Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

JarMan

Members
  • Posts

    1,425
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JarMan

  1. It's unfortunate that some evangelicals use this topic to drive a wedge between them and other Christians. To me it seems like we are much closer on this issue than some people would like to think. One thought that has helped me understand this issue a little better is the idea that our good works should not be performed with the expectation of some sort of reward. If we think we are getting "credit" for doing good I suggest we need to change our thinking. Let's do good for its own sake. 

  2. 5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

    We already tried that under Jim Crow. It didn't work out well.

    No we didn't. Jim Crow laws required business owners to discriminate. Anti-discrimination laws are just the other side of the same rotten coin because they similarly dictate who private citizens must conduct business with. I propose we leave government out of the decision of who must conduct business with whom. 

  3. The problem with framing the issue as religious freedom vs anti-discrimination laws is the presumption that anti-discrimination laws are as valuable as religious freedom. As one poster has already pointed out, the constitution allows for discrimination. Isn't freedom of association also the freedom not to associate with some? And where does the constitution give government authority to force one person to do a business transaction with another? My solution is to do away with anti-discrimination laws, in general, and let businesses succeed or fail based on their own merits. 

    In my view, the so-called Utah Compromise was a lose-lose because it took freedoms from both private businesses and religious people. That's not the kind of compromise we should be proud of. 

  4. 21 minutes ago, canard78 said:

    Haha... Unintentional but I like it.

    Seriously though, how does this constitute evidence for the Book of Mormon?

    I haven't claimed that it's evidence for anything.

    I do, however, think it's interesting that an approximately half-size bronze bow was found on the Arabian Peninsula dating to 900 BC - 600 BC.

    I'm half expecting somebody to say that the text doesn't require that the bow was used to shoot beasts, only to hunt them. Maybe Nephi got ahold of one of these miniature bronze bows and used it to club rabbits and that's how he broke it. No wonder his brothers were mad at him.

  5.  

    That's a fascinating theory.  I wonder what the logistics would be for a "local flood" in the Caspian Sea area, and to what degree it could be tested from the existing geologic evidence.  I wonder how the process of building an ark (would it have been built in the sea itself?),  gathering animals (which animals from the basin would need to be preserved), and then having all the people living in the basin drown from a flood incident (without them retreating to higher ground in the surrounding hills).  And then for the water to rise high enough that the ark would settle "in the mountains".  It's an interesting idea and something to think about.

     

    Also, other than the local flood theory, can anyone cite an example of God caring about regional biodiversity and extinction events?  It seems odd to theorize God planning a flood to wipe out the wicked humans who live in a specific valley, but then asking Noah to prepare an ark so the local dung-beetle won't get wiped out. After all, Noah didn't have to save all the animals, so God was okay with 99.9999% of the populations getting exterminated.  It wasn't matter of compassion.  It was like there were these isolated species in this one spot and God really didn't want to have to re-evolve them again, or have a few breeding pairs migrate to the next valley over the course of the hundreds of years Noah was building the ark.

     

    There is no end to the oddness of the local flood theories.

     

    In the interest of full disclosure, I now consider the flood story to be metaphorical, although I used to be in the local flood camp. I changed my mind because the local flood just doesn't make sense, as you have pointed out. In my view, though, the global flood theory has many more problems than a local flood.

  6. In the ongoing discussion of Widstoe's theory regarding the scope of Noah's Flood (he believed it was global), the comment was made that a belief in a global flood requires some sort of "mental gymnastics".  This implies that some degree of illogical or excessively creative thinking is required to maintain a belief in a global flood. 

     

    The implication was that a belief in a local flood (i.e. Noah's flood being limited to a specific region of the planet, and not covering the whole globe) does not require "mental gymnastics".  I'm not so sure.

     

    So this thread is devoted solely and specifically to those who believe that Noah's flood as recorded in the Bible was a real, historical event, but that it only covered a specific region of the planet.

