Does racism equal hate?

[Mark Beesley]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is gentile a race?  I guess I had never thought of it like that before.

But even if we take this story to mean that Jesus was o.k. with racism under certain circumstances, it wouldn't be true anymore since Peter was told it was time to preach the gospel to all.

No, Gentile is not a race. Thee Savior was not racist. The Savior’s mortal commission was to the House of Israel, a nation, not a race. Anytime anyone wants to justify their racist attitudes because of our Lords actions, ask them when was the last time they took up on themselves the sins of every person on earth irrespective of race.

 The suggestion that the Savior was a racist is stupid and offensive.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Because Peter would have seen Jesus making these sarcastic comments and surely picked up on generalized egalitarianism. Jesus did not do this. To the woman at the well he stated that salvation came through the Jews.

You're all caught up on the details again, as if writings from centuries ago should be followed to the "T" perfectly describing events as if God is directing you.  I dont' know what Peter would have picked up on, nor what Jesus did or did not do.  We have some ideas and perhaps some semblance, but it seems silly to treat this all so literally and absolutely.  

The woman at the well story is carries symbolism rather than literalism.  Salvation it seems to me only comes through the jews because the jews carry what we call the gospel today.  But it's not as if we only get saved by being jewish.  I mean it's all just cute religious talk anyway.  It's probably better to read the scriptures and be like, "Ahh...that's a nice idea.  I like to be good to people, let me try more of that." Rather than, "what does this little detail about this story mean...does it mean I should be racist or that some people are actually preferred by God over other people by virtue of where they were born or what color they are?"  

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I am curious why you chose President McKay for this. By most accounts he wanted to end the ban. 

He should have then.  But as it were, as the essay about the topic fromt he Church says, the leaders simply thought they needed some revelation on the matter.  It's far more likely god was like, "My goodness Mckay, stop being a fool.  You know this is a stupid question, just end the ban."  But it's likely McKay himself was too heavily influenced by the world he grew up in and couldn't see it.  Not until another decade and a half did "the world's" influence benefit the Church on this matter.  "oh yeah...of course all of us feel good about ending the ban now.  We basically have to else we'll likely die as a church if we continue this silliness....that feels just right to me.  Must be the spirit."  
"Me too"

"me three"

"great...It's unanimous...what a revelation!" 

meanwhile the culture in which the Church resides and is most influenced by already was wondering why the church was so far behind.  

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You're all caught up on the details again, as if writings from centuries ago should be followed to the "T" perfectly describing events as if God is directing you.  I dont' know what Peter would have picked up on, nor what Jesus did or did not do.  We have some ideas and perhaps some semblance, but it seems silly to treat this all so literally and absolutely.  

The woman at the well story is carries symbolism rather than literalism.  Salvation it seems to me only comes through the jews because the jews carry what we call the gospel today.  But it's not as if we only get saved by being jewish.  I mean it's all just cute religious talk anyway.  It's probably better to read the scriptures and be like, "Ahh...that's a nice idea.  I like to be good to people, let me try more of that." Rather than, "what does this little detail about this story mean...does it mean I should be racist or that some people are actually preferred by God over other people by virtue of where they were born or what color they are?"  

He should have then.  But as it were, as the essay about the topic fromt he Church says, the leaders simply thought they needed some revelation on the matter.  It's far more likely god was like, "My goodness Mckay, stop being a fool.  You know this is a stupid question, just end the ban."  But it's likely McKay himself was too heavily influenced by the world he grew up in and couldn't see it.  Not until another decade and a half did "the world's" influence benefit the Church on this matter.  "oh yeah...of course all of us feel good about ending the ban now.  We basically have to else we'll likely die as a church if we continue this silliness....that feels just right to me.  Must be the spirit."  
"Me too"

"me three"

"great...It's unanimous...what a revelation!" 

meanwhile the culture in which the Church resides and is most influenced by already was wondering why the church was so far behind.  

