore; it’s so hard to raise competent kids with all these electronics,” despite the fact that I have the capability of preventing access to electronics. But when my children succeed, I don’t give glory to mother-kind for overcoming, or praise society for supporting me. No, when my children achieve, I get to boast on my own personal Facebook page. 

Confusion of Shifting Identities

Rather than giving ourselves strict identities, I’ve noticed we usually end up moving up and down the ladder whenever it suits us, taking credit individually and then abdicating it to a sub-identity when things get tough.  This is not to say that some of our identities do not cause hardships—they do. However, if we step up to the rung, unique person of character—then the buck stops with us, and we will be more properly oriented toward the world. But in my view, we have to stay there, in good times and bad. This is where we gain the strength to face the hardships lower down. This is where choice happens, where progress is made, and where love is given and received. We accept that the identities below us will influence us for good or bad—but they are secondary to us—as an individual of free will. 

We all want to see the end of racism, sexism, and bigotry.  But how do we do that? Bigotry is one thing only: refusing to see the individual. Let’s not go back to labels. Let’s not assume a person’s views or judge them for not holding to the expectations of a group. Let them show themselves to us.  

“Once you label me you negate me.” ~Søren Kierkegaard

The Rung of Character

When we stand as an individual, we expect to be treated as an individual. We know we will get the blame but we also know we will get the credit. We know that the choices we make are made by us and that we are not victims of the choices of other members of a group. We do not have to fall in line with the expectations of a group or make the mistakes groups often make. We will certainly experience difficulty because of identities below us on the ladder.  Racism, sexism, and bigotry are real things. But if we stand as an individual of character, we find the strength to face the battles below us on the ladder, and we gain the confidence to let struggles below us not define us.

“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”~Rudyard Kipling

If we start to see our child conforming to a group by dressing, speaking, or acting in line with the expectations of friends or online discussion groups, a good parent will often remind that child where confidence is built—as an individual. When they give up their individuality, they give up freedom. We must be examples of free will, unswayed by others’ expectations, unashamed to live life independently, and obeying our own conscience. We can show our children examples like Wilson and those willing to cast aside the definitions of outsiders and live by their internal values. This will require more sacrifice and responsibility than those that opt to be defined by the group. In this way, our children’s self-worth will grow as they see that their choices can improve their lives and that they can live one rung above the childish fray of cliques and “in-groups.”

Transcendent Identity

“To see God is to stand at the highest point of created being.” ~George MacDonald

At the risk of undermining all my above assertions regarding the advantage of identifying as an “individual” rather than by a group, the fact is this—as Christians, our very emphasis on “identity” should be disconcerting.  Christ makes it clear, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”  

Our modern insistence that we “identify” turns us from the promise we make as Christians to deny ourselves.  God wants an empty vessel into which to pour His spirit, His inspiration.  But as the world increasingly demands we label ourselves, this “fullness” of self can keep us from being open to the truth God pours into us day by day. 

“I would rather be what God chose to make me than the most glorious creature that I could think of; for to have been thought about, born in God’s thought, and then made by God, is the dearest, grandest and most precious thing in all thinking.” ~George MacDonald

 However, since we live in a world of “identity” and others view us and the world through that lens, it is crucial that we examine the pitfalls of such thinking.  So how should Christians view identity?  (This is a great piece on how following the wrong identity can lead to horrific tragedies —such as WWI: 1917 and Remembering Who We Are, Bishop Robert Barron.) 

The limitation of placing group identity on top of our ladder is we then must get our worth and judgment from the group. But despite its advantages, that rung “individual of character” also has a weakness. If we put all our value on ourselves, all our worth and judgment also emanate from ourselves. Pride or despair is likely to follow. As individuals of character, we now say, “I don’t care what other people think.” This is likely an upgrade from depending on our fellow skateboarders for our sense of worth, but we are missing a key qualifier. If we seek validation from the world’s standards of a “good individual,” we will only be valuable according to earth-bound measurements—beauty, intelligence, wealth, performance, etc. These terrestrial measurements are shaky; they don’t take our internal world into account. Much more important is our soul—the world only God can know.  When we let go of group identity and are firmly standing as individuals, we have to step up another rung. 

As a Christian God tells us there is a rung of the ladder above “individual of character,” and that is the rung, Child of God. 

 “And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty” (2 Corinthians 6:18).

This is where we stand and say, “I don’t care what others think; I don’t even care what I think; I only care what God thinks.” A Child of God does not get his/her worth from individual accomplishment, or group accomplishments—but from God Himself. This rung is safe and stable in its height, and it has a strong Hand steadying it. We don’t need to “care” because Another does better than we ever could.  He can replace our ignorant cares with Godly love. The worth and value gained from this identity do not change with worldly praise or disdain.  God looks at us as His children, who are forever learning, having successes and failures, but secure in His love. Faith and obedience are required to stay on this rung but the peace and joy we gain surpasss any glories the world can provide.

“Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth ‘thrown in’: aim at Earth and you will get neither.” ~C.S. Lewis, The Joyful Christian

I think this song “You Say,” by Lauren Daigle, should be a soundtrack playing in every young and grown woman’s heart. I listen to it when I need to be reminded to move up to the Child of God rung, to accept the value given me by God, not the condemnation often given by the world. “In You I find my worth, in You I find my identity”…

The post Our Highest Identity appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In fact, the way LaCour evades easy categorization is surely part of his draw. He’s pessimistic, but not cynical. He cares about social justice but frequently deviates from popular narratives. Just when you think he couldn’t possibly get more esoteric, he switches to sports commentary. His imaginary conversations with his toddler, Chloe, range from Stoic wisdom and stanning Hume to witticisms on economics and heartfelt gospel truths. He’s a devout member of the Church, but openly embraces scientism (his Twitter handle is @realscientistic). Perhaps it’s his naturalism that allows him to balance his dogged persistence with dispassion, looking calmly forward to the moment when all truth will be explainable.

In short, LaCour’s got something to offer everyone. Just don’t expect it to come packaged in niceties.  

Meagan: Tell us a little about where you’re from.

Tarik LaCour: I was born in Washington D.C., but I have little to no recollection of it. We moved to Riverside, CA, when I was 5 years old, and I was raised there. I now live in Bryan, Texas, and am a Ph.D. student in philosophy and an M.S. student in psychology. In the fall of 2022, I will begin working in the Lifespan Cognitive and Motor Neuroimaging Laboratory under the direction of Jessica Bernard. I consider myself a Texan, though I am a transplant.

M: Were you born into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

TL: No, I am a convert. I was baptized on August 30, 2009, and confirmed on September 6, 2009. Prior to my conversion, I was a Protestant, though I was a bit of a skeptic in my youth. I kept that to myself however and continued to study and ask questions on my own because I got no answers from so-called Sunday School “teachers.”

M: Can you explain a bit more in-depth what your work focuses on and what you studied in undergrad?

TL: I work primarily in the philosophy of psychology, where my primary focus is on cognitive ontology, content, consciousness, emotions, perception, and moral psychology; this also intersects with cognitive science and bioethics. In addition to the philosophical side, I am also a member of the Lifespan Cognitive and Motor Neuroimaging Lab at Texas A&M, where we study the effects of aging on the brain.

