Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Five Solas

Reflecting on the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King – It’s His Day!

Dr. King and his legacy  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Please choose the answer that best fits your position

    • I’m LDS and I think it fitting we celebrate Dr. King and his legacy with a national holiday
      13
    • I’m LDS and I think too much attention is given to Dr. King and his legacy
      2
    • I’m Christian, non-LDS and I think it fitting we celebrate Dr. King and his legacy with a national holiday
      3
    • I’m Christian, non-LDS and I think too much attention is given to Dr. King and his legacy
      0
    • I’m neither Christian nor LDS and I think it fitting we celebrate Dr. King and his legacy with a national holiday
      3
    • I’m neither Christian nor LDS and I think too much attention is given to Dr. King and his legacy
      0


Recommended Posts

[In this new creation all distinctions vanish.] There is no room for and there can be neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, [nor difference between nations whether alien] barbarians or Scythians [who are the most savage of all], nor slave or free man; but Christ is all and in all [everything and everywhere, to all men, without distinction of person].

--Colossians 3:11, Amplified Bible

I read the “Amplified” translation of the New Testament back when I was still LDS.  And the rendering of this passage has long stuck with me.  The words in []’s are the “amplifications” intended for greater context and understanding of the thought being communicated.  And they are sometimes quite beautifully composed, In this new creation all distinctions vanish.  I like to think about that. 

Today is the day we honor Dr. King and his legacy.  It means as a practical matter, I’ll be spending the afternoon riding bikes with my kids, instead of them at school and me at work.  It also means they are sleeping in and I have a few minutes to enter my thoughts into the keyboard (while I fast walk on my treadmill).  But it’s also a moment for reflection.  If I want to see a direct result of King and his legacy, I find it in the attitude of my kids toward various persons of color.  Influenced as they are by so many things that were influenced by him, such as our public schools--and yes, even our churches.  And I will readily admit their attitudes are healthier than mine were at their age.

I’m interested in folks' thoughts on Dr. King and his legacy here.  Once upon a time predominately LDS Utah held out against his holiday, and if memory serves was the very last state in our Union to recognize it.  Would that be a source of pride, embarrassment, or maybe just a shrug and a 'who cares'?  All thoughts welcome.   

--Erik

PS.  If you have Netflix, David Letterman’s recent interview with Barack Obama is well worth an hour (watched it with my wife after the kids were in bed last night).  And very much on the topic. 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand why Utah would be so slow to honor MLK by giving him a day of the week. I read today that we were among the last 5 states to do that.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I have been reading Martin Luther King's autobiography on and off with my two youngest sons (we're not very consistent!).  I am struck with the depth of his commitment and testimony.  He was very clear about his reliance on the gospel of Jesus Christ and the example of Jesus Christ as the way for him and his people to act in a way to change their community (and the world).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

...............................................

I read the “Amplified” translation of the New Testament back when I was still LDS.  And the rendering of this passage has long stuck with me.  The words in []’s are the “amplifications” intended for greater context and understanding of the thought being communicated.  And they are sometimes quite beautifully composed, .........

the Amplified Bible is an interpretation more than a translation.  It may be an improvement on the archaic KJV, but everyone would be much better off reading actual modern translations.  One can go to a commentary for interpretation, and that interpretation will normally reflect the biases of the interpreter, no matter how scholarly.

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Today is the day we honor Dr. King and his legacy.  It means as a practical matter, I’ll be spending the afternoon riding bikes with my kids, instead of them at school and me at work.  It also means they are sleeping in and I have a few minutes to enter my thoughts into the keyboard (while I fast walk on my treadmill).  But it’s also a moment for reflection.  If I want to see a direct result of King and his legacy, I find it in the attitude of my kids toward various persons of color.  Influenced as they are by so many things that were influenced by him, such as our public schools--and yes, even our churches.  And I will readily admit their attitudes are healthier than mine were at their age.