If it is all symbolic and not literal then there is nothing to discuss. I find your argument mired in contradictions. You seem to think you know Jesus enough to know what he meant by what he said without actually believing any of the account itself? That is like claiming the Illiad is all myth but you are sure you know what Achilles meant for realsies in one scene. If all you really think of religion is that it teaches that we should be nice you don’t need religion for that and quite frankly you don’t know enough about religion to comment on Holy texts at all.

Your caricature of Presidents McKay and Kimball is offensive and ignorant and says more about you then them.

 

[USU78]

Calling what is colloquially referred to as "racism" hate, since necessarily that reference is a value judgment, requiring an assessment of another person's internal life, is a logically flawed proposition.

It's also judging another, which none of us is particularly qualified to do with any degree of accuracy.  We've, moreover, been discouraged from doing such things by somebody most of us accept as the final arbiter on such matters.

 

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Calling what is colloquially referred to as "racism" hate, since necessarily that reference is a value judgment, requiring an assessment of another person's internal life, is a logically flawed proposition.

It's also judging another, which none of us is particularly qualified to do with any degree of accuracy.  We've, moreover, been discouraged from doing such things by somebody most of us accept as the final arbiter on such matters.

 

The Savior’s call not to judge has more to do with judging someone’s eternal destiny. I am comfortable saying many racists are driven by hatred.

[blarsen]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I do not think that works. Jesus would not say He was sent only to the House of Israel just to be ironic and provoke the exchange. There is something to this whole House of Israel thing I do not yet understand.

For me, the House of Israel siimply represents God dealing with people who are joined by the thread of faith.  Abraham really picked up this thread and ran with it.  God recognized this and blessed Abraham and his posterity for it.  In my view, the deepest faith is generated on an individual basis and is transmitted best through family associations or other very close and similar associations.  Abraham's family became tribal.  The tribes carried the torch of faith and the belief, custom and action designed to keep this faith alive.  The fact that God said the entire human population would be blessed by his posterity, is an indication of the eventual universality God intended for this faith in Him and his Son.  God used the seed of the Abrahamic tribes to re-introduce this spiritual reality and its attendant faith into the world.  You have to ask yourself, what better way was there to do this in that day?

It is interesting to me that Herodotus mentions nary a word about the Israelites/Jews (unless obliquely), yet he mentions probably every other strange ethnicity he was aware of on all sides of the Lands of Canaan/Israel.  They were like a sleeper cell, or a hidden foundation after Arthur C. Clark's Foundation trilogy.

The Greeks themselves, seem to have been the seed ground for objective rationality, and were even aware of this, along with an awareness of having a relatively hightened sense of right and wrong.

Edited July 23, 2019 by blarsen

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, blarsen said:

For me, the House of Israel siimply represents God dealing with people who are joined by the thread of faith.  Abraham really picked up this thread and ran with it.  God recognized this and blessed Abraham and his posterity.  In my view, the deepest faith is generated on an individual basis and is transmitted best through family associations or other very close and similar associations.  Abraham's family became tribal.  The tribes carried the torch of faith and the belief, custom and action designed to keep this faith alive.  The fact that God said the entire human population would be blessed by his posterity, is an indication of the eventual universality God intended for this faith in Him and his Son.  God used the seed of the Abrahamic tribes to re-introduce this spiritual reality and its attendant faith into the world.  You have to ask yourself, what better way was there to do this in that day?

It is interesting to me that Herodotus mentions nary a word about the Israelites/Jews (unless obliquely), yet he mentions probably every other strange ethnicity he was aware of on all sides of the Lands of Canaan/Israel.  They were like a sleeper cell, or a hidden foundation after Arthur C. Clark's Foundation trilogy.

The Greeks themselves, seem to have been the seed ground for objective rationality, and were even aware of this, along with an awareness of having a relatively hightened sense of right and wrong.

I still do not buy it. Faith is often kindled and rekindled down family lines but why would that make promises to the Lamanites or to the scattered tribes important? There is no legacy of faith. It is just distant DNA contributions from ancestors whose names you do not even know. I am of Ephraim. I have no idea how. Why is that important? No, there has to be more.

[mfbukowski]

Heck no there are tons of other reasons to hate people besides their race.

I mean they might actually adhere to the correspondence theory of truth or something like that!