As an undergrad at UVU, I studied in a very pluralistic department, where many of the faculty were in the continental tradition. However, a few philosophers there were in the analytic tradition and took the findings of science seriously in their work, and they helped to shape my approach and thinking about the subject. I was very influenced by the logical positivists in my time there, though that waned in the latter part of my undergraduate career. The teachers who helped shape my thinking were Shannon Mussett, Michael Minch, Brian Birch, Kelli Potter, Chris Weigel, Eric Stencil, Thi Ngyuen (though he has now moved to the University of Utah), Karen Mizell, and Elaine Englehardt. Minch and Mizell early on pushed me to work harder, which has made graduate school much easier. I can’t thank them all enough. I was very lucky to have such good teachers.

M: So, you generally reject metaphysics, is that correct?

TL: Most metaphysicians in the analytic tradition (I am thinking here of people like David Armstrong, Peter van Inwagen, Saul Kripke, David Lewis, and Hilary Putnam) do what the empiricist philosopher of science Bas C. van Fraassen (an idol of mine) calls pre-Kantian metaphysics. This type of metaphysics is done independently of science and is seen as a foundation on which science can be built. 

But this is an empty dream, and as David Hume famously said, this type of metaphysics should be cast into the flames because it contains nothing but sophistry and illusion and, I would add, eternal boredom. So, with the logical positivists, I strongly reject this type of metaphysics. 

M: How would you respond to the claim that not all knowledge can be gained scientifically?

TL: It depends on what a person means by science; I think that philosophy, mathematics, and history are also a part of science. Science is not simply rote experiment, though that is one large component of it.  Theoretical physics, for example, has large portions that are not connected to experiments, but of course, theoretical physics is still a part of science. Science deals with things that are in principle almost certainly untestable, such as the assertion of multiple universes that are causally unconnected to us. But all of science is connected to experience. And religious experience, like any other, can be studied by anthropology, psychology, and neuroscience. But that does not mean that religious claims are false, it only means that they can be studied by scientific means.

M: You mentioned that science doesn’t deal in proofs but that this is a popular misconception. Do you think this creates hang-ups for people who see science and religion as somehow incompatible?

TL: I think this is so. But I think the reason most people think that religion and science are incompatible is that they read scripture in a certain way, and expect scripture not just to tell us how God has a relationship with us, but they also see it as a science textbook. And because religious texts don’t tell us much about the nature of the world (other than that God made it but not exactly how He did) some see religion as not making advances while science does. Also, some people see faith as believing without evidence, though this is not how scripture nor how philosophers and theologians understand faith. Faith is not a way of knowing things; it is trust and commitment to that which you have good reason to think is true. Faith without evidence is not faith at all.

Another part is that proponents of science who happen to be atheists many times do not read sophisticated approaches to religion, and proponents of religion who are not themselves scientists do not read much science or know how science and religion are connected. In part that is because science is so vast and specialized, as are philosophy and theology. And philosophers have a bad habit of not taking the answers that science gives us seriously, which brings shame and disgrace to philosophy.

M: Which philosophers and scientists have most defined your thinking?

TL: As my friend Hanna Seariac will tell you, I think Hume was right about everything. But in addition to Hume, Daniel Dennett and Alex Rosenberg would be what I call my philosophical trinity. Both Rosenberg and Dennett are disciples of Hume and take science very seriously in their respective research. 

Patricia Churchland, who founded the philosophical school of thought known as neurophilosophy, has also been a tremendous influence on me. For those who don’t know, neurophilosophers are philosophers who take the findings of neuroscience and apply them to traditional philosophical questions, such as how do we gain knowledge, do we have free will, etc. Neurophilosophy is different from the philosophy of neuroscience, as the latter is related to foundational issues in neuroscience itself while the former is a method of answering philosophical questions. 

Jesse Prinz, who is Hume reborn as a rockstar, is also influential. On the science side, my biggest influences are Charles Darwin, B.F. Skinner, Lisa Feldman Barrett, and Russell Poldrack

M: Let’s talk about consciousness for a moment. Your view on this topic is somewhat less mainstream, is that correct?

TL: My view of consciousness, known as illusionism, is certainly a minority position though it is defended by eminent philosophers and scientists such as Susan Blackmore, Peter Carruthers, Andy Clark, Dennett, Keith Frankish, and Michael Graziano.

M: Can you explain what it means to be an illusionist?

TL: One of the key questions about consciousness is accounting for how consciousness feels from the inside or first-person; this is known as phenomenal consciousness among scholars. So for example, it seems that if you and I were eating cheeseburgers (this is a very hypothetical example, I hate cheese on hamburgers, but I digress) I would know what it is like for me to taste the burger, but not what it is like for you to taste the burger. And since we are made of materials that generally don’t seem to have this type of experience, this creates a bit of a puzzle, because we would need to explain how non-conscious things somehow give rise to this subjective aspect that we can feel and recognize for ourselves, but that others can’t. This is known as the hard problem of consciousness, a name coined by philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers.

Illusionists think that phenomenal consciousness does not exist and that this first-person aspect of consciousness is an illusion, hence the term illusionism. For us, the question is not how does this type of consciousness arise because we think that it doesn’t, but why are people so sure that they have it and why are we so unwilling to give up the idea that we have it; this is called the hard question as Dennett calls it in Consciousness Explained. 

It should be noted that when most people talk about consciousness, they are talking about phenomenal consciousness.  So if you deny we have phenomenal consciousness it is tantamount to saying that consciousness doesn’t exist. Dennett and Frankish don’t like saying they don’t think consciousness exists, but I have no problem saying it doesn’t. Many people call Dennett’s book Consciousness Explained Away because Dennett argues that this subjective aspect of consciousness doesn’t exist.

M: What does it mean to say consciousness does not exist? 

TL: To say that consciousness doesn’t exist is to say that a certain quality people think they have they don’t actually have. There is nothing it is like to be you; you are just an amalgamation of chemicals that can be understood by physics, neuroscience, and psychology, and there is no special property those sciences don’t account for. In short, as Moses said, man is nothing in that he is not any different from the rest of the world that can be understood through scientific means and he deludes himself if he thinks otherwise. But don’t be nonplussed about it; drink a Dr. Pepper and go on with your life.

M: So, if consciousness is an illusion, do we have free will?

TL: Some illusionists, like Blackmore, deny free will, though her reasons for doing so have little to do with illusionism about consciousness. For example, Galen Strawson thinks that free will does not exist but claims that illusionism is the silliest idea anyone has ever had.  But I personally think that we have free will, in that while we are causally determined to do what we do, we have degrees of control over our actions and are able to act in accordance with reasons for our actions, even if our reasons for doing so are causally determined by our brain states.

M: Are there ways that the gospel influences how you approach scientific inquiry?

TL: Einstein wondered why the world was intelligible at all, and given that I believe that God organized the world, I am not surprised that the world can be understood in a rational way as I think God is the paradigm of a rational being. So, in that sense, God and the gospel affect my scientific thinking. But I don’t use God of the gaps reasoning, plugging in God for lack of knowledge; I keep diving further until I get an adequate causal explanation.