     

    If you believe the flood was "global", please stay out of this thread (sorry, but that means you Rob Osborn).  If you believe the story is purely allegorical, please enjoy the discussion as a spectator.

     

    But if you believe the flood as recorded in Genesis 6-8 was accurately reported but local in scope, please explain your answers to the two following questions:

     

    In Genesis chapter 6, we read the following about Noah and the animals:

     

     

     

     

    Then in chapter 7:

     

     

     

     

    Question 1: If the flood were "local" or regional, why did Noah need to bring non-food animals into the ark?

     

    Later, at the end of the story, we learn the following in Genesis 8:

     

     

     

     

    Also, keep in mind that depending on the exact measure of a "cubit", the dimensions in Genesis 6:15 give an ark that is 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.

     

    Question 2: If the flood were "local" or regional, where did the ark end up after the flood, and how did it get there?  Please explain the hydrologic actions needed in a local flood to float such a vessel, presumably, "upwards" into the mountains, instead of downwards towards a valley or the ocean.

     

    Looking forward to some mental-gymnastics free answers!

     

    Answer 1: The non-food animals were needed to repopulate the area that was locally flooded.

     

    Answer 2: The Caspian Sea is located in a closed hydrologic basin, meaning that there is no outlet to the ocean. Mt. Ararat is located within this basin. So all that is needed is enough water to make the Caspian Sea large enough that it reaches Mt. Ararat. This would take a lot of water, of course, but if the Don River and Amu River were temporarily re-routed (as has happened in geologic times) then these rivers could provide an extra source of water to make the flood large enough.

  7. One of my favorite examples of politics not being mixed with religion was Alma, who was the chief judge AND the high priest over the church. When he saw how wicked the people were he didn't use his secular power to try to bring them in line. Instead, he resigned his chief judge-ship and concentrated on his role as high priest. This tells me that if we want to heal what's wrong with our community/country/world, the ultimate answer is to minister to others and try to change peoples' hearts.

  8. I do think there is a 3rd option that's a little more respectable in my opinion...

     

    God never wanted the ban.  Brigham Young instituted it and God didn't like it.  God always wanted it gone because it was racist and un-christlike.  But try as God might to get the message through, the prophets of the day just couldn't really shake their racist upbringing and listen to what God really wanted on that matter.  And it wasn't until 1978 that the message finally got through.

     

     

    I think you've nailed it.

     

    This has its own problems, or rather brings up interesting questions regarding prophethood, but at least it doesn't make God complicit in any way to a racist and unjust policy.

     

    You've nailed it again, here. It DOES bring up interesting questions regarding prophethood. But these questions are healthy for Mormons to address.

  9. I guess I don't see how those things are connected.

     

    The reality of if the ban actually was from God or not doesn't affect what the church's stance is.   Even if the ban was not from God in reality, the church could still believe it was, and not condemn it... they'd just simply be wrong on the point when all is revealed later.

     

    I'm trying to get at how you interpret the article, particularly the sentence, "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." I played along and tried to answer all of your questions without dodging. So play along, won't you? If you find that you need to modify or qualify your answer later, no problem. I'm not trying to spring a gotcha or anything. Just trying to narrow the focus of the discussion, if possible. Here's the question again: Let's pretend for a minute that the ban did NOT originate from God. In that case, can you see any way for the 2013 statement to not be condemning the ban itself?

  10. Cool.  

     

    I think a lot of the thread (before our recent trip back to 2012) went down a road where we were essential arguing the Assumption 2.

     

     

    This is almost an unanswerable question, but when do you think the church classified the ban as racist?  Was it with this recent statement?  Do you feel the church previously at some point didn't consider the ban to be racist?  

     

    Because my take is that previously the chruch did NOT consider the ban racist, and that this recent statement clearly labels the theories and explanations as racist, but not necessarily the ban itself.  And if the church STILL doesn't consider the ban racist, then ARGUMENT B can't be valid.