I’m interested in folks' thoughts on Dr. King and his legacy here.  Once upon a time predominately LDS Utah held out against his holiday, and if memory serves was the very last state in our Union to recognize it.  Would that be a source of pride, embarrassment, or maybe just a shrug and a 'who cares'?  All thoughts welcome.   -.........................

I am not a native Utahn, but I find this historical sequence interesting and meaningful:

Quote

President Ronald Reagan signed Martin Luther King Jr. Day into a holiday in 1983.

Utah began to acknowledge Martin Luther King Day with Human Rights Day in 1986.

In 1993, Salt Lake City changed the name of 600 South to Martin Luther King Boulevard. 2-years later the City of Ogden did the same thing, changing the name of 24th street.

......................

In 2000, Utah became the last state to recognize the National holiday known as Martin Luther King Jr. Day by getting rid of Human Rights Day.   http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-utah-state-news-/several-events-planned-for-martin-luther-king-jr-day/206004059 .

 

Share this post


Link to post

Where are the options for thinking we give too little emphasis. Part of me is saying that because I did not get the day off of work. :( 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

[In this new creation all distinctions vanish.] There is no room for and there can be neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, [nor difference between nations whether alien] barbarians or Scythians [who are the most savage of all], nor slave or free man; but Christ is all and in all [everything and everywhere, to all men, without distinction of person].

--Colossians 3:11, Amplified Bible

I read the “Amplified” translation of the New Testament back when I was still LDS.  And the rendering of this passage has long stuck with me.  The words in []’s are the “amplifications” intended for greater context and understanding of the thought being communicated.  And they are sometimes quite beautifully composed, In this new creation all distinctions vanish.  I like to think about that. 

Today is the day we honor Dr. King and his legacy.  It means as a practical matter, I’ll be spending the afternoon riding bikes with my kids, instead of them at school and me at work.  It also means they are sleeping in and I have a few minutes to enter my thoughts into the keyboard (while I fast walk on my treadmill).  But it’s also a moment for reflection.  If I want to see a direct result of King and his legacy, I find it in the attitude of my kids toward various persons of color.  Influenced as they are by so many things that were influenced by him, such as our public schools--and yes, even our churches.  And I will readily admit their attitudes are healthier than mine were at their age.

I’m interested in folks' thoughts on Dr. King and his legacy here.  Once upon a time predominately LDS Utah held out against his holiday, and if memory serves was the very last state in our Union to recognize it.  Would that be a source of pride, embarrassment, or maybe just a shrug and a 'who cares'?  All thoughts welcome.   

--Erik

Growing up tbh, I didn't really get all the hubub about Dr Martin Luther King holiday. The word holiday comes from Holy Day, and now I believe it quite fitting. Dr Martin Luther King was committed to overcoming prejudice and bigotry in the way of Christ, and was a great Christian. He helped bring the country into the final healing stages from the results of the Civil War, and for this we owe him a great debt. He inspired others around the world, such as Nelson Mandela - another leader of great moral character, who helped bring about peaceful change for the better. While others such as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, may try to fill Martin Luther King's shoes of leadership, none have been able to emulate his leadership in the U.S. I think the void in the black citizenship has been felt, and can only imagine what the black community would be like had Martin Luther King survived to lead through his old age. I feel he would have inspired a more Christian lifestyle and spoken up for the family unit which began to suffer badly after his death.

Quote

PS.  If you have Netflix, David Letterman’s recent interview with Barack Obama is well worth an hour (watched it with my wife after the kids were in bed last night).  And very much on the topic. 

In this modern age of divisive politics, I can only say while Barack Obama may speak of unification, he is no Martin Luther King, Jr., and did many things which I believe have caused a renewed rise in racial tensions. Speech and actions have consequences, and Barack Obama spoke in a manner which raised again the spectre of victimhood politics rather than leading people to overcome such things. He caused walls of difference to again rise up, and for people to lob accusations back and forth, which is why I consider him to be a president of divisiveness rather than the great unifier he promised to be. This tends to be what happens when you act like some people are victims - they began to feel like they are being victimized by someone else rather than taking responsibility for their lives. As long as someone is a victim there is a perpetrator or wrongdoer, and a reason for the politics to continue. I am certainly not saying Donald Trump is any better, but Hillary Clinton certainly would not have been. So I honor Dr. Martin Luther King, while I lament that Barack Obama was not a man more like him to be the first black president of the United States.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't understand why Utah would be so slow to honor MLK by giving him a day of the week. I read today that we were among the last 5 states to do that.