M: Would you say that your confidence in God gives you reason to believe that there always will be an answer for every question and that those answers will ultimately vindicate Him?

TL: What you are referring to is known in philosophy as the principle of sufficient reason, that everything has some reason or explanation for why it happens. As an empiricist, I reject the principle, however. I don’t think everything has an explanation; things just happen at times and nothing explains why they have to happen the way that they do. But as a scientist in training, I look for an explanation in causal terms as much as I can, while being open to the fact that there may be no explanation. Fortunately, many times there is an explanation.

M: You recently presented at FAIR. Do you mind explaining your topic a little here?

TL: At FAIR, I defended natural theology and stated that Latter-day Saints should engage in it. Natural theology is arguing for the existence of God without the aid of revelation or scriptures. So, if it is successful it will show that atheism is false (or is at the very least less plausible than theism), and revealed religion has the possibility of being true, and you go from there. The basic question is whether or not God exists. If he does, it is possible that Mormonism is true and it is something we can continue to investigate. If God does not exist, then Mormonism is an interesting artifact for anthropologists to study, but we need not waste our lives worrying about it.

M: So, you are striving to prove the existence of God without religion?

TL: That would be a good way to state it, but not entirely. For example, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and N.T. Wright have written at length, that there are good reasons to believe in the resurrection as a historical event, and that would involve using information given to us from the gospels and the letters of Paul. But in doing a case like this, you would not treat them as scripture but as a bundle of separate documents that may contain a historical core. 

M: You’ve also written recently about race and the priesthood. Can you say a little about what led you to write about that?

TL: Race is not a pleasant subject to write about, even for a pessimist. But I felt I needed to write something in light of the murders of our brothers Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd, and our sister Breonna Taylor. They are the public face of many black people who have been brutally murdered for no reason and gave America and the Church the opportunity to examine themselves and see what racist tendencies we presently have, and what in the past has caused us to be where we are today. As an American and Latter-day Saint who happens to be black and has a bi-racial daughter, I felt a duty to speak out.

M: Absolutely. I, for one, thought your piece was beautifully written. Can you summarize some of your thoughts about race and the Church here?

TL: Well, it is complicated. I am a devout believer in the Restored Gospel, but I have never been one to deny the obvious. The Church has a race problem, and it won’t go away until it is properly treated. Now, to be clear, we are in a much better place in 2021 than we were in 1978. President Nelson recently condemned racism in the strongest terms, and before him President Gordon B. Hinckley also condemned it. I laud them for doing that as they didn’t have to. But the fact remains that some still harbor racism due to the priesthood ban. Until the ban was said to be wrong, as well as the modern and past defenses of it, we won’t get to where we need to be. Note however that this is not a demand I have; President Nelson and those who work with him will have to decide how we proceed here. And I sustain whatever choice they make, as they are far brighter and have been put in that position by the Lord. Sustaining them means I will sustain how they choose to proceed. Even if I disagree with it.

M: Have you experienced racism within the Church? If so, what would you like people to know about this problem?

TL: Yes, but it has been mild. Some of it has been people saying that I talk like a white person (apparently black people cannot be refined and educated). People close to me have said that there has never been any racism in the Church, and that had me floored. Others have said that the mixing of blood (by this they mean interracial marriage) is not a good thing. And I have seen looks from other people like my wife and I have come to church. But I haven’t had what I would deem vile or cruel racism in the Church. By and large, I have been treated very well and I am happy to be a member. Flawed and all, Latter-day Saints are generally good people and I am glad to be numbered with them. I would hasten to add that I also have a high degree of tolerance for this type of thing, and most of my friends and half of my family are white, so my perspective may be very different from other black members. So, don’t take my word on this as the full story as what is to be a black Latter-day Saint. 

M: You seem to have a very balanced attitude about this, even though it can’t be an easy subject. Why is that?

TL: People have other reasons to dislike me such as my commitment to scientism,  my strong endorsement of evolution by natural selection, and my view that there is no more meaning or purpose in life than what you put into it. But, as one of my heroes, James Madison would say, the opinion of the public is one of the things you should care about least. Lots of wisdom in that small Virginian. I look forward to meeting him in postmortal life. I just see our time as limited, and I don’t waste time worrying about what I can’t control. I focus on what I can and my life and blood pressure remain healthy and my mind stays sharp. Good enough for me. 

M: What would you like to see happen among other members of the Church—black and white—to help improve race relations?

TL: So many things. But one would be on the white side that racism is still happening and that it needs to be discussed and acted upon. We should be discussing this in our Sunday School, Elders Quorum, and Relief Society meetings. Racism can’t go away if we don’t acknowledge its existence. On the black side, I hope that we can be frank about the issues we see, but I hope that we will not be too harsh with our fellow white members. I think that they are doing the best they can with what they know. We can speak the truth in love. Love will be the key to conquering this issue and most issues. But, we have to be frank about where the issues lie. I would also say, on both sides, that while racism is a big issue, it’s not the only one.  So, we need not be myopic on it either.

On a personal level, I hope that members will read books like Religion of a Different Color by my dear friend W. Paul Reeve, For the Cause of Righteousness by Russell Stevenson, or Race and the Making of the Mormon People by Max Mueller. These are all very good books that explain in detail how we got to where we are today. 

M: Ok, this is really great practical information. Thank you for the book recommendations. In closing, do you have further reading recommendations for those who would like to familiarize themselves better with your approach to philosophy and research interests?

TL: 10 would be too many, and 5 would be too short, so I will compromise with 8, 4 from neuroscience/psychology, and 4 from empirically minded philosophy:

Lisa Feldman Barrett, Seven and a Half Lessons about the Brain- The brain is a 3-pound blob of flesh with the texture of oatmeal, but it controls everything you do. In this book, Lisa Feldman Barrett, one of the worlds leading neuroscientists, gives a brief but rich tutorial on this fascinating organ. 

Oliver Sacks, The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat- This is a classic book, but it is still very relevant. In it, Sacks talks about a number of his patients’ disorders, and what these disorders tell us about the brain and human potential. You may need a dictionary near you at times, but excellent work.

Russell Poldrack, The New Mind Readers- You like to think that what you are thinking is off-limits to other people, but that is not entirely accurate. In light of FMRI, the little privacy you had is starting to be vanquished. Poldrack, another neuroscientist, tells us how FRMI works, what it can tell us, what it cannot, and what is on the horizon. While a book about science, you will not be bored I promise you.

Michael Graziano, Rethinking Consciousness- Illusionism is no longer just a philosophical theory; it is now making an impact in the fields of neuroscience and psychology. In this book, Graziano defends a version of illusionism, which he calls the attention schema theory. But he goes beyond that, stating that because certain aspects of consciousness are not what they seem, we can build consciousness artificially, though of course there is a lot of work to be done before then.

David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature- Perhaps the greatest work in the western philosophical tradition; a pioneering work of empiricism, naturalism, and skepticism. Book one section 1.3, where the problem of induction is discussed, and 1.4., which is the more skeptical part of the book, are simply spectacular. Hume also defends a compatibilist view of free will in book two sections 2.3, and the is-ought problem, which is that you can derive morality from matters of fact, in book 3 section 1.1. 