     

    Brian, I think you have made a good faith effort to discuss this with me rationally and civilly and I appreciate that.

     

    In the past I don't think the church considered the ban to be racist. I think the argument went something like this: 1) God instituted the ban. 2) We don't know why God instituted it. 3) Past church leaders have used certain racial ideas to explain the reason for the ban. 4) We condemn those explanations as being racist and non-doctrinal. 5) The ban itself was implemented by God, and therefore, cannot be racist.

     

    Somewhere along the line 1 was changed to 1) We're not sure why the ban was instituted. Numbers 2, 3, and 4 have remained the same. And 5 was dropped altogether. And you can see why 5 had to be dropped since it was dependent on (the original) 1 being true. But in many members' minds (including mine, until recently) 5 was valid even after 1 was changed and 5 was dropped. It is a tough pill to swallow, after all.

     

    When we get to 2012 we see the argument that I outlined above with the modified 1 and the absent 5. And the church words the statements in such a way that they condemn the historically stated reasons for the ban but not the ban itself. I believe that some of the brethren had come to grips with the ban as being racist and some had not. So that issue just wasn't addressed at that time. (This is pure speculation on my part, of course.) I imagine that in 2012 some of the brethren were hoping that evidence could be uncovered to explain a divine origin for the ban. I have no doubt that church historians did a lot of research into this in the intervening couple of years at the behest of the brethren. I know they had been working on that for several years even before 2012, as well.

     

    Now we come to the end of 2013 and historians weren't able to find anything that pointed towards a divine origin for the ban. At that point I think all the brethren had to swallow that tough pill. And I admire them for doing that. (I imagine that many, if not all, prayed about the issue for inspiration, as well so I don't think we can just pin this on the historians.) At any rate, the church decided to release its new essay on race and the priesthood which sings a different tune. . . And the world took notice. But we members are struggling to accept the change because of what it may force us to admit about the church.

  11. I am not trying to be disengenious, but I was trying to understand your position becuase it didn't seem logically consistent.  So I was granting you the argument that since the ban was racist, and the church agreed it was racist, the chruch's disavowal of racism was, in effect, a disavowal of the ban... and then applying that same logic onto the 2012 statement.

     

    I think I understand your postion on this particular point now (even though I don't agree with it).  

     

    Is this where your are coming from:

     

    Assumption 1:  The ban is racist (institutionally)

    Assumption 2:  The chruch agrees the ban is racist (institutionally)

     

    Argument A:  In 2012, the church condemned individual racism, but NOT instututional racism, therefore it did not condemn the ban itself.

    Argument B:  In 2013, the chruch condemned all racism, which includes institutional and individual racism, thereby condeming the ban. 

     

    I know some don't like people having there arguments restated, but is this about right?

     

    This is a pretty fair summary of my position.

  12. Edit to add:

    If someone said, "I'm against racism." Would anyone ever ask, "Well which racism are you against? individual, institutional, or both?"

     

     A major discussion point in this thread has been how the church is defining racism when they are condemning it. You can define racism in a way that excludes the priesthood ban (see definition 1, above). But when you condemn ALL racism in ANY FORM you are condemning every definition.

  13. I think we're at an impasse here.

     

    I think it's adding something that's not there to say that the 2012 statement is excluding the 2nd half of the definition of racism.  

     

    I'd be with you if the statements was:

    "We unequivocally condemn the racism of individuals both inside and outside the church."

     

    That statement carves out the exclusion.  That statement specifies that it's only referring to definition 1.  

     

     But the statement isn't that.  It's...

    "We unequivocally condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church."

     

    Highlighting individual racism here isn't a qualifier on what definition of racism is being used, or not used.  That's not what "including" means.  If they replaced "including" with "meaning" then you'd have an argument.