 

 

Sometimes change in Utah is a bit like pulling teeth..:P 

Edited by Jeanne
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

............................... can only imagine what the black community would be like had Martin Luther King survived to lead through his old age. I feel he would have inspired a more Christian lifestyle and spoken up for the family unit which began to suffer badly after his death.

That's like wondering what the Mormon community would have been like had Joseph Smith survived.  It would certainly have been different, but I'm not sure what possible trajectory we might have experienced until today.  Would Brother Brigham ever have become Church President?  Which policies and doctrines would have been emphasized or relaxed?  What happens without a martyr?

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

.................................... I am certainly not saying Donald Trump is any better, but Hillary Clinton certainly would not have been. ...................................

Projections based on "what if" seem very odd in the context of religious leaders on the one hand, and political leaders on the other.  There are wholly different standards at play when comparing the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Mohandas Ghandi. or of Archbishop Thomas Becket and Queen Mary Stuart.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Five Solas said:

[In this new creation all distinctions vanish.]

And that explains why you so carefully worded your poll options to distinguish "LDS" and "Christian" as if they were distinct categories - how, exactly?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I’m LDS/Christian and I think it fitting we celebrate Dr. King and his legacy with a national holiday

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Does this topic really fit this board? Seems quite a stretch to me. It 

We've discussed religious leaders and their legacies in the past on the board.  Late last year we had a couple of threads on Martin Luther, recognizing the 500 year anniversary of the Ninety-Five Theses.  A lot of Luther's beliefs/Protestant doctrines make LDS uncomfortable (and I should know, my user name has repeatedly proved to be a lightning rod around here).  But it didn't stop us from having some discussion.  Yet Luther's namesake, a man who drew insight and inspiration from Scripture, the founder and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference--you want him/his legacy to be out-of-bounds? 

Sincere, non-rhetorical question here: On the basis of what, Scott?  (You can answer it too, kiwi--since you gave Scott a 'like' for his curious opinion.)  Confident I'm not the only reader wondering. 

--Erik

__________________________

Southern man
better keep your head
Don't forget
what your good book said

--Neil Young, 1970

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Growing up tbh, I didn't really get all the hubub about Dr Martin Luther King holiday. The word holiday comes from Holy Day, and now I believe it quite fitting. Dr Martin Luther King was committed to overcoming prejudice and bigotry in the way of Christ, and was a great Christian. He helped bring the country into the final healing stages from the results of the Civil War, and for this we owe him a great debt. He inspired others around the world, such as Nelson Mandela - another leader of great moral character, who helped bring about peaceful change for the better. While others such as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, may try to fill Martin Luther King's shoes of leadership, none have been able to emulate his leadership in the U.S. I think the void in the black citizenship has been felt, and can only imagine what the black community would be like had Martin Luther King survived to lead through his old age. I feel he would have inspired a more Christian lifestyle and spoken up for the family unit which began to suffer badly after his death.

In this modern age of divisive politics, I can only say while Barack Obama may speak of unification, he is no Martin Luther King, Jr., and did many things which I believe have caused a renewed rise in racial tensions. Speech and actions have consequences, and Barack Obama spoke in a manner which raised again the spectre of victimhood politics rather than leading people to overcome such things. He caused walls of difference to again rise up, and for people to lob accusations back and forth, which is why I consider him to be a president of divisiveness rather than the great unifier he promised to be. This tends to be what happens when you act like some people are victims - they began to feel like they are being victimized by someone else rather than taking responsibility for their lives. As long as someone is a victim there is a perpetrator or wrongdoer, and a reason for the politics to continue. I am certainly not saying Donald Trump is any better, but Hillary Clinton certainly would not have been. So I honor Dr. Martin Luther King, while I lament that Barack Obama was not a man more like him to be the first black president of the United States.