Daniel Dennett, Sweet Dreams- This small book is an update to Consciousness Explained, where Dennett first made his case against phenomenal consciousness. He goes on the offensive once again, recasting his ideas in light of modern neuroscience and psychology, and developing a view of consciousness that he calls “Fame in the Brain.” Be ready to laugh and be educated.

Jesse Prinz, The Conscious Brain- Besides Dennett, Prinz may be the most original thinker in consciousness studies. In this book, which is in contrast to Dennett, Prinz offers an identity theory of the mind; the view that the mind is simply the brain and that mental states are brain states. While I am not in complete agreement with Prinz, he does offer a fresh view that should be taken seriously.

Alex Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality- In this manifesto of scientism, Rosenberg makes the case that science can and is answering many perennial philosophical questions, and that will make us rethink many of our common-sense intuitions and beliefs. Don’t be bothered by the atheist label; while Rosenberg accepts and assumes atheism, it is very minor in the book.

The post A Latter-day Saint Empiricist: An Interview with Tarik LaCour appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

“You’re a big metaphor guy. I like that, it makes you sound smart,” Owen Wilson’s character Mobius observes of Loki, in his eponymous new Disney Plus show.

He’s right, of course, humans love a good metaphor. They help us expand our vision by connecting the new with the experienced. Melissa Burkely, who is both a novelist and a psychologist, wrote, “Metaphors are not just a literary technique; they are a psychological technique.”

We should expect, then, that as society moves into new conversations we will look for metaphors and analogies from the past that can help us understand what is happening in the now and what might happen in the future by comparing it to the past we are already familiar with. But because of the psychological power of these metaphors, we must be careful about which ones we regularly adopt because otherwise belaboring the similarities without fully recognizing the differences could lead us to inaccurate conclusions. After all, remember your English class definition, a metaphor is a comparison of two unlike things. Understanding the way things are unlike is often just as crucial in our public debates as understanding how they are the same.

Newly-retired Professor Richard Davis of Brigham Young University used a familiar metaphor in his recent Op-Ed to help understand a contemporary situation. Davis draws the (very) commonly made comparison between the current situation of the Latter-day Saint LGBTQ+ population and the pre-1978  situation of the black members of the Church of Jesus Christ, arguing that it’s God’s will that the Church should perform same-sex sealings just as it was God’s will that the Church should extend the priesthood to all members. I’ll leave it to others to communicate what God’s will for the Church is. You can certainly understand why Davis and others have settled on this metaphor. There are many superficial similarities between the two. But ultimately the historical analogy fails in a number of ways. I have no ill-will towards Professor Davis, but given that this argument is so popular and sows confusion among many Latter-day Saints who want to be on the Lord’s side, it is worth directly addressing. 

First, there were always Church leaders who stated publicly that the priesthood restriction would be lifted (while others said that it wouldn’t). No such statements have ever been made at the General Authority level about extirpating the Church’s heteronormativity. 

Second, race was a very incidental, very occasionally discussed aspect of Latter-day Saint theology. By comparison, issues of gender, family, and the reproductive imperative (in this life or the next) strike at the very core of Latter-day Saint notions of exaltation. Changing it would require a fundamental doctrinal overhaul in ways that the race issue simply would not. While one can mine past statements of Church leaders to find a quote here or there that implies that the former priesthood ban would continue forever or that the civil rights movement was infiltrated by communists, the Church as a whole has made a concerted effort in the past couple of decades to connect themselves to traditional notions of gender, family, and sex. No such concerted, generalized effort was ever made in regards to traditional notions of race. The conflation of the two, while providing an easy soundbite, can be offensive to traditionally religious people of color. 

There are other points that could be belabored. For example, while Professor Davis is an accomplished social scientist, his absolute sureness about what liberalizing the Church would do sounds more like a testimony than the measured thesis of a scholar, and ironically flies in the face of empirical evidence showing that more liberal denominations have the weakest retention rates. Professor Davis is welcome to believe what he wants about the future of the Church’s position on LGBTQ+ issues, but facile comparisons don’t help his case. Professor Davis is also welcome to believe what he wants about God’s will; we are expected to seek out our own confirmation of the Church’s positions, and he is to be commended for doing so, but let’s be clear, being in conflict with the Church on the issue of human sexuality is, in so many important, substantive ways, in a different category than being in conflict with its past positions on race. 

The post No Comparison Between Latter-day Saint Race and Sex Teachings appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Too often, we conflate policies with values, and thereby reject the values we hold because we have attached them too strongly to policy. For example, some reject the immorality of aborting a child, due to resistance to specific policy efforts on the right. In the other direction, wholly rejecting anything related to equal justice, due to certain policy efforts on the left is another illustration.  By contrast, I find myself imagining a social justice not so quickly rejected, but instead reflecting an extension of Latter-day Saint values, which includes a plurality of political views. By self-consciously operating from a Latter-day Saint framework, we can creatively reimagine social justice in an inclusive and expansive way without shoehorning political positions into principles; presently, though, it does seem like an all-or-nothing debate. 

In the midst of this all-or-nothing debate, Public Square editors put out an article last fall entitled Does Social Justice Really Have to Divide Us? where they asked, “What if we got a little more curious about how we might legitimately embrace certain elements of social justice without ‘wresting’ the scriptures and deforming the teachings of Christ in any way?”

I became curious about this possibility: What could it really mean to articulate a social justice ideology that comports with Latter-day Saint teachings and beliefs? My journey in preparing this piece led me to connect deeply with the words of then-Elder Oaks at a Latter-day Saint Student Association Fireside back in May of 1986: “I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but find no salvation in any of them.”

Instead of exploring how our unique Latter-day Saint identity can influence social justice, many have heavily, and hastily condemned all related activism to the point where we inadvertently forsake Christ’s teachings around ministering to the poor, needy, hungry, sick, and afflicted.

Here, I will not directly criticize social justice ideology, but instead attempt to make my own contribution towards articulating a broader, more positive form of it, grounded in Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings. Rather than attempting to stretch our teaching beyond recognition and extrapolate far beyond core doctrines of our faith, I’m intrigued at the extent to which some of the core doctrines of the restoration provide a potential foundation on which common ground on social justice-related issues might be found.  

I summarize six possible underpinnings below:

1. Priority concern and service for the vulnerable. It’s clear, especially from the New Testament, that Christ expects us to take steps in our own spheres towards a more just society. In the Lord’s powerful parable of the sheep and the goats, we read, “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison and ye came unto me.” 

All Christians agree on the importance of reaching out to the vulnerable.  Indeed, Jesus goes on to note that it’s precisely on this point that He will ultimately separate out the nations and judge them from one another. But how exactly to go about this?  

While our commitment to social welfare and justice should not be in dispute, we definitely need caution when exploring the methods used to pursue that aim. As Latter-day Saints, the most obvious way we pursue this is through meaningful service, as well as collective efforts through tithes and offerings that fill the bishop’s storehouse, and provide funds to be shared with the needy among us—and in other nations.  

These are not secondary matters for us. As Amulek warns, “if ye turn away the needy, and the naked, and visit not the sick and afflicted, and impart of your substance, if ye have, to those who stand in need—I say unto you, if ye do not any of these things, behold, your prayer is vain and availeth you nothing, and ye are as hypocrites who do deny the faith.” 