     

    You are trying to parse individual words without considering the greater context. Remember that the 2012 statements came about because a Mormon expressed the long disavowed notions regarding the reason for the priesthood ban, which got published in a major newspaper. The church was responding to that. As such, they were condemning the racism of individuals who had used similar reasons to defend to the ban. But they were not condemning the ban itself. And nobody read it that way. Otherwise the recent press stories we have seen would have occurred two years ago. And this discussion on this board would have occurred two years ago. And you really don't believe that that is what the 2012 statements were saying, anyway, so I find it disingenuous for you to insist on a meaning that even you reject.

     

    What you really need to show is that the 2012 statements are equivalent to the 2013 statement because that is the way to discredit my assertion that they are different. But all you have really demonstrated is that if you ignore the context, the statements could be equivalent. 

  14. I just can't see it.  I can't see a reading of the 2012 statement that doesn't have the church condeming all racism.  The addition of the phrase "in any form" in 2013 didn't broaden anything, it's just a different way to say what it's already said.

     

    One last time.  Here's the 2012 statement:

    Here's the 2013 statement:

     

    You can't carve out an exception unless you carve out an exception, which 2012 didn't.

     

    Take this example and tell me if I'm broadening the scope between these two statements.

     

    - I enequivocally hate red sweaters, including ugly Christmas sweaters.

    - I unequivocally hate ALL red sweaters, it doesn't matter what shade of red it is, short or long sleves, I hate all red sweaters IN ANY FORM.  Period.

     

    I may be saying things more forcefully in the second one, but my point hasn't changed.  I may be clarifying my point so people really get it, but In no way have I broadened the range of what red sweaters I hate.  Nowhere in my first statement have I made room to NOT hate red turtleneck sweaters.

     

    Do you think I've broadened my range of red sweaters I hate between these two statements?

     

    I think what you're missing here is that racism has more than one meaning. Here are the first two definitions from Dictionary.com.

     

    1) a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

     

    2) a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

     

    The first definition is talking about racism from individuals. This is the definition that was being used in 2012. We know that because of the context ("including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church").

     

    The second definition is talking about institutional racism.

     

    The 2013 article clearly condemns both 1 and 2.

  15. So you're saying that in 2012 when the church said:

     

     

    It was NOT condemning racism from institutions?  But only individuals?  That they were carving out only certain forms of racism they were condemning?

     

    I don't see how you could read it that way.  It says, "we condemn racism" the "including..." after the comma is simply specifying certain things within that label of racism, not excluding things outside those specifics they chose to highlight.

     

    The statement doesn't say "we condemn the racism of past individuals inside and outside the church."  If it did, I could see how you could read it that way.

     

    If I said, "I unequivocally condemn the eating of cheeseburgers, including those tasty ones from In-N-Out."  Am I ONLY condemning the eating of In-N-Out cheeseburgers and I'm NOT condemning the eating of a McDonald's cheeseburger or a homemade cheeseburger?

     

    In your own words from Post #63

     

    The 2012 statements do not say "we condemn ALL racism . . ." The "all" comes later and is describing racism from individuals. The 2013 statement does say we "condemn ALL racism. . ."

     

    So in 2012, the church was carving out an exception so that they could conveniently stash the priesthood ban there. In the 2013 statement there is no longer any room for the priesthood ban to hide.

  16. I agree that they don't have evidence of revelatory origin, which is why the church has been in a "we don't know" stance for so long.

     

    Except that they don't appear to be in a "we don't know" stance any longer. The 2013 article could have said something along those lines, but it conspicuously didn't. Why do you think that is?

     

    I disagree that they can't prove this negative, because  they surely could prove the ban did not come from revelation... simply by receiving a revelation from God that the ban didn't come form Him.  No?

     

    What I'm talking about is the church's current position.

     

    I don't think the church is gonna be quick to publicly say the media outlets favorable press is actually inaccurate.  Besides, we shouldn't look at outside media outlets interpretations on what the church is saying as proof of what the church is saying, should we?  