Well, that was a weird post. You honor the holiday with a political attack ad against a former president?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

We've discussed religious leaders and their legacies in the past on the board.  Late last year we had a couple of threads on Martin Luther, recognizing the 500 year anniversary of the Ninety-Five Theses.  A lot of Luther's beliefs/Protestant doctrines make LDS uncomfortable (and I should know, my user name has repeatedly proved to be a lightning rod around here).  But it didn't stop us from having some discussion.  Yet Luther's namesake, a man who drew insight and inspiration from Scripture, the founder and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference--you want him/his legacy to be out-of-bounds? 

Sincere, non-rhetorical question here: On the basis of what, Scott?  (You can answer it too, kiwi--since you gave Scott a 'like' for his curious opinion.)  Confident I'm not the only reader wondering. 

--Erik

__________________________

Southern man
better keep your head
Don't forget
what your good book said

--Neil Young, 1970

On the basis of relevance — or lack thereof. I thought this was a board for discussion of Mormonism and subjects related thereto. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On the basis of relevance — or lack thereof. I thought this was a board for discussion of Mormonism and subjects related thereto. 

To be sure it is that, Scott. 

But the LDS Church doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Please correct me if I'm wrong (and kindly furnish a corrective link or two if I am)--but I don't recall you've ever once objected to a thread about another religious leader/legacy "on the basis of relevance."  Your words here may cause the board's readers to think there is something particularly irrelevant about Dr. King in the context of Mormonism. 

Is this really your point of view?  Do you think the work & legacy of Dr. King has had zero effect on the LDS Church, its leaders, its membership, its teachings? 

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

To be sure it is that, Scott. 

But the LDS Church doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Please correct me if I'm wrong (and kindly furnish a corrective link or two if I am)--but I don't recall you've ever once objected to a thread about another religious leader/legacy "on the basis of relevance."  Your words here may cause the board's readers to think there is something particularly irrelevant about Dr. King in the context of Mormonism. 

Is this really your point of view?  Do you think the work & legacy of Dr. King has had zero effect on the LDS Church, its leaders, its membership, its teachings? 

--Erik

I don’t recall encountering a thread as lacking in relevance to the designated purpose of the board as this one. My sole intent in entering the thread was to question that relevance. Since you seem unable or unwilling to persuasively explain the relevance, I have no further interest in the thread and do not intend to read or post in it going forward. 

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a great quote by MLK:

 “Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.”

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think the MLK's greatest message of the value of each human life and the need for members of society to primarily look upon one another by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin has become a bedrock principle of our nation. Without him we would be less than we are today.  

His private life more often than not goes unreviewed by society - or at least forgotten. In this time of irreligious sexual puritanism I wonder if MLK can continue to teach us that the humanity of a man should never negate the value of the individual.  That we must look at the entire human being rather than use subjective tests to determine if a man can be respected or valued for their life's contributions.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I think the MLK's greatest message of the value of each human life and the need for members of society to primarily look upon one another by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin has become a bedrock principle of our nation. Without him we would be less than we are today.  

His private life more often than not goes unreviewed by society - or at least forgotten. In this time of irreligious sexual puritanism I wonder if MLK can continue to teach us that the humanity of a man should never negate the value of the individual.  That we must look at the entire human being rather than use subjective tests to determine if a man can be respected or valued for their life's contributions.  

But if I cannot judge everyone else to be worthless because of their obvious imperfections how do you suggest that I convince myself that I am better than everyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

But if I cannot judge everyone else to be worthless because of their obvious imperfections how do you suggest that I convince myself that I am better than everyone else?