We have a scriptural mandate to move towards a time when there is “no poor among [us],” even if it means real personal sacrifice. Elder Holland recounts a story of President Monson, who had given away his second suit, his shirts, and even the shoes off his feet while he visited East Germany. 

Latter-day Saints seek to minister to families around us and find ways to give of our time, talents, and resources in other ways. Tutoring those seeking to learn more, or donating more to charity—all this reflects ways to contribute to social justice on an individual level.

2. Support that builds greater capacity in those who are vulnerable. Food, clothing, and medical care are a starting point, but the substance God calls us to share with others must go beyond that—with an aim to build spiritual and emotional capacity in recipients. In a message where he also spoke of not turning away the needy, hungry, sick, or afflicted, Elder Jeffrey Holland reassured his audience, “now, lest I be accused of proposing quixotic global social programs or of endorsing panhandling as a growth industry, I reassure you that my reverence for principles of industry, thrift, self-reliance, and ambition is as strong as that of any man or woman alive.”

That doesn’t mean telling people to “buck up.”  While people are receiving an education,  applying for jobs, or receiving medical care, they do still often need ongoing help before they get back on their feet. 

3. Taking seriously the need to abandon prejudice and hatred of any kind. President Nelson has taught: “The Creator calls on all to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children. Any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent.” He has also asked the saints “to lead out in abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice.”

Consistently, updated historical writing states: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavour or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present in any form.” 

Other types of prejudice condemned by the Church include sexism and nationalism, all of which betray our core conviction that “all are alike unto God.” 

The Church is very serious about these efforts, issuing strong condemnations of white supremacy and adding the goal of eradicating racism to the handbook.  President Oaks specifically reminded us that racism includes “the police brutality and other systemic discrimination and housing publicized recently.”  That encourages us to step outside our comfort zones and explore broader definitions of racism—considering ways that racism has been perpetuated through the historic wealth gap, redlining, etc., so that we can address systemic inequality. 

Rooting out these attitudes involves gaining exposure to those of different races and building bridges because we tend to hate that which we do not understand. In addition to appreciating racial dynamics in Latter-day Saint history more deeply, we can study the inspiring examples of faithful Black Latter-day Saints in our history, as well as reading works by Black Latter-day Saints now. As we listen and learn more, we can allow for grace, understanding, and repentance as we fall short and experience discomfort for past mistakes. 

Yet this can be motivation for looking forward and making changes. By opposing all forms of hatred, we become more like our Savior Jesus Christ. And in all this, we can be united in seeing the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as providing the best impetus and ideas for alleviating those evils. 

4. Advocating for protecting all life, including the most vulnerable. The Church’s position on abortion is that except in cases of rape, incest, or health, abortion is contrary to the will of God, but that those circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Similar to allowing birth control, while encouraging a couple to not delay having children within a marriage, abortion is never encouraged and has been “consistently opposed” by the Church. 

While some have attempted to construe a pro-choice position from Church teaching,  President Oaks has clarified: “My young brothers and sisters, in today’s world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice.” 

The idea that pro-choice policies produce fewer abortions has been challenged by a left-wing fact-checker recently. That is not to say that Democratic policies generally cannot lower abortion rates because certainly, they can, but this fact-check applies specifically to pro-choice policies.  And Terryl Givens has written: “At a minimum, Saints should deplore the current amoral regime in which even the most minimal appeals to humanity have been obliterated in the name of “reproductive freedom.” 

The eradication of abortion comes both through seeking it to be abolished and finding ways to make it less necessary. That means looking beyond only the act of abortion alone to the broader dynamics that lead women in that direction. For instance, since abortion disproportionally impacts women of color and women of lower socioeconomic status, it could rightfully be considered an example of systemic discrimination. 

Advocating life goes beyond abortion as well.  The protection of life should be womb to tomb. The Church’s position on capital punishment is, “we neither promote nor oppose capital punishment.” Patrick Mason’s case against capital punishment provides a scriptural imperative to oppose it. Research shows that around 4% of inmates were killed despite their innocence, an issue disproportionately impacting Black people as well. Given the high rates of incarceration and negative outcomes for those released, perhaps it’s also time to follow the lead of Joseph Smith, who suggested prisons be reformed with “reason and friendship.”

5. Welcoming strangers, refugees, and immigrants. Another issue that we must speak about is related to the family as well and it is refugees. The Church developed an initiative called “I Was a Stranger” in order to encourage members to find ways to involve themselves with bringing refugees into the community and integrating them. This provides a great model for helping refugees and immigrants alike adjust to American life while actively working to understand the cultural customs and practices that they are accustomed to having. Since we believe in strong families, we also do oppose the separation of families at the border as made clear with multiple statements. We need to ensure that immigrants are able to safely enter the country, remain with their families, and integrate into society in a way that makes them feel loved and welcome. 

While our imperative to accept refugees and immigrants with open arms is a scriptural one, we are still counseled to make informed choices about laws around the border. The Church has encouraged legislation that “will properly balance love for neighbors, family cohesion, and the observance of just and enforceable laws.” Walker Wright has argued for underrecognized benefits of “welcoming migrants with open arms and advocating for far less restrictive immigration policies.” Latter-day Saints should absolutely support safe immigration and streamlining this process as a way to show our neighbors that we will willingly accept them, while still maintaining border security.

6. Raising our voices to advocate for truth and love. Testimony encompasses a wide range of activities that might be defined as witnessing that Jesus is the Christ. Channeling Joseph Smith, one could argue that sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ through testimony is an act of social justice because it empowers individuals to align themselves with the law of love more.

I find that Latter-day Saint critiques of social justice often err on the side of self-reliance in a way that does not encapsulate the Lord’s commandment to “feed my sheep.” In the pursuit of becoming like Jesus Christ, we become love personified, like He is and was love personified. If love becomes part of our persons, we see that all commandments, laws, and righteous activities from giving to the poor to reading scriptures to education prepare us for and help us fulfill the law of love, thereby contributing to our social justice efforts. 

That love will be important to explore differences that remain.  Elder Uchtdorf reminded us that, “the gospel of Jesus Christ transcends politics, prejudices, and personal grudges.” As we develop an explicitly Latter-day Saint social justice ethic, we can allow ourselves grace and forgiveness as we do our best to relieve the burdens of the marginalized and seek to carry out Christ’s work. 

By articulating a Latter-day Saints social justice ethic through values rather than through policies, we can perhaps better establish unity as Latter-day Saints as we confront social issues. Instead of allowing political opinions to divide us, my hope is that we can link arms together and collaborate based on our perception of common problems in our society. Whether Democrat or Republican or a third party, we can unite over our shared values and creatively work together to create a more just society. 

This piece does not come close to being a comprehensive approach to social justice on every issue, but that can be a shared project of exploring ways to follow the example of the Savior Jesus Christ, whose calling is to “preach good tidings unto the meek … to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.”

We have covenanted to follow Him in this work. Whether that is eradicating stereotypes etched deep in our minds, or trading our Netflix for volunteering the community, let’s do it!  If taken seriously, this will raise all of us out of our comfort zones and require our commitment, but this commitment is an extension of our covenants, not anything apart from it. 