     

    It will be future statements or interviews of a members of the 12 or FP that will be the most telling (whenever they will happen).  Question: "so you've disavowed the Preisthood ban on blacks as being racist and not from God, but Brigham Young?"  Answer: "Yes."    That would be great, and bound to happen at some point, but maybe not for a while.

     

    I wouldn't call the media coverage favorable. The HuffPo's spin on it was essentially that it was too little too late. And the church has been very quick lately to jump on things in the press to issue corrections on their positions. You brought up an example in another thread about the Word of Wisdom and caffeine. Don't you think the priesthood ban is a more important issue than the supposed caffeine ban? I just can't imagine that the church would sit idly by and let the press report that they had condemned the priesthood ban if that were not the case.

     

    I'll tell you what... Don't go on mormon.org and Ask a Missionary!  Obviously not the best source in the world, but hey why not see if they are aware of this.   I simply asked what the church's stance was on if the priesthood ban was inspired of God or not.  I was told pretty strongly that the ban was revealed from God to his prophet BY and stopped by another revelation to SWK.  I pointed them to the "race and the priesthood" statement and they said they have read it multiple times (which i don't know if that's true).  I was basically run out of town on the chat for even insinuating that it was a mistake and a racist policy implemented by Brigham Young who was simply the product of his times. 

     

    This goes to show that the general membership of the church has a little ways to go in understanding a few things.

  17. So have you backed away from your argument that the ban was disavowed because the recent statement condemed racism?  That has been a key point for some time in this thread.

     

    This from Post #113

    This from post #120

     

    You seem to be saying the ban is racist, by definition, and since the church condemned racism in this recent statement they have also condemned the ban.  This point launched us into pages and pages of dealing with the definition of racism and how one could interpret the ban to NOT be racist.  You seemed to be square on the side that no matter how you slice it, the ban was racist.

     

    The 2012 statement clearly condemned racism also, so by your own arguments regarding the new statement, how do you believe the that the church wasn't condeming the ban in 2012?

     

    This is why I believe that BOTH statements aren't "condeming the ban, per se."  

     

    What makes you think I've backed away from my position that that ban was disavowed?

     

    The 2012 response to the Washington Post article says, "We do not tolerate racism in any form." This is different than the 2013 article which says that church leaders "condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." We've gone from not tolerating the ban (since it is no longer in place) to condemning it. This is a major shift.

     

    The other 2012 article, in my opinion, talks about the racism of individuals, not the priesthood ban, itself. It says, "The church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church." This statement condemns Brigham Young's racial views, for instance. But the condemnation is aimed at individuals, not institutions. The 2013 article says that we now "condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." The addition of the phrase "in any form" broadens the condemnation from individuals to institutions. This is also a major shift.

     

    When you add the fact that the 2013 article leaves out the "we don't know why the ban was implemented" and instead explains it as emanating from Brigham Young, it's pretty clear that the church's position has changed.

  18. 1) What is its purpose? In other words, why is it so essential for us to have moral agency?

     

    Mormons are the worst at agency. They want everyone to be able to choose, but when they choose differently than they are suppose to they throw a fit and try what ever they can to get them to change their mind. I do not believe agency is the key but knowledge. It is not so important what we do in this life but what we learn not to do. Agency or free will are concepts created to explain tragedy in the world. They may exist but are not as integral to Gods plan as we would like to think.  

     

    I agree that knowledge is the ultimate goal. But the conclusion I'm reaching is that gaining that knowledge isn't possible without agency. Otherwise, wouldn't God just sit us down and teach us everything we need to know, all the while avoiding all of the tragedy and pain?

     

    2) Where does God draw the line between inspiring us and compelling us? Another form of this question is, How closely does God direct the church? Is he a micro-manager or does he take more of a laissez-faire approach?

     

    It is rather obvious God is not a Micro Manager of his children or the church if you want to say that. He is so hands of as to be almost completely absent.

     

    He often seems pretty absent to me, too. I used to think I wasn't looking hard enough. But now I think he's simply respecting my agency.

×
×
  • Create New...