How Do You Read The Race Statement?

[bluebell]

They have disavowed the Books of Moses and Abraham?

 

They disavowed the racist reasons given for the ban. They have left it up to each of us to interpret what means for certain verses in scripture.

 

 

As you defined it, racism was belief in the inherent inferiority of one or more races. By that definition, the curses outlined in the scriptures are racist.

 

 

First, it's not how I defined racism, it's how a dictionary defined it.  Second, if you want to interpret it that way, go for it.

 

 

[bluebell]

This is also an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

Let's assume for a second that the church is using a commonly understood definition of the word. Does the priesthood ban qualify as racist? I'm hoping for a yes or no answer but feel free to expound beyond that.

 

The definition that i provided is a commonly understood definition of the word.  

 

If someone says 'that guys a racist' the common interpretation is 'that guy thinks he's better than other races,' right?

[bluebell]

You are employing the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

 

I'm employing the 'don't pretend you know something that you don't actually know' argument of thought.  

 

It's crazy, i know.  

[Brian 2.0]

So if the church condemns sexism in all its forms would that disavow the policy of Priesthood restrictions on women?

[Brian 2.0]

If everyone is agreed the ban is racist, as it clearly is, then the message is clear. 

 

it doesn't seem like anyone could possibly, reasonably say the ban was not racist. right? 

 

But as to whether the ban was racist, I don't think there can be much doubt about that.

 

Let's be honest. Only a member would question whether the ban was racist. And that is why I think the church worded the statement the way they did. 

 

JarMan, Stone, Stem...

 

It seems that you think the Priesthood restrictions on blacks were inherently racist.  (which I personally agree with by the way)

 

Please answer this:

 

Do you think the Priesthood restrictions on women are inherently sexist?

 

If your answer is no, I'm curious as to your reasoning because that same reasoning can mostly likely be applied to determining whether the ban was racist.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[JarMan]

So if the church condemns sexism in all its forms would that disavow the policy of Priesthood restrictions on women?

 

Absolutely. The priesthood restriction on women is sexist. Whether it's appropriate or not is a different question. But it is sexist, nonetheless.

[JarMan]

The definition that i provided is a commonly understood definition of the word.  

 

If someone says 'that guys a racist' the common interpretation is 'that guy thinks he's better than other races,' right?

 

So you are admitting that the ban was racist, then. The ban didn't allow blacks to be in church leadership. That put whites in a better position than blacks. It also didn't allow black families to be sealed or enjoy the other blessings of the temple. That also put white people in a better position.

 

I'm employing the 'don't pretend you know something that you don't actually know' argument of thought.  

 

It's crazy, i know.  

 

Did you read the Salt Lake Tribune article I posted earlier? Richard Bushman, who I suspect contributed to the article, reads the statement as saying that the ban did not have divine origins. He also said that accepting that fact "requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking." The church itself is beginning the process of a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking. I think that most members will follow along eventually.

[Brian 2.0]

Absolutely. The priesthood restriction on women is sexist. Whether it's appropriate or not is a different question. But it is sexist, nonetheless.

Gotcha. So do you believe sometimes sexism is appropriate? If so, do you believe sometimes racism is appropriate?

[Calm]

The issue here, bluebell and calmoriah, that I don't think you've come to grips with yet, is that the article issues a very broad condemnation of racism....

 

We don't need to keep defending something that the church is no longer defending. This is no different than justifying the priesthood ban based on the curse of Cain nonsense after the church had disavowed that teaching.

I would disagree. The ban itself has not been disavowed, the nonsense had been.

I have never felt the slightest need to defend the Ban even when it was in existence.

If one doesn't know the source nor the reason for something, one cannot label its motivation. For me, it is that simple. I take the word of the Church leaders to mean what they say and leave it at that.

[Calm]

It's safe to say that "cursed" people are inferior to non-cursed people, so the notion that there was no inherent belief in the superiority of non-black humans is wishful thinking, at best.

