Jump to content

SeekingUnderstanding

Members
  • Posts

    2,987
  • Joined

Posts posted by SeekingUnderstanding

  1. 23 minutes ago, webbles said:

    So you are saying that the members didn't know about the last part in President Young's statement because it was selectively edited out?  That's what I think as well.  That's why members could dismiss that part of the statement since they didn't know about as it was selectively edited out.

    Yes. I’m saying that once internal (via church members questions, questions about ordinations in Brazil and other areas where mixed races were common) and external pressure started to mount, church leaders began to seriously look at this issue. They used this quote out of context to push a narrative that the priesthood ban was temporary, and would end in the Lords time as foretold by Brigham Young. They left off (very intentionally in my opinion) the part where Brigham Young said exactly when the ban was foretold to end. 

  2. 12 hours ago, smac97 said:

    Yes, I think it is true.

    12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

    Brigham Young claimed revelatory provenance for the ban.

    CFR, please.

    ““The Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth,” Young intoned to the legislators. “If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of old Cain. ...Were the children of God to mingle their seed with the seed of Cain, it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the priesthood upon themselves but entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it.”

    Here Brigham Young declares the revealed doctrine invoking his prophetic mantle. 
     

    As for the rest of your post, I find it most unconvincing. Find me something written in the 1950’s stating  that the priesthood ban had no revelatory backing or scriptural provenance. You won’t find anything. I have no doubt that if the church makes a change here that the apologists in decades to come will have no problem showing that the church’s discrimination against LGBTQ members had no scriptural or revelatory provenance. There are liberal members in the church today making these very arguments. 

  3. 22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

    The priesthood ban lacked scriptural/revelatory provenance.

    This is not true. Brigham Young claimed revelatory provenance for the ban. And there are way more scriptures justifying the ban than there are justifying discrimination against LGBTQ people. The Book of Mormon establishes that God uses skin color as a mark of a curse. The iBook of Abraham establishes the doctrine that certain lineages are banned from the priesthood. The Book of Moses establishes that the descendants of Cain were cursed with a black skin and that Adam’s other descendants did not intermarry with them. The intermarriage theme is further supported by the Book of Mormon narrative where Lamanites skin color s was designed to not be enticing for the Nephites. 
     

    Further there is statement after statement in talk after talk by general authorities expounding on this doctrine. The idea that the ban lacked a scriptural basis is revisionist history at its finest. 

  4. 2 hours ago, Fether said:

    The topic we are discussing is the statement made by Teancum

    I’m not saying there are not major issues within the church concerning shame. What I am saying is that the church does not propagate this, but rather the members.

    And where do the members learn from? Why hasn’t the book miracle of forgiveness been officially disavowed? I used to work for a major corporation and participated in accident investigations. A couple of decades before I came into my role, industry figured out that blaming individuals, the low man on the totem pole was pointless. It didn’t reduce anything. What led to huge reductions in incidents and injuries was addressing system wide problems that led to individuals failings. 
     

    The church (which teaches leader fallibility) has such a toxic relationship with actually admitting fallibility (“we don’t apoligize”) that it allows things like the miracle of forgiveness to fester instead of admitting that the teachings of a prophet were really flawed (we all make mistakes). 
     

    As another example consider racism in the church. Because the church never disavowed the racist doctrine of past leaders as late as the 2000’s professor Bott was still teaching it at BYU, and Mormon Doctrine was still being sold at deseret book. If the church had just disavowed it all in 1978 (like they finally did in the essay) how much pain could have been saved. 
     

    Unless church leaders take active visible steps to change things they own what members do in their name. 

  5. 2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

    SU, could you clarify why this example is an issue? I think I'm missing something. Why wouldn't they be dealt with if they had gone against the rules by letting the opposite sex into their dorm rooms?

    Letting someone into your room is not inviting sexual assault (which is what my niece seemed to be implying). Addressing your question, when BYU investigates it’s rape victims (which gladly they discontinued after the practice came to light a couple years ago) and then punishes them with suspension or kicking them out, do you think that encourages them to report and get help or not? The article I linked to (and many more like it) show that men at BYU actively threaten their victims with reporting to the honor code office if they are reported. This system of perverse incentives that enables rapists and disempowers victims was awful and with enough media scrutiny, BYU came to the same conclusion. 