The post A Gospel Foundation for Common Ground on Social Justice appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The post Who Decides What’s Racist? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

I have eleven points of analysis.  While there is a commonly held view that Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg as demands or challenges, they were, instead, points of theology upon which Luther invited debate and serious discussion. It is in that spirit of discussion that I present 11 theses regarding the report submitted by the BYU Committee on Race, Equity, and Belonging (CoREB) in February of this year.  Each thesis posits a gap in Christian influence and import in the document, which instead reflects considerable fidelity to orthodox CRT.  While such an approach is much in line with the secular doctrines pervading other institutions of higher education in 21st century America, I submit that it does not capture, or faithfully reflect the real Christian nature of BYU—choosing, rather to subsume the situation at BYU under the rhetoric of CRT.

Thesis 1.  The Report itself provides little detailed data on the nature and extent of the problems it reports, or on its methods. It does, however, present a narrative consistent with CRT.

The report itself contains little detailed data on the nature, extent, or context of the race-related problems reported. The numerical data are given in an auxiliary “Key Findings” report that provides some information about the source of the data since the specific questions are included (although my professional opinion is that the questionnaires were problematic in both their content and construction—but taking up that issue is beyond the scope of this essay).  

However, the main report provides very little information about the provenance of the qualitative data reported.  No clear information is given about how the samples were selected, nor the characteristics of the sample—which are normally expected in reports such as this.  The Report does document students’ and others’ reports of their perceptions, feelings, or negative interactions.  However, there is no wider context that might help make sense of the source, origin, frequency, cause, or psychological/spiritual intensity of the perceptions or feelings or the incidents that precipitated them.  That this information is simply missing is significant.  Absent any information about the rationale for this approach to collecting and reporting data, and omitting any details and context, questions are raised about the objectivity of the data collection process.  Because of the CRT rhetoric throughout the document, it seems that perhaps the entire process of investigating the problems at BYU was, from the beginning guided by and infused with the discourse and logic of CRT:  if a BIPOC person has a negative experience it is presumed, prima facie to be evidence of racism with no further analysis of the experiences, or the actual circumstances giving rise to them, being necessary.   For example, minority students reported feeling alone, having feelings of not belonging, or feeling the need to prove themselves.  However, the study includes no background information that might answer whether something we could clearly recognize as “racism” was the cause of these feelings—feelings that are quite common among college students. In spite of what CRT assumes and demands, surely not all negative life situations or outcomes experienced even by minority students are attributable to racism, any more than all positive outcomes to white students are attributable to racism. 

Such an investigatory approach and the conclusions that seem to confidently flow from them, evince theoretical/philosophical commitment and are not, therefore, merely the facts of racism in our society or our BYU subculture.  In taking this approach the CoREB seems to have jumped to its conclusions with little attention to potentially relevant details, particularly details specific to BYU. This casts at least a shadow on any actionable recommendations that are presented as flowing from the data.

The religious language in the report, chiefly in quotations from President Worthen and LDS General Authorities, expresses the importance of eliminating racism and discrimination and treating all members of the BYU community with love and kindness.  In contrast, the language of the broader narrative running through this report of the assessment of BYU and its situation vis-a-vis racism is very general and just happens to coincide with the language of Critical Race Theory in its diagnosis of the problem at BYU, its understanding of our situation, and its recommendations. What that suggests is that CRT constituted the background assumptions, the analytical framework, and the essential conclusions of the report. 

The obvious issue is whether CRT-inspired theory, analysis, and narrative do constitute the best approach for engaging racism and other problems at BYU that the committee report takes up. BYU, it should be kept in mind, is the third-largest (by enrollment) Christian university in the country. In my experience, BYU is exceptionally closely tied to its sponsoring church. BYU faculty and students are overwhelmingly Christians—and committed Christians. Because of this strong Christian institutional and personal influence, the crucial question—completely unaddressed in the report—is whether we can really expect to experience, understand, and address intensely morally relevant experiences such as racism, equity, and belonging in the same language employed in the larger essentially secular Non-LDS/Christian settings.  Why should the language of CRT trump other languages of experience and moral concern even in strongly Christian settings? Serious consideration of the nature and power of community, culture, and ethnicity strongly suggests—as CRT itself must agree—people will experience these things in a language appropriate to their culture and ethnicity.  My proposition is, therefore, that there is a Christian form of, and language for, experiencing, addressing, and understanding equity, belonging, racism, and all related things. One finds nothing distinctly Christian in any of the descriptions or recommendations of the report. Presumably, the narrative of Critical Race Theory won out, and displaced other narratives, even before the data were in and the recommendations were being formulated. For a strongly Christian community, it is not obvious that the CRT narrative is really the best narrative, the best language to understand and deal with the issues the CoREB was charged with understanding.

Thesis 2. Does the prevailing CRT understanding of human nature, morality, race, and ethnic identity and relations, and Christianity cleanly apply to BYU?  

This thesis follows closely from Thesis 1.  In deciding whether the language, categories, and narrative of CRT are applicable to an overwhelmingly Christian institution such as BYU—its students, staff, and faculty—it must be clearly understood that CRT is not a straightforward factual description of racism and related problems of equity and belonging. It is, rather, a theory about those things.  And it must be understood that any theory brings with it metaphysical and epistemological assumptions that cannot be avoided or simply ignored. Thus CRT, as does any theory or approach, always brings a full set of assumptions and implications already in place regarding human nature, the nature of the world,  causes of human action, and the possibility of human agency and of morality.   As a theory, CRT cannot be seen as just a description of reality or even simply a theory of racism.  It is a theory about what we are and why we do what we do. 

So, to understand CRT and to decide to employ it—hopefully before adopting it as the appropriate perspective for undertaking an evaluation of racism, equity, and belonging in any particular setting – one must carry out a careful evaluation of the perspective, including a clear understanding of its history and underlying assumptions. The BYU report in its seamless adoption of CRT language and categories provides no evidence that any such evaluation of CRT as a theory with an intellectual history was ever undertaken.  Thus, the question remains:  Is the CRT account in the report appropriate for a Christian community like BYU?  Does it map neatly onto the language in which BYU people understand and experience the phenomena in question?  CRT has a decades-long history and an even longer history with other manifestations of critical theory going back at least a century and a half.  This is an essentially secular history. If all this has not been recognized, understood, and evaluated, then there is little reason to suppose the CRT categories and language will give us a genuine picture of experiences at a distinctly non-secular university. The report provides no evidence that any careful study or analysis of CRT —let alone its applicability to a Christian institution—was undertaken.  Thus, there are genuine questions about the applicability and utility of the report for BYU or any other deeply Christian setting.

Thesis 3.  The committee’s CRT-inspired recommendations call for the establishment of “safe spaces” on campus in lieu of Christianity as THE safe space for everyone and everywhere.  