Job was cursed in the Bible because he was superior to all others.

I have always personally thought that if God doesn't give people more hardship to endure than they are able, if our weaknesses are given to us to make us strong,etc., that logically itis much more likely that all people born in difficult or tragic circumstances are likely the more spiritually advanced than those born in more comfortable surroundings.

[Glenn101]

I would disagree. The ban itself has not been disavowed, the nonsense had been.

I have never felt the slightest need to defend the Ban even when it was in existence.

If one doesn't know the source nor the reason for something, one cannot label its motivation. For me, it is that simple. I take the word of the Church leaders to mean what they say and leave it at that.

 

 

Those are my sentiments, very succintly and well put.

[Calm]

You are employing the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

I doubt that very much.

This is the fallacy and it does not relate to her reasoning:

"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing")."

Edited December 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

So if the church condemns sexism in all its forms would that disavow the policy of Priesthood restrictions on women?

"In all its forms" is not equivalent to "In all its definitions". Tell me first how sexism is being defined here.

[Calm]

To make it clearer, does this sentence mean the same thing for all definitions of the word:

Every boat should have some form of life preserver on hand for emergencies?

Or...

All forms of tabs should be outlawed in public buildings and spaces?

All forms of trucks need to keep to only permitted roadways?

Does it make the same sense using a British definition as the Amercan one?

Edited December 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

So you are admitting that the ban was racist, then. The ban didn't allow blacks to be in church leadership. That put whites in a better position than blacks. It also didn't allow black families to be sealed or enjoy the other blessings of the temple. That also put white people in a better position.

 

 

Did you read the Salt Lake Tribune article I posted earlier? Richard Bushman, who I suspect contributed to the article, reads the statement as saying that the ban did not have divine origins. He also said that accepting that fact "requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking." The church itself is beginning the process of a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking. I think that most members will follow along eventually.

It is easy enough to prove your argument when you start from the position it is. "given".

[JarMan]

Gotcha. So do you believe sometimes sexism is appropriate? If so, do you believe sometimes racism is appropriate?

 

Sometimes sexism is appropriate. I can't think of a time when racism is appropriate? Can you?

[Calm]

Is the firstborn son inherently better in the scriptures because he inherits a double portion where his brothers ans sisters do not? Or is it the individual that needs to be judged?

LDS doctrine states that no one will be punished for someone else's sins, yet we see the evidence around us everyday where children are marred by the abuse of their parents, unable to live functional lives and then having dysfunctional families themselves...passing on the curse through no real fault of their own but simply because they had no other option. The scripture tells of this type of upbringing leading to the great flood once all those who could progress had done so and been translated. The scriptures also show that God did not hold such an upbringing against them as he went or arranged for them to be taught the gospel once they were in a place where it would actually mean something.

Nowhere in the scriptures is there a teaching that those born in such situations deserve their deprivations. The Church has disavowed such reasonings. Thus the presence of a curse on a people because of an ancestor's act...whatever that curse is, cannot be interpreted as implying those descendants merited the curse by their own actions. They may have, they may not have.

Combine that with Job and other teachings that hardships fall on the good as well as the bad, I don't believe one can scriptually prove an inherited curse implies an inherent inferiority.

Ruth was a member of a cursed lineage and yet she is not presented in any way as inferior to the Israelites around her.

Edited December 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Sometimes sexism is appropriate. I can't think of a time when racism is appropriate? Can you?

When disease and disorders are more common or known primarilly in one race than another, it is a wise action to racially screen individuals for testing.

It makes sense to ask the race of someone on a medical form. It does not make sense to ask the race of someone on a job application.

[JarMan]

I doubt that very much.

This is the fallacy and it does not relate to her reasoning:

"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing")."

 

You're not understanding the fallacy correctly. Essentially, the No True Scotsman fallacy is to assert something, but then carve out a special exception to the assertion so that it can still be valid. The assertion was essentially that racism means a belief of superiority over another race. The exception carved out to exclude the priesthood ban was, unless God commands it.