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by mfbukowski

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

I think the obvious answer to this question would be,  Yes.  However, although Jesus taught we should love our neighbor, there is this one interesting event that seems to teach that racism is acceptable to Him under certain circumstances:

Matthew 15
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

It seems he called a Canaanite woman a dog and at first refused to help her because of her nationality, because she was not a Jew. That actually sounds pretty racist to me, although He did still show love for this person and ended up healing the woman's daughter because of her faith.
According to President Joseph Fielding Smith:
"The reason our Savior did not carry his message to other peoples than the Jews is due to the fact that the times of the Gentiles had not arrived in which they were to participate in the gospel."
So are there times when racism is appropriate or is what Jesus did not considered racism and if not what is it? Can racism exist without hate?

Racism can definitely exist without hate...though it can increase the likelihood that one will vilify the “other.” I’ve seen people show racist or ethnocentric beliefs and perspectives but they may not hold outward anger towards said groups of people. In fact i would say most of the racism i’ve felt hasn’t been with a form of malice behinde it

I don’t think there is ever a time when true racism is appropriate.

i don’t think this story represents actual racism by Jesus. I’ve often thought of this story and the contrast it has from that of the centurion and the parable of the good samaritan. Both would have been considered outsiders to the jewish community. Yet with the centurion he immediately said he’d go to his house and heal his servant. When the centurion insists he just heal from afar, Jesus says:

“10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”  

In short he knew that the earthly separations of people on earth had no real baring or place in the kingdom of god. The good samaritan also points to a different way of looking at people beyond earth-bound labels of who to associate with And he knew this before calling this canaanite a dog. 

I think this was more preparatory learning for the disciples...and abrahamic test of the woman. The disciples would late be called to teach people that they wanted tk see go away from them without healing. I think he was mimicking the attitudes of the time to teach them how poor a judge assumptions based on ethnicity were in determining the faith and worth of a soul. It was also a test to her own degree of faith. Would she still see out Jesus even when she felt unwanted by the jews. 

(Excuse likely grammar errors...on cellphone) 

With luv 

BD 

 

[blarsen]

Accusations of racism and hate have gotten waaaay out of hand, and the definitions of these terms have become exceedingly distorted .  When you start accusing people of being racist and full of hate because they like to eat and maybe grow cauliflower, something is seriously out of wack.

[The Nehor]

Just now, blarsen said:

Accusations of racism and hate have gotten waaaay out of hand, and the definitions of these terms have become exceedingly distorted .  When you start accusing people of being racist and full of hate because they like to eat and maybe grow cauliflower, something is seriously out of wack.

It is easy to point out stupid cases of excess but the abuse of a principle does not invalidate it generally.

[blarsen]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I still do not buy it. Faith is often kindled and rekindled down family lines but why would that make promises to the Lamanites or to the scattered tribes important? There is no legacy of faith. It is just distant DNA contributions from ancestors whose names you do not even know. I am of Ephraim. I have no idea how. Why is that important? No, there has to be more.

You've simply been given the opportunity to plug into the better part of the Israelite faith tradition, to identify with it and benefit from the association and what it brings with it.  Its a body of work; a faith/covenant tradition.  For me, it doesn't need to be anymore complicated than that.  And lines of priesthood authority are part of this association and tradition.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, blarsen said:

You've simply been given the opportunity to plug into the better part of the Israelite faith tradition, to identify with it and benefit from the association and what it brings with it.  Its a body of work; a faith/covenant tradition.  For me, it doesn't need to be anymore complicated than that.  And lines of priesthood authority are part of this association and tradition.

I am not a fan of platitudes like that. Either it means something concrete or it is hype and propaganda designed to make me feel good. While I can appreciate the latter at times I am convinced this is talking about the more concrete stuff.

[USU78]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Savior’s call not to judge has more to do with judging someone’s eternal destiny. I am comfortable saying many racists are driven by hatred.

Well, bless your heart.

[Scott Lloyd]

Racism doesn’t necessarily amount to hatred. 