The committee’s CRT-inspired report recommendations call for the establishment of what are essentially “safe spaces.”  What is overlooked is that, for Christians, Christianity itself must be The Safe Space.  It is designed, from the foundation of the world to be the safe space for all humanity.  If we find that a distinctly Christian setting like BYU does not seem like a safe space to members of the BYU community, or to other Christians, then it is our Christianity that needs to be examined, not our conformity to the precepts of CRT.  This is a principal reason the lack of a discernibly Christian perspective and narrative running throughout the BYU document is an omission of significant concern.  If we, with our Christian mission and our Christian identity, do not provide requisite safe space, then we need to examine and understand how our Christian mission is being pursued, and how secular perspectives and activities might be interfering with and obscuring it  We also must be aware that an LDS/Christian safe space will likely not be described in the same terms, serve the same functions, or provide exactly the same things as a CRT-inspired safe-space.

Thesis 4.  A CRT perspective is, in various ways, at odds with Christianity.  Uncritical infusion of CRT into a Christian university is naïve and unwise.  

The relationship between Hegelian-inspired theories and Christianity has always been “difficult,” to say the least.  There is, to be sure, a perceived commonality of spirit in certain matters, such as a concern for caring, justice, and equality.  However, the diagnosis and etiology of the ills of society, such as racism, among others, is not common nor compatible between the two systems of thought; and therefore, neither is the prescriptive cure.  The legacy of CRT and its critical-theory cousins, from the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel, is that human events are the result —even the product—of powerful abstractions—i.e., ideas at work, universally producing culture and discourse, as well as the human mind and heart.  All these things are essentially marching along with history itself.  For Christianity, on the other hand, the universal human reality is that because of the fall, all people must be understood as broken people in a broken world.  Yet as moral agents, we are charged with exercising that agency to accept the grace of Christ and overcome our universal brokenness, all this taking place in an open-ended world.

The very nature and role of “religion,” and certainly of Christianity in particular, are different when viewed from CRT than from an LDS/Christian perspective. Professor Ibram Kendi, who has become the spokesperson of sorts for CRT and its “anti-racism” manifestations, has made a fundamental distinction between two types of Christian religion. In his words, “Liberation Theology” leads to social revolution, anti-racism, justice, and freedom, while “Savior Theology” leads to racism and oppression. Certainly, LDS Christians will likely count themselves among “Savior Theology Christians,” which is another reason to question the fit of CRT narratives, language, diagnoses, and processes to BYU. 

Thesis 5.  Analyses and recommendations founded on CRT and related Critical Theories privilege non-agentic accounts of racism and other social and moral problems—and, thus, of our moral lives.

CRT, as its legacy from Hegelian thought, understands the world in terms of grand abstractions (Ideas), endowed with the power to cause or produce, events, cultures, and human thought and moral dispositions.  Such a world is at odds conceptually and morally with a view of the world as divinely created and designed to be the right setting to provide meaningful and sufficient moral tests for children of God, who are moral agents.  These two world views are incommensurable if for no other reason than the former has no place for, or account of, human agency, while the latter requires it.  It is legitimate to ask, then, which of these two world views should guide BYU’s response to “racism” and other social and cultural problems?

True to their Hegelian roots, CRT and related critical theories will always privilege non-agentic accounts of racism and other social phenomena.  This non-agentic legacy manifests itself in claims that racism is “systemic.”  In many contexts, the word “systemic” can mean simply “widespread,” or “present in many places.”  However, in the context of CRT and its related critical theories, the term “systemic” is a technical term, meaning that a phenomenon like racism arises from a larger system of ideas and cultural forces moving events and persons along.  (Marxist systems of economics and wealth may be the best-known examples of this characteristic of Critical Theories.)  From the vantage point of Critical Theories, systemic problems do not arise from the actions of individual agents, or even groups of agents, but rather from the supra-individual and supra-human racist, gendered, classist, and speciesist systems operating in the world.  If human agency has nothing to do with the origin of problems such as racism, then human agency has nothing to do with the solution.  The solution to something systemic does not lie in the hands or lives of individual moral agents engaged in the world.  Systemic solutions come, not from the acts of individual agents, but from manipulating and altering the whole grand system.   Thus, the only solution is to vest power in the hands of an enlightened (or “woke”) few, who can really see the problem (e.g., racism) in its true systemic nature.  

From a Christian perspective, however, human moral problems all resolve in and through the grace made possible by a great willing sacrifice.  From CRT (and other secular critical-theory perspectives, too) systemic moral problems can only be resolved by the exertion of power.  Which of these two choices seems compatible with what members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints refer to as the Great Plan of Happiness?  

Thesis 6.  CRT and related Critical Theories are not recently “discovered” truths or 21st-century enlightenment, but rather 19th-century German idealism, newly polished.

It is important to keep in mind that CRT and related theories are not recently discovered truths, the products of liberated 21st-century thinking. That is, CRT didn’t only recently occur to contemporary trendy, enlightened post-moderns.  It was on the cutting edge of the early 19th century. 

Viktor Frankl, the noted Jewish psychologist and philosopher, who personally survived the Holocaust, once commented in writing that the Holocaust had its roots in the German universities in the 19th century.  One such intellectual root was the German Idealism developed by Hegelian thinkers, the effects of which were felt in the middle decades of 20th Century Western culture.  This is the common root from which the Critical Theories, including Marxism and CRT, arose. Frankel’s conclusion is, thus, that the holocaust arose out of a grand philosophical system that proposed a holistic system of ideas moving toward its own end, and emancipation from systems that had gone before. In such a system the exercise of power for the advancement of “all” is justified completely and only in itself.  People play only a generic role, and are not individual moral agents but, essentially, “people in general,” either furthering the realization and success of the system (e.g., the National Socialists), or impeding it (the Jewish race, and the unenlightened populace).  Understanding these problematic aspects of the legacy of German Idealism found in contemporary Critical Theories, we should be cautious about adopting its categories of thought and its understanding of culture, people, morality, and social institutions. We also should be cautious of defining persons chiefly based on their membership in newly designated groups of “generic people,” reflected in labels given to our brothers and sisters newly conceptualized as “BIPOC,” and “LGTBQ.”

For these reasons then, any Critical Theory-inspired intellectual tradition becomes an odd guarantor of liberty and morality, especially for Christians, and even for members of newly defined generic groups.

Thesis 7. To be sensitive and to pursue equity, justice, kindness, and belonging does not require acceptance of the CRT conception/definition of social justice or “anti-racism.”

There is enough insight, motivation, and strategy—and to spare—in the civil rights writings and movements of the past 60 yare to accomplish what needs to be done.  For example, the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., are inspiring illustrations and offer definitive principles and blueprints for what needs to be done. This agenda of these earlier civil rights pioneers has never been challenged or refuted on logical, rational, or moral grounds.  With its proven track record, it provides a way forward that is supportive and affirming of Christians.  

So why take another path? The principal arguments in favor of CRT (and away from the agenda Dr. King espoused) seem to be based mostly on three issues:  1.  Bald intellectual faddishness: MLK’s approach is not post-modern nor sufficiently neo-Marxist to satisfy the demands of intellectual trends, and appeal to a younger generation who, like every generation previously, really wants the thrill of believing they have discovered something for themselves.  2.  Change within the prior system just isn’t fast enough, or, perhaps dramatic enough.  Indeed, although “colorblind” approaches to racism might well solve the critical concrete problems associated with racism, they don’t produce passion and headlines in today’s post-modern media and intellectual markets.  3.  CRT, as part of its requirements for success, requires power, and the power must be concentrated in an intellectual woke elite, who really “get it.”  That “will to power,” although by no means new, seems to be perpetually irresistible. 