Alas, Nehor, these kinds of conversations take place in the privacy of one's own mind and never shared.  Then we can look with bemused enlightenment at the frailties of others as we privately step on them to ever higher realms of perfection. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/15/2018 at 4:13 PM, kiwi57 said:

And that explains why you so carefully worded your poll options to distinguish "LDS" and "Christian" as if they were distinct categories - how, exactly?

I like to refer to myself as LDS Christian to non-members, but on the board I will often just say LDS. Rarely do I refer to myself as Mormon. I think I can recall a grand total of about one non-member who adopted LDS Christian in his visit, but that is why I do it. Because, I want to emphasize that I think of myself as Christian. Calling myself Mormon plays into their mental separation of myself as being outside of their "Christian" box. If the whole Church referred to ourselves as LDS Christian, I think we could change that, but if we keep referring to ourselves as Mormons, I think we lose clout to complain about it. Inevitably, we also get called "the Mormon Church" - a Church named after a man, which we should discourage. 3 Nephi 27:7-9 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Bill "Papa" Lee
      I grew up hearing the beautiful song, "Amazing Grace", almost every Sunday. It would some times be interchanged with the song, "Just As I Am". Both songs we songs of pleading in an attempt pull at the heart strings of all in attendance and entice members, or visitors to answer the "Altar Call", which was done every Sunday, or for others to "recommit" again to Jesus Christ. It was, while I was growing up, and one room Church. In the early days, no indoor plumbing, only "out houses", and no A/C . It was also a segregated Church, Black people were not allowed to attend. The few times, where a Black man or woman, being new to the area would wonder in, two Deacons, would calmly go back to where they sitting, and politely give then the name of nearby Black congregations, always with a handshake calling them, "Brother and Sister". But such activities would anger my Mother (God bless her soul). She was angry that our Church would do this, and insisted we leave. Knowing my Mother as I do, it was all she could do than to go outside in the hopes of finding them to apologize. 
      Between the year my Father died, and when my Mother passed away, this tiny Church (after 125+), became two rooms. At the insistence of my Mother, I spoke at my Father's funeral. So when she passed away, she had already told me (the youngest of four children) to speak when she passed away. It was a very difficult burying my last parent. So, I went about praying and reading, and searching for inspiration. I arrived at Church very early, and noticed they had an indoor font for Baptism, (in this large new room) etched in store were the words of "Amazing Grave", written by John Norton, and knowing the story of how it came to be. At that moment I received the inspiration I was seeking.   
      So so after a few pleasant remarks, I told the Church that everywhere I go, these people and memories I take with me, my experiences and memories of them with me. I turned to the hymnal, find the song and read parts of the song. I then pointed out that John Norton, used to be a "slave trader". I also (since my Mother loves the song and story) spoke of it, and then spoke of his conversion. John Norton, found himself so weighted down with his horrible sins, that he had place else to look, so he "looked up". At look up he did, and received salvation, and that the weight that was crushing him, was being lifted away. I recently found a story about it, and shared (a video) it with every friend and family on FACEBOOK. I received no amens, no replays, not even a rebuke. Usually when I share "Christ like stories", I get many, many, many, Amen's or thank you's. 
      I am posting this here, because many years ago, while teaching Gospel Doctrine, the next week's lesson addressed the the 2nd Offical Declaration. So I asked two different members who lived in Utah, when the "Priesthood Ban" was lifted, so I wanted their imput. This was two guys who never miss Church, but both did no show. So, I asked and older Sister, what did she think? Her opening comments worried me, but thankfully she brought it home. Be it the song, "Amazing Grace", where so many in Church (as I still teach), often try to over explain what "salvation by Grace" means, out of fear that others don't understand the topic. As we are all saved by Grace, and were it not for God's Amazing Grace, nothing any of us would matter. We are "saved by Grace", we are rewarded and exalted, buy our deeds bs actions, but only because we have "Grace".
      Also, living here in the great Southeast, it would seem that few want to the source of the song. Also the life of the man, John Newton, who sold all that he had to build a Church, one in which he preached and wrote Amazing Grace, but also cared for the Church himself. He was also instrumental in help to stop the "slave trade", this was also due to the fact that, William Wilberforce, leader of the House of Commons, and his best friend, James Penn, England's Prime Minister. Both of who worship in John Newton's Church. The song itself was a sermon that Norton wrote. 
      Anyway, what will it take for us to be mindful and loving of have a more diverse membership? Also, who here on this board, how did you feel about the day the ban was lifted? If there are any, please share.  
    • By Benjamin Seeker
      I started a thread earlier this year addressing some verses in D&C 86 on Joseph Smith and lineal priesthood. I recently followed up on it and put the puzzle pieces together.
      D&C 86:8-10 appears to state that Joseph Smith had the priesthood through birthright. An early hint of JS' beliefs about his lineage come from 2 Ne 3, which teaches that JS is a descendant of Joseph (11th son of Israel), and though the lineage of Ephraim is one of leadership, it's not apparent that there is a lineal priesthood associated with it like there is for the Levites or the sons of Aaron. However, a Smith family lineal priesthood authority is actually well attested. JS established the position of Patriarch of the church, which originally was something akin to second in command, as a lineal position given to the eldest in a direct line from Joseph Smith Sr. This clear example of a lineal priesthood eventually disappeared when the position of church Patriarch was done away with due to conflict between the church Patriarch and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (EDIT: Robert points out later in this thread that the absence of the Church Patriarch can be seen as a result of the homosexual status of the second to last patriarch, and that the position may still be filled at a future point. Radio Free Mormon, and others I'm sure, have made other arguments, but this point is pretty peripheral to the discussion).