For example, I don’t believe leftist politicians necessarily hate ethnic minorities. However, they harbor paternalistic attitudes toward them that would keep them dependent upon handouts and social programs instead of guiding them in and fostering among them self-help and self-reliance. 

Candace Owens, a brilliant, young African American activist, is sharply critical of such an approach and characterized it as keeping them on the plantation. 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[blarsen]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The Savior’s call not to judge has more to do with judging someone’s eternal destiny. I am comfortable saying many racists are driven by hatred.

I've always regarded 'hate' as more active than passive.  One "harbors hate".  You have to keep feeding it.   When you hate someone, you normally want to do them harm, to hurt them in some way.  I've always had a weakness for regarding the 'correspondence theory of truth' as one of the pillars of truth, but I doubt mfbukowski would want to harm me for such a belief.

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is easy to point out stupid cases of excess but the abuse of a principle does not invalidate it generally.

It's been a useless descriptor for decades now.  If I evict someone with an Hispanic surname for engaging in law-breaking conduct, the anti-discrimination division in Utah contacts me with accusations of discrimination because  ...  all non-hispanic caucasoids are racist, and running a meth lab in a rental is no reason to evict anybody.

/End Personal Account

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If it is all symbolic and not literal then there is nothing to discuss.

I think I've explained myself.  I'm not saying all is symbolic.  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I find your argument mired in contradictions. You seem to think you know Jesus enough to know what he meant by what he said without actually believing any of the account itself?

What you think I seem to think is not what I think.  I did say a couple times it's best, in my opinion, to read those passages that way because the other way just makes the stories stupid.  But I've also suggested, I don't know what Jesus thought or what he did, nor what his disciples thought or did.  What I am saying in all this is, don't use the scriptures as you do,  Loosen up and take the good and leave the bad.  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is like claiming the Illiad is all myth but you are sure you know what Achilles meant for realsies in one scene.

Nope.  It's like taking a story from a book and getting out of it what you find valuable and leaving the bad.  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If all you really think of religion is that it teaches that we should be nice you don’t need religion for that and quite frankly you don’t know enough about religion to comment on Holy texts at all.

Oh jeez..blustering the Nehor again.  Fine.  I'll do what I think is appropriate, you go ahead and get all stuck up in silliness and then complain about people who don't get so stuck.  Cool.  Do what floats it, i guess.  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Your caricature of Presidents McKay and Kimball is offensive and ignorant and says more about you then them.

 

No need to be offended, even if it appears God gets easily offended.  Are you saying that McKay wasn't influenced by racist teaching and culture, coupled up with the belief that God was directing the church?  and are you saying if the ban was not lifted and it was still in place today the Church would be more than it was in '78 in terms of numbers, influence and all of that?  I'd suggest if the ban was not lifted the Church would be more of a laughing stock perhaps so much so it'd be next to impossible to keep it alive.  

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Oh, please. Prejudice? This is presentism.

how so?  

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Yes, the gospel of Jesus Christ taught us to forgive and to love. He was focused on the root causes of hate - prejudice is just one face of hate. To contextualize his message in terms of prejudice is to limit what he said and taught. Yes, it fits better with today's nauseating message of racism, but it limits the all-encompassing message of Christ. 

So what is the deep meaning to the passage in question then?  I read the little story the way I do because otherwise it just seems rather pointless.  In my mind my reading adds to the story.  I only do it because well, the scriptures aren't really all that divine to me.  So I am curious....what's so great here?  

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not quite how it works. The power imbalance influences how damaging the racism is. For a comparison imagine a German who hates Jews and a Jew who hates Germans. The German throws the Jew into a concentration camp where the Jew is worked to death. Which was more damaging? In a less severe example imagine a black family living in a very racist white community. The parents caution their children to be careful, not to trust those in authority if they are white, etc. Strictly speaking that is racist but I would not judge it as harshly as a white police officer abusing their authority to persecute the family. It also shows that the onus for ending the racism falls more heavily on those in power. If the family teaches their kids to ignore race they are probably putting their children in danger. Those in power can change and stop and then the family could do the same.