  6. 8 hours ago, Fether said:

    Thanks!
     

    My next question is this. Am I to accept that this statement made In the 80s is the whole of systemic shame culture on the church?

    Just because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t mean it’s not endemic. Are you familiar with the BYU honor code changes recently? The ones that basically until recently punished rape victims if they came forward for honor code violations? The way the BYU PD was basically integrated with the honor code office?

    Have you read articles like this:

    https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/07/27/how-outdated-mormon-teachings-may-be-aiding-and-abetting-rape-culture/
     

    Just one story:

    Quote

    In 2009, when a BYU student sought help from her ecclesiastical leader after a male friend threw her down on his bed, groping and assaulting her, the bishop responded in much the same way as the man in New York had.

    The victim, Britt, who did not want her last name used, says she was told she no longer could participate in many church activities.

    “The bishop had a whole entire drawer full of ‘The Miracle of Forgiveness,’ ” she says. “He took one out and handed it to me.”

    How about Tad Callister’s recent address where called women walking pornography, and stated that in the end women get the kind of man they dress for?

    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng

    There are a million modesty threads on this board where the faithful women talk about how damaging the churches approach to modesty is. 

     

    Go read this:

    https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/04/28/rape-and-the-miracle-of-forgiveness/amp/
     

    Go Google Elizabeth Smart and chewed gum. 
     

    My niece is at BYU and was hanging out with my sons recently (who are both exMormons). They were shocked when she explained that if something happened to some of the rule breaking girls (who allowed boys into their dorm room) of course it would be their fault. My sons were outraged. Where’d she get that idea?

    This is pervasive in the church today. 

  7. 15 hours ago, webbles said:

    You might want to quote the sentence before it as well:

    So, you don't have to actually struggle to be without condemnation.  Saying "no" or just freezing up are non voluntary participation so the victim would have no condemnation.

    I’m pretty sure the second sentence sets the terms whereby we can interpret “voluntary”. If we don’t “struggle” then it would have been better to die. I have no idea why you are even trying to defend this horrendous statement. Since we are providing context don’t forget this sentence just above: “Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained.”

    That anyone can still try and defend this trash makes me want to throw up. 

  8. 55 minutes ago, pogi said:

    If morality is determined by humanistic rationality, what determines if humanistic rationality is good or evil, or even reliable? 

     

    I think an equally important question is how do Christians determine morality. Certainly not scripture since that justifies things that we find abhorrent today. Latter-day Saints can point at modern prophets, but they are forced to disavow the abhorrent things said and done by past prophets (raising the question what will be disavowed today). It seems to me that modern Christian ethics (the ones where heretics are no longer burned at the stake) were shaped and formed by humanistic ideas as much as the other way around. 

  9. 1 hour ago, pogi said:

    Can you share specific morals in humanism that do not exist in Christianity?

    Slavery is bad? Paul says stuff like “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”

    Homosexuals can form romantic relationships just like straight people? 
     

    Killing heretics is bad? (“If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods'... do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him... You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death... Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.”)
     

     

  10. 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

    There was tolerance

    Once you launch a huge ad campaign using the phrase “I’m a Mormon” and launch a movie called “Meet the Mormons” you’ve moved beyond tolerance to embracing. Your other point though is well taken. There has never been acceptance of the phrase “Mormon Church”

  11. 4 hours ago, california boy said:

    I like knowing when any poster is leaving.  It gives me a chance to say goodbye and not just wonder what every happened to them.  You know you don't have to read his thread.  It was pretty clear what the thread was about.

    Exactly. Anyone remember ErayR? He just vanished. :( https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/12644-erayr/content/?type=forums_topic_post&change_section=1

     

    Making a public post also can help make the break official for those that feel like they are spending too much time here...

  12. 7 minutes ago, Calm said:

    I say discrimination against or dislike of gay people. 
     

    While I prefer short labels, if it is confusing I prefer to write it out. 
     

    In my youth in a suburb of San Francisco, homophobia was used for actual fear and anxiety, the kind that would lead one to spit on and even beat up men for holding hands if they could get away with it or believe weird things like homosexuality was contagious, etc. I can’t remember how long it was before I started encountering it as a dislike or prejudice, but for most of my vocabulary, how I first understand a word stays with me as my gut reaction to it and so it just sounds off to use it for the nondisorder version. 