      The position of Patriarch to the church is only half of the story. D&C 113 states, "What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse? Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power." It is common in Mormon thought to believe these verses apply to Joseph Smith, and that seems to be a correct assumption. The line of Jesse refers to the kingly line of David, and significantly, JS prophesied "the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage," which apparently referred to one of JS' offspring. He made this clear when he prophesied that his unborn son, David, would be a "church president and king over Israel."

      In Mormon theology, a King in the kingdom of Israel is a priesthood position. Notably, JS himself was ordained as a King in this sense in the Council of Fifty, also known in revelation as the "The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and Power thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ." According to Nauvoo theology the priesthood role of King was the ultimate leader of the Church, and according to contemporary accounts, Hyrum Smith was to fill JS' shoes should he die. All of this together gives a pretty clear answer to the lineal priesthood mentioned in D&C 86. The Smith family was a royal family in Israel destined to lead the restoration.
    • By Five Solas
      The LDS Church has made some strong statements against racism generally--but here are a few things that might still be leaving folks with a reasonable doubt.  In no particular order--
      1. Insisting that God “established” the U.S. Constitution (complete with its Three Fifths Clause pertaining to African Americans).  https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688778/Protection-of-God-given-moral-agency.html
      2. Refusing to condemn the Alt-Right movement, as the Southern Baptist Convention has done (in unflinching, unequivocal terms).  See discussion here. 
      3. Its foremost apologist defending Confederate General Robert E. Lee and pretending the American Civil War was about states rights instead of slavery.  (Perhaps we could all chip in & buy Dr. Peterson a ticket to visit the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture—which I’d highly recommend to anyone in or visiting the D.C. area.) 
      4. And on our own board (and seemingly inspired by President Trump’s deplorable remarks alleging moral equivalency at Charlottesville between avowed Nazis/white supremacists and those who protested them)—we have a writer for the Church-owned Deseret News wringing his hands over the tactics of Antifa, as though that were the real problem.
      On that last topic of moral equivalency—it’s interesting to recall the LDS Church’s position during the Second World War, when all of Europe (save Britain) was overrun by the Fascist governments of Germany & Italy and Hitler’s genocidal ambitions were no longer a secret.  Five months after Pear Harbor—we get this remarkable statement of position.  Against Communism!  And against the war generally—but nonetheless arguing citizens must do their duty to their government (and no exception here for the German ones, they have a duty to serve the Fascist regime).  
      5. One last thought on the topic.  I spent 5 years in Glenwood Utah, graduating from Richfield Junior High, class of 1984.  (Thereafter my parents moved us to unincorporated Salt Lake County.)  Richfield Junior High was the home of the Roadrunners! 
      But the school hadn’t always been Roadrunners.  Consistent with Southern Utah “Dixie” themes—originally it was home of the Rebels.  You want to know why they changed it in the 1970s?  Do you think it's because they didn’t want to be associated with traitors who fought to persist the institution of slavery?  Well, silly you if you thought that!  They changed it because they felt the term “rebel” had an association with 1960s counter-culture.  I’m not making this up.  Hippies are the real problem!
      As they might say, "Far out, man."
      ;0)
      --Erik
      No politics. No Nazis. No attacks on other posters. 
    • By Darren10
      I found this via Daniel Peterson's facebook post which links to his Patheos website. From Slate:
       It could not have happened to a nicer person. 
      Slate article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/08/18/the_mormon_church_condemned_white_supremacists_and_this_mormon_white_supremacist.html
      Dan's Patheos weblink: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/08/mormon-church-condemned-white-supremacists-mormon-white-supremacist-mom-mad.html#uLGjjRFZHyVOdhYB.01
    • By Pahoran
      Gina Colvin, Ph.D. (in journalism, that is) has a blog on Patheos. She styles her blog "Kiwimormon," as if her views were typical of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand.