But that sort of illustrates the problem. When it's cast in terms of damage I think things get very complicated fast. The analogy frequently made is to people walking on grass. Clearly a few people walking on grass isn't a problem. When a lot of people walk on grass it is. So when you look at one person walking on grass, do you interpret it in terms of the immediate harm they are doing or do you interpret it in terms of what some possible aggregate does. That's not a small point and gets to me at the problem with the way these issues are discussed. They tend to conflate the individual and group as if they are the same or worse neglect the serious power an individual can have over an other regardless of the group power.

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

No, Gentile is not a race. Thee Savior was not racist. The Savior’s mortal commission was to the House of Israel, a nation, not a race. Anytime anyone wants to justify their racist attitudes because of our Lords actions, ask them when was the last time they took up on themselves the sins of every person on earth irrespective of race.

 The suggestion that the Savior was a racist is stupid and offensive.

That seems a difference without a difference. The Jews were very bigoted against Samaritans and typically hated Greeks and Romans. If that's not about race I don't know what else it would be. It's certainly not the racial categories we use today, but that doesn't mean it's not racist. Now in the contemporary conception of race where it's tied to power things get complicated. By that definition the Jews despite being bigoted against gentiles weren't racist simply because they were weak. On the other hand one might say the Samaritans were weaker than the Jews and so that was very much racism. Did Jesus baptize the Samaritans?

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Maidservant]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That explanation would solve a lot of problems but I do not believe it works. Even the Book of Mormon which repeatedly says that Christ will accept all spends a large amount of time talking about Israel and addressing concerns of specific groups within Israel and talking about seed.

Yes, and probably these very same passages are what has yielded my point of view, but I hear you.  Even delving into 1 Nephi recently I was simply brought short by Nephi's insistence of speaking of the Jews--when after all, he himself is not a Jew, if referring to bloodline.  So it causes me to ask, 'what does he mean'?  Because the Book of Mormon has a HUGE House of Israel theme.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have some strange theories as to what the whole Israel thing is about but they seem too ludicrous to be true.

Well, if you are so inclined, you can PM me, I love insights of all kinds, even if I don't settle on them myself, they still might open something up for me. (No worries if not.)  I'm all about ludicrous 🙂.  You could hardly out-ludicrous me, now could you? 😜 Ha ha.

[Maidservant]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 the church was so far behind.  

Was it though?  It was behind Zion, but was it behind American and especially wider church culture?  Real question.  I haven't studied that moment in history myself.  I mean, were black Southern Baptist pastors leading white congregations in the late 70s?  I think the entertainment industry may have been leading the pack regarding inclusion.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

 I am of Ephraim. I have no idea how. Why is that important? No, there has to be more.

Have you had a chance to read and ponder the blessings given to each of the twelve tribes, located somewhere in the OT, not sure where, but likely Genesis?

[stemelbow]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

For example, I don’t believe leftist politicians necessarily hate ethnic minorities. However, they harbor paternalistic attitudes toward them that would keep them dependent upon handouts and social programs instead of guiding them in and fostering among them self-help and self-reliance. 

 

That was an odd little political jab.  How do you know the intentions and attitudes of a whole host of politicians?  Ok...politicians are easy targets sometimes.  It's odd though it's paternalistic for one political side to prefer helping people who are down by trying to give them what they don't have, hoping they grow from there, yet the other side trying to take a paternalistic tough love approach is not mentioned as being paternalistic.  My daddy was more of a try and keep me down in hopes I"d be strong one day approach.  

yeah...I know....didn't work.  

[blarsen]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is easy to point out stupid cases of excess but the abuse of a principle does not invalidate it generally.

Extremes very often illuminate the spectrum of which they are a part.  There are many abuses of the use of the epithets:  'racist or hateful' that aren't as stupid but still widely miss the mark and are even abhorent.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is gentile a race?  I guess I had never thought of it like that before.

But even if we take this story to mean that Jesus was o.k. with racism under certain circumstances, it wouldn't be true anymore since Peter was told it was time to preach the gospel to all.

...and there are at least a couple of instances in Acts where the Spirit forbade Paul to go to a particular location, for reasons not explained.