    I think that is fair and I certainly think that’s how the word was originally coined. Language continually evolves though and people will naturally take shortcuts. It’s why people still use “Mormon” as a shortcut for Latter-day Saint. I still have not found a replacement for “Mormonism” and notice that around here the word “anti-Mormon” is still used even by those that object to the use of the word “Mormon”. 

  13. 1 minute ago, Calm said:

    Is phobia often used as dislike or prejudice though?

    If it is the only case where phobia means dislike or prejudice instead of anxiety disorder, etc., can you see why its use may be confusing and come across as an overstatement?

    Is under often used to convey among? Is standing among ever used to convey understanding? I don’t think that society at large has a problem understanding the word homophobia and homophobic. It’s analogous to racism and racist. And to be honest the only people that seem to be confused by it seem to be the ones that say things like “struggle with same sex attraction” instead of words like gay. So I’m not sure it’s the etymology of the word that’s the problem. Do you have a different word that you use to describe discrimination / dislike against gay people?
     

    I myself mostly avoid using both words (racist and homophobic) as they add very little to any conversation (and I have not personally been impacted directly by either). Though if asked, yes, the church’s stance on gays is textbook homophobia just like the priesthood ban was textbook racism. 
     

  14. 8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

    understand (v.)

    Old English understandan "to comprehend, grasp the idea of, receive from a word or words or from a sign the idea it is intended to convey; to view in a certain way," probably literally "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand (v.)).

     

    If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from Old English under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (source also of Sanskrit antar "among, between," Latin inter "between, among," Greek entera "intestines;" see inter-). Related: Understood; understanding.

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/understand

    So under doesn’t mean under, but among. And that’s okay. Homo as a stand in for gay and lesbian. That’s okay. But phobic as a stand in for dislike or prejudice, that’s where the line must be drawn. Okay. 
     

    https://youtu.be/Jln3mi0vfJU

  15. 36 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

    That's an interesting way to use phobia.  I dislike beets, but I wouldn't say it was a phobia. 

    phobia
    noun
    a type of anxiety disorder (= a mental illness that makes someone very worried and affects their life) that involves an extreme fear of something:
     an extreme fear or dislike of a particular thing or situation, especially one that is not reasonable:
     
     
    I guess the meaning of phobia been changed.

    I understand. Language is complicated. Interesting that you didn’t object to the use of homo (which means man as in homo sapiens). What about the compound word understand? What am i standing under? I guess under and stand have changed meanings too?

  16. 11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

    Homophobia and transphobia are among the most overused and misplaced words I know.  A phobia is an irrational fear of something.  Simply not liking or agreeing with something does not constitute a phobia. 

    Might want to consult a dictionary:

    ho·mo·pho·bi·a
    /ˌhōməˈfōbēə/
    noun
     
    1. dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
  17. 1 hour ago, CV75 said:

    Things can escalate very quickly these days.

     

    1 hour ago, rongo said:

    They certainly are escalating very quickly with some people. Head-spinningly. 

    Quicker than the timeline missionaries push for during the conversation process? 

  18. 22 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

    It wasn't until the early 20th century that the Supreme Court first interpreted the 14th amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states.  In other words, prior to that, the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights only applied to actions taken by the Federal Government.  It's why Joseph Smith was told, "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you."  It's why the Nauvoo City Council was able to legally vote on a measure that shut down a printing press that had been critical of the prophet. 

    I said nothing about destroying the print or shutting down the press. I'm talking about the destruction of the printing press itself. 

  19. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

    Hugh Nibley argued that it set up perfect conditions for the martyrdom of the prophet and his brother. They broke no law but were still killed. Would be hard to find a European nation where that would have been as clear-cut.

    It was my understanding that the destruction of private property was illegal. No? (Not saying it was a capital offense regardless)

  20. 18 minutes ago, Esrom said:

    lumping all LGBT together as a monochrome category?

     

    18 minutes ago, Esrom said:

    assume that all LGBT think alike.

     

    “Most gay members realize the church has nothing for them and leave.”

    Most does not equal all. And I will note that in a recent podcast (shared by Robert on another thread), Tom Christofferson said Elder Holland’s talk left him feeling like his legs were swept out from under him. He described how offensive he finds the idea that he will be straight in the eternities (comparing it to the doctrine that everyone will be white in heaven). 

×
×
  • Create New...