      I've tried to point out to her that they are not. However, like most (heh heh) "liberals," her tolerance for dissent is far less than what she demands of the Church.

      Therefore, given that I am no longer able to post comments on her blog, I will comment here.

      Please refer to this article: Kiwimormon

      Dr Colvin seems to think that Mr Angilau was shot for no other reason than being brown in charge of a pen. I have a number of questions about that; perhaps Dr Colvin might know the answers.
      Was Mr Angilau the only "Brown Brother" in the courtroom on that day, or were there others? If there were others, is it possible that some of them might likewise have had pens? If they did, is there any distinguising factor between Mr Angilau and the other brown (and white) pen-holders in the courtroom who were not shot? Is it within the realms of possiblity that Mr Angilau was shot, not for his skin colour and/or his possession of a pen, but the fact that he was trying to attack a witness in a courtroom? Some readers may be puzzled by the way Dr Colvin and her quoted source use the word "injustice." As a New Zealander, I believe I can explain it.

      When a certain group of people are entitled! to preferential treatment, it is unjust to expect them to submit to the rule of law, as long as those laws apply equally to everyone.

      Only laws that recognise -- and privilege -- their uniquely entitled! status are or could possibly be just.

      See how that works?

      Make no mistake: this event was a tragedy. I am not ridiculing Mr Angilau or his family; I am ridiculing the slipshod thinkers and polemical opportunists who are trying to make this into a racist shooting.

      What a pity the shooter was a US marshal! If only he'd been a Utah police officer, Dr Colvin would have had an opportunity to make it even more about Utah (and thus, get that much closer to her real target, the Church of Jesus Christ.)

      But we wonder: what if the marshal had failed to act to stop the attack? What if Mr Angilau, a large, strong man with a history of violence, had managed to seriously injure Mr Vaiola Tenifa, the man he was trying to attack, while the marshals dithered about how to restrain him? Wouldn't that, in Dr Colvin's book, simply have made Mr Tenifa the victim of white racism? Wouldn't it prove that they didn't care enough about a "Brown Brother" to do anything decisive to protect him?
       
      Given the circumstances, is there anything the marshals could have done that Dr Colvin would not have interpreted through her Brown Supremacist lens?

      The fact Dr Colvin cannot see is that Mr Angilau was not shot for being an innocent brown guy who just happened to pick up a pen. He was shot because he was a gang member trying to intimidate a witness in a criminal trial.

      Regards,
      Pahoran
       
      This isn't related to religion.
×
×
  • Create New...