It seems clear, in light of the foregoing, which approach is more congenial to and compatible with the needs and mission of a Christian people and a Christian institution. 

Thesis 8. “Cancel Culture,” which always seems to be, sooner or later, attached to CRT has a long history not worthy of emulation.

Students of history quickly recognize that “Cancel Culture,” and tactics of canceling people and ideas out of sync with current ideology do not constitute a new tactic inspired by a supposed desire (on the part of critical theory adherents) to liberate and protect people. In fact, there are at least two formal historical terms for the project we currently know as “canceling.” The first is “iconoclasm,” from the Greek eikon (meaning ‘figure’) and klåō (meaning ‘to break’); thus, “figure,” or “statue” smashing. The other term is “damnatio memoriae,” condemnation of memory, meaning that a person is to be “damned,” i.e., excluded from official accounts, records, and even memories.

The CoREB report raised this issue in regard to possibly renaming campus buildings.  The practice can be traced at least to the Bronze Age and the actions of Akhenaten to destroy all former gods and chisel out of stone structures all references to their names.  Contemporary cancel culture thus has a direct historical line up through some aggressive religious movements, and many conquerors, dictators, and tyrants. For a movement that promises greater freedom, it is deeply troubling that CRT would enthusiastically align itself with such a historically tyrannical practice of controlling and asserting power.  In contrast to this, the truly Christian model centers around repentance and forgiveness, rather than canceling.  It seems obvious which of these should be advocated and supported at BYU. 

Thesis 9.  The BYU report with its implicit CRT framework ignores two salient facts about BYU and its student body pertinent to the topics of the report. 

First, the BYU community includes literally thousands of students, faculty, and staff, who have deep spiritual ties and covenant-based relationships with God’s children of many nations and races.  This includes individuals from every state of the United States and over 100 foreign nations.  It also includes thousands of returned missionaries.  Everyone who has served knows that mission calls and the love that attends them last a lifetime. The language and categories of CRT have very little—perhaps nothing—to contribute to our understanding of loving and serving racially and ethnically diverse populations—except, perhaps, to inject suspicion about motives and inadvertent consequences.  

Wherein lies the utility or superiority of a CRT perspective to that of the restored gospel for those who literally have gone “unto all the world?”  Should not the CoREB report, and BYU’s response to it, recognize, acknowledge, appreciate, and make use of these matchless resources rather than ignore them—privileging instead a CRT perspective?  This seems clearly to be a sort of blindness to the Christianity indigenous to BYU.

Second, The BYU student body is served by and is integrated into more than 200 active LDS/Christian congregations where young people with Christian testimonies worship, interact, and seek moral improvement.  Why does the BYU Committee Report make no mention of this vast resource—except that it is not part of the CRT narrative?  Is not sincere Christian worship the well-spring of love, charity, inclusivity, welcoming, and equity?

Thesis 10. The nature, place, and role of human agency are largely absent from the document and from CRT.

Consistent with their Hegelian roots, Critical Theories, including CRT, afford no important place for human agency in their accounts of either the origin or the solution to social problems, such as racism, equity, and belonging. Introductions to CRT usually begin by postulating the existence of “implicit biases” already and always dominant in human perceptions, attitudes.

 Of course, there are implicit “biases” at play in our perceptions, attitudes, and judgments.  Such pre-existent, interpretive knowledge, maintained quite naturally and without conscious deliberation, is what makes it possible for us to awaken in the morning and not have to reconstruct ourselves from scratch.  Such knowledge also makes it possible for us to assimilate and to accommodate our ongoing experience.  However, such biases are “biases” because they are not subject to immediate consciousness and affirmation.  And this use of the term “bias” may not, and in my judgment does, not map neatly on the sort of bias that makes up the working conceptual content of racism.

From the point of view of Critical Theories (and CRT is no exception), consciousness and agency are products of systemic circumstance and cultural forces and are thus agentic in name only—i.e., not agentic at all. As Karl Marx once wrote: “It is not [the] consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” 

Critical Theories endow abstract entities with directive and determinative power in human activities and understandings, including self-understanding.  Human agency, however, does play a crucial role in LDS/Christian understandings of life and the world.  Bluntly stated, beings without moral agency need no savior.

Thesis 11.  The report of the BYU CoREB could have been much more deeply and proactively Latter-day Saint/Christian rather than re-actively CRT-informed.

If there are race- or ethnic-related problems and issues at BYU—as we assume there must be in a world of imperfect (even “broken”) people—then why not examine rigorously and carefully, with full purpose of a Christian heart, what we as LDS/Christians have to offer in response to, and in order to eliminate, and meliorate any racism in our hearts or in any of our social “systems.”  We might start with exploring the depths and exploiting the power of the doctrines of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ—the great majority of which we share with all Christians.  Does CRT really offer something better as a starting point for analyses of race, equity, and belonging?  We can begin with the following:

• All people on this earth are divine children of a passive (i.e., capable of passion and emotion, and able to be moved to compassion) and loving God who has covenanted to care for us and help us grow toward Him.
• Our passive God intervenes actively in the lives of His children of every nation. He intervenes in the lives of people and in the life of peoples.
• This mortal life has a moral purpose, collectively and personally. and it is overseen by a loving God who desires the moral and temporal well-being of all his children and actively works toward that purpose.
• A universal part of our moral purpose is to love and serve all of God’s children, and to not be “respecters of persons.” We have a sacred obligation to work for, and to desire, the well-being and salvation of all people.
• This world is exquisitely designed to allow all human beings to accomplish their moral purposes. We are all eternal morally sensitive agents, capable of meaningfully acting for ourselves and thus capable of both sin and nobility.
• Yet, all mortal beings are “broken,” have sinned and fallen short. Thankfully, there is a plan for our salvation and eternal life in the presence of God.
• We are saved and exalted through the mediation of a Savior, Jesus Christ.  The mediation of the Savior and the blessings of eternity are freely open to all who will desire them enough to enter in at the gate.
• How we treat one another is fundamentally determinative of the state and destiny of our souls.  Indeed, the sociality of this life endures into the next life.
• Not all morality is purely social morality.  Personal morality entails morality toward other persons. (CRT and other critical theories like Marxism turn all morality into social morality, i.e., concern for global and political morality, for example, the various ‘isms’ which, ultimately, cause people to commit crimes against the “woke” state. These theories cease to deal with individual morality, such as personal adherence to standards of honesty, and chastity – seeing these as the legacy of “racism.” However, that so-called “personal morality” is inherently social also, since most of the personal morality that has been a part of our tradition centers on how we act toward our “fellow beings”).

In short, there is no understanding or insight provided by CRT that is more important or more powerful than these Latter-day Saint/Christian realities.  The “abundant life” offered by the Savior is both richer and simpler than any that might be envisioned within or through CRT.

For all these reasons, I propose more attention to the ways in which an explicitly Christian vision can inform and shape our ongoing and future conversations about race, equity, and belonging at BYU, and in America as a whole.

The post A Fourth Take on The BYU Racial Equity Report appeared first on Public Square Magazine.