 

It is easy enough to prove your argument when you start from the position it is. "given".

 

I'm starting my argument from the common understanding of what racism is. Where are you starting your argument from?

[JarMan]

When disease and disorders are more common or known primarilly in one race than another, it is a wise action to racially screen individuals for testing.

 

I wouldn't consider this to be racism. Nor do I think this is what the church had in mind in their statement.

 

Why won't you just let go of the church's past racism and move forward instead of trying to justify it. The church is no longer trying to justify it. Why should you?

[Stone holm]

Is the firstborn son inherently better in the scriptures because he inherits a double portion where his brothers ans sisters do not? Or is it the individual that needs to be judged?

LDS doctrine states that no one will be punished for someone else's sins, yet we see the evidence around us everyday where children are marred by the abuse of their parents, unable to live functional lives and then having dysfunctional families themselves...passing on the curse through no real fault of their own but simply because they had no other option. The scripture tells of this type of upbringing leading to the great flood once all those who could progress had done so and been translated. The scriptures also show that God did not hold such an upbringing against them as he went or arranged for them to be taught the gospel once they were in a place where it would actually mean something.

Nowhere in the scriptures is there a teaching that those born in such situations deserve their deprivations. The Church has disavowed such reasonings. Thus the presence of a curse on a people because of an ancestor's act...whatever that curse is, cannot be interpreted as implying those descendants merited the curse by their own actions. They may have, they may not have.

Combine that with Job and other teachings that hardships fall on the good as well as the bad, I don't believe one can scriptually prove an inherited curse implies an inherent inferiority.

Ruth was a member of a cursed lineage and yet she is not presented in any way as inferior to the Israelites around her.

 

I always understood the first born son thing as being coupled with the obligations to provide for the surviving widow and possibly some security for the younger siblings who since they received a single portion were not similarly obligated, but I could be wrong in that regard. 

[Calm]

I wouldn't consider this to be racism. Nor do I think this is what the church had in mind in their statement.

Why won't you just let go of the church's past racism and move forward instead of trying to justify it. The church is no longer trying to justify it. Why should you?

Please, I have never attempted to justify racism or the Ban. I think it highly unlikely that God told anyone to deprive blacks of the Priesthood. I view the Ban as a huge tragedy, I don't see Abraham as justifying the Ban as we removed the requirement to inherit the Priesthood from one's father.

You are mind reading me and failing dramatically at it, why should I trust that your mind reading attempts of past and present leaders is any more accurate.

Edited December 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

"I wouldn't consider this to be racism"

And thus the problem with your whole argument...you are insisting on applying what you consider as the same as what everyone else considers.

Not everyone defines words in the same way. Identifying what definition is being used is essential in drawing conclusions and implications. Unfortunately sometimes it is not always made clear by the author nor can one parse it for certain from context. To insist that one can requires mind reading, a skill never scientifically demonstrated to exist yet, so I hope you'll excuse me in my assumption that you have not been given that particular gift.

PS: please don't anyone assume I am supplying any definition for the Church on how they are using "racism". That is up to them.

Edited December 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I always understood the first born son thing as being coupled with the obligations to provide for the surviving widow and possibly some security for the younger siblings who since they received a single portion were not similarly obligated, but I could be wrong in that regard.

True, but having obligations is also no indication on any inherent superiority just because someone was born first, correct?

[JarMan]

Please, I have never attempted to justify racism or the Ban. I think it highly unlikely that God told anyone to deprive blacks of the Priesthood. I view the Ban as a huge tragedy, I don't see Abraham as justifying the Ban as we removed the requirement to inherit the Priesthood from one's father.

You are mind reading me and failing dramatically at it, why should I trust that your mind reading attempts of past and present leaders is any more accurate.

 

So that I don't have to continue to read your mind, tell me, do you think the priesthood ban was racist or not?