Does the Interpreter Foundation Have Colonialist Ambitions?

[Gadianton]

Interesting that the plugs for this project have all but disappeared from “SeN.” It will be interesting to see if they turn up again when it comes time to ask for donations.

I wonder if the Brethren have put a stop to the whole thing. If that's the case, we've heard the last about this project.

[Doctor Scratch]

Interesting that the plugs for this project have all but disappeared from “SeN.” It will be interesting to see if they turn up again when it comes time to ask for donations.

I wonder if the Brethren have put a stop to the whole thing. If that's the case, we've heard the last about this project.

An excellent point.

[drumdude]

You will perhaps recall the two blog entries — “Hearts of Darkness” and “Seeking ‘wealth’ in the DR Congo” — from a while back in which I related how a small troop of the Church’s more zany and unhinged critics were accusing the Interpreter Foundation of “colonialist” ambitions in the DR Congo. The accusations came because one of the Foundation’s vice presidents (Jeff Bradshaw) and two of our filmmaker friends (James Jordan and Russ Richins) had headed there to gather footage for a series of short films on the origins and rise of the Church in the Congo and on the stories of some of those involved in its emergence.


Jeff Bradshaw, by the way, currently serves as a service missionary for the Church History Department. He has been asked to write histories of the temples in Kinshasa, Lubumbashi, and Kananga — the first of which has already been dedicated — and, in line with that assignment, he and the Interpreter Foundation are working with RedBrick Filmworks to document the history of the Church in the DR Congo on film

One wonders why the Church in the Congo (which is by all DCP’s photographic accounts very thriving) needs outside help to tell its own story.

Would the Saints in England not be allowed to tell their own story either? Does the Vatican make trips to America to tell the story of Catholicism’s spread throughout the states?

It seems like the unspoken implication here is that only some white dudes from Utah are capable of getting this very important and not self-serving story out.

I can understand telling the story of the temples being built, as they were commissioned by Utah. But it seems Interpreter has gone whole hog into a completely new story. Even after, as it was reported here, the brethren seemed to have asked that they stop.

[Doctor Scratch]

You forgot to mention that Dr. Peterson included an image in his blog post, with the following caption:

After interviews in Boma, Jeffrey Mark Bradshaw, at the top, poses with missionaries from the Democratic Republic of the Congo Kinshasa Mission (including the mission president and his wife) in front of an ancient baobab tree that is historically associated with the famous European explorer of Africa Sir Henry Morton Stanley (1841-1904), who may or may not actually have spoken the famous line “Dr. Livingstone, I presume?”

The image features Bradshaw posed at the top of a pyramid—he the lone white guy atop a human pyramid of Black folks. DCP seems fixated on the Stanley/Livingston story, and I guess it’s fitting that he would include this image, since Stanley was a principal figure in the colonialist exploitation of the Congo. Either DCP and Bradshaw are completely tone-deaf (more likely), or they think this sort of thing is “funny.”

[drumdude]

Oof.

IMG_3211.jpeg (68.71 KiB) Viewed 536 times

Surely a preview of the hierarchy in Joseph Smith's invented heaven.

[drumdude]

https://notbybreadalonefilm.com/

IS THE CHURCH HISTORY DEPARTMENT INVOLVED?


Yes, we are striving for strict historical accuracy of the events portrayed in the film and simply could not succeed without the cooperation of the Church History department. A signed memo of understanding provides guidance on roles, relationships, and intellectual property issues. Interpreter is recognized by the Church as an “independent advocate” and has previously provided limited financial support for Interpreter’s mission. However, the Church provides no explicit or implied endorsement of Interpreter projects.

[Marcus]

This recent quote from DCP seems to fit here. From an article titled
"Are Latter-day Saint Temples too Lavish?"
By Daniel C. Peterson · August 2, 2023

...An increasing proportion of Latter-day Saints live in what has sometimes been called the “Third World.” For many of them, I expect, the temples of the Church may well be the most beautiful buildings they are ever permitted to enter...As a pampered and privileged resident of perhaps the wealthiest nation in human history, I’m happy if my tithes can help in even a small way to provide that experience for them...
https://latterdaysaintmag.com/are-latte ... oo-lavish/

"Pampered and privileged," no argument there, but "permitted to enter"???????

[malkie]

https://notbybreadalonefilm.com/

IS THE CHURCH HISTORY DEPARTMENT INVOLVED?


Yes, we are striving for strict historical accuracy of the events portrayed in the film and simply could not succeed without the cooperation of the Church History department. A signed memo of understanding provides guidance on roles, relationships, and intellectual property issues. Interpreter is recognized by the Church as an “independent advocate” and has previously provided limited financial support for Interpreter’s mission. However, the Church provides no explicit or implied endorsement of Interpreter projects.

Before Dr Shades jumps in, let me point out that the bolded clause has the previously-mentioned instance of "Interpreter" as its subject. Cutting out the first clause with "Interpreter" as its subject ("is recognized by the Church as an “independent advocate” ") leaves us with:

' Interpreter has previously provided limited financial support for Interpreter’s mission.'

Picky, picky - right?

[drumdude]

https://notbybreadalonefilm.com/

Before Dr Shades jumps in, let me point out that the bolded clause has the previously-mentioned instance of "Interpreter" as its subject. Cutting out the first clause with "Interpreter" as its subject ("is recognized by the Church as an “independent advocate” ") leaves us with:

' Interpreter has previously provided limited financial support for Interpreter’s mission.'

Picky, picky - right?

It’s not well written. But the “however” in the next sentence implies the subject of the previous sentence is the church.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

It looks like the Interpreter Foundation is back at it: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... aints.html



Some interesting Reddit comments about missionary work in the Congo and other parts of Africa.

I can tell you, first-hand, that the missionaries don't even know much about the Church's history, and most wouldn't know a thing about the race ban. This ideal was framed in a nice way ("they are so humble, more Christ-centered, they have such strong simple faith, don't get bogged down in any of the issues"). When I pressed further, I discovered that many of the African-based missionaries couldn't even read well and hadn't read the Book of Mormon. I was told a faith-promoting story of a missionary who didn't have the Book of Mormon in his language but he held the English version in his hands and prayed and felt the Spirit. That was why he was on his mission and that was going to be his primary tactic for others to join.

And no, they do not talk about it in wards or with prospective converts before they decide to get baptized. I asked specifically about that and was told that they just don't see those things as important (not sure how he could know that).

Of all the thousands of people I taught on my mission, I can only remember one that read the Book of Mormon all the way through. I know for sure my native companions hadn't read the book (and even some of my American comps). I really feel like the history and doctrine weren't really highlighted where I taught, rather the church provided a sense of community for disparate souls and gave them activities to look forward to in the week.

I remember my mission president saying something along the lines of “we are lucky/blessed that people don’t have access to the internet so it’s easy to get baptisms” that is NOT a direct quote but was the gist of what he was trying to express.

We were never taught how to address the issue if it ever came up. Likely because instructing the missionaries about the doctrine would expose the doctrine to most African missionaries for the first time so it’s better not to even address the issue.

I personally think this is a super short sited approach that is going to hurt the church in the long run.

It's going gaslighteningly good!

Of course the missionaries never mention there was ever a ban or racist teachings of past prophets.

They're used car salesmen/women trying to sell the equivalent of a lemon car. You don't tell them everything that's wrong with the car. That'd be too honest!