Mark E Petersen On Race

[HappyJackWagon]

So a satirical response is somehow an offensive response to a satirical comment?

Nice try- "Incorrigible idiot" hardly seems like a satirical response to a satirical comment.

 

On the other hand, if you had offered a definition it might have had an ounce of humor.

[The Nehor]

Nice try- "Incorrigible idiot" hardly seems like a satirical response to a satirical comment.

 

On the other hand, if you had offered a definition it might have had an ounce of humor.

Humorless Curmudgeon - Writer of above post

[BlueDreams]

Nice try- "Incorrigible idiot" hardly seems like a satirical response to a satirical comment.

 

On the other hand, if you had offered a definition it might have had an ounce of humor.

 

I thought "anyone who believes the above" was the definition.....

 

Just sayin...

 

EDIT: to be open, I didn't find either post (yours or Nehors) all that funny.

Edited August 28, 2015 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

I thought "anyone who believes the above" was the definition.....

Just sayin...

EDIT: to be open, I didn't find either post (yours or Nehors) all that funny.

Mine was crafted to be funniest when read aloud translated into Norwegian while in the lotus position riding a paddleboard through a category 5 hurricane. Try that and see if it works for you. Edited August 28, 2015 by The Nehor

[BlueDreams]

Mine was crafted to be funniest when read aloud translated into Norwegian while in the lotus position riding a paddleboard through a category 5 hurricane. Try that and see if it works for you.

I was completely on board until you mentioned a paddleboard....so much work, I'm too lazy for that. 

Edited August 28, 2015 by BlueDreams

[ERayR]

Thanks for adding to the conversation with name calling. I'm interested in a thoughtful rebuttal to my satirical post if you have one.

Or lighten up and laugh a little.

 

It was concise, to the point and accurate.

[rockpond]

Here are a couple of new Mormon definitions to add to your Mormon Dictionary alongside "translate", "Nearly 15" and "carefully worded denials"...

 

Prophet/seer/revelator- God's mouthpiece on earth except when he says something that is embarrassing or verifiably false.

 

Prophetic- The ability to apply 20/20 vision to past statements and determine which were not prophetic. Wait...I'm confused.

 

Racism- Deplorable beliefs the church currently disavows and pretends was taught a "theory" instead of "doctrine"

 

Theory- Official church teachings that fall out of favor. See Adam/God, Blood Atonement, and Fencesitters

 

Doctrine- The official teaching of the church until it is demoted to theory

 

This post seems to have ignited a little firestorm.

 

As with any good satire, what you have written is also true.

[TheSkepticChristian]

.

Edited August 28, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Thinking]

You're right. I do know the difference.

It is a specific doctrinal teaching, not a bumper-sticker cliche to be bandied about by someone who puts all his "thinking" into his posting handle to save him the trouble of actually doing any.

John 15:

18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

It does not say that we will be impervious to cultural influences; being "not of the world" means being in a covenant relationship with Christ.

So you can stop using it as a bludgeon with which to beat the Lord's servants for not being up with fashionable cultural currents. It doesn't work.

Sorry.

 

Thank you for correcting me.  I figured that doctrine, teachings, and practices of the true church would also be included in "not of this world."  Now I know that only covenants belong in that category. It's OK to teach for doctrine the commandments of men. It's OK if the world influences what the church believes and teaches, especially if it was 60 years ago. Thank you.

[stemelbow]

Which, to thoughtful people, in turn raises further questions, such as: If inspired Church leaders can be wrong on matters of doctrine, why should uninspired MINO's assume that they are right about everything? What makes them any less fallible?

I'm pretty open in suggesting I'm most likely wrong about most things. I take comfort that church leaders are most likely correct more often than myself, at least.

[The Nehor]

This post seems to have ignited a little firestorm.

 

As with any good satire, what you have written is also true.

And when someone suggests the holocaust is a fiction invented by the International Jewish conspiracy and everyone lights a firestorm about it that is also proof that the comment is true.

[The Nehor]

Thank you for correcting me. I figured that doctrine, teachings, and practices of the true church would also be included in "not of this world." Now I know that only covenants belong in that category. It's OK to teach for doctrine the commandments of men. It's OK if the world influences what the church believes and teaches, especially if it was 60 years ago. Thank you.

So are you pretending to be stupid enough to misunderstand to this degree to make a point or are you confused and are acting stupid to distract from that or are you just genuinely stupid?

Edited August 28, 2015 by The Nehor

[Thinking]

So are you pretending to be stupid enough to misunderstand to this degree to make a point or are you confused and are acting stupid to distract from that or are you just genuinely stupid?

 

If it sounds stupid, take it up with RCM. He's the one who stated

It does not say that we will be impervious to cultural influences; being "not of the world" means being in a covenant relationship with Christ.

 

I'm confident that you know that I am making a point, but I think you might have enjoyed being able to call me stupid three times in the same post.

[busybee]

lol I know a lot of intelligent LDS that disagree with that. Brant Gardner says the mark was not black skin. 

 

I don't want to debate about what the Book of Mormon says.  I am simply saying that many LDS still believe that 

 

1. The lamanite curse is dark skin

2. The mark of Cain is black skin

3. The original humans had to be white. 

 

Again, am not talking about what the scriptures say (or don't say), I am talking about what a significant number of LDS believe. 

 

When will the church clarify in General Coference that the lamanite curse is not dark skin, and that the mark of Cain is not black skin? 

Again with the 'many LDS' and 'a significant number of LDS'. What constitutes many or a significant number?? 

[The Nehor]

If it sounds stupid, take it up with RCM. He's the one who stated

 

I'm confident that you know that I am making a point, but I think you might have enjoyed being able to call me stupid three times in the same post.

All he did was state that being LDS did not make you immune to cultural values. You treated this as if it was some groundbreaking revelation which is stupid. So logically I have to figure out what kind of stupid it is.

Of course I enjoyed it. I come to this board for entertainment.

[HappyJackWagon]

So are you pretending to be stupid enough to misunderstand to this degree to make a point or are you confused and are acting stupid to distract from that or are you just genuinely stupid?

Someone else needs a Snickers bar to eleviate some Hanger.

Abusive much, Nehor? Nice bullying tactics.

[The Nehor]

Someone else needs a Snickers bar to eleviate some Hanger.

Abusive much, Nehor? Nice bullying tactics.

I need to monetize this bullying I was inadvertently doing. Who knew people here were such vulnerable victims? Okay, who here has lunch money? Hand it over!

[rockpond]

And when someone suggests the holocaust is a fiction invented by the International Jewish conspiracy and everyone lights a firestorm about it that is also proof that the comment is true.

 

No.  The "firestorm" did not make his comment true.  That's not what I wrote... my comment about it being true was independent of the firestorm comment.

[The Nehor]

No.  The "firestorm" did not make his comment true.  That's not what I wrote... my comment about it being true was independent of the firestorm comment.

Well that is good. That means you are just wrong and are not the next Hitler.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 IMO is the assumption that Prophets and Apostles are not just better than those outside the church, they are better than us, the generalized membership. They're not

 

 

I disagree,  why would God choose hypocrites to teach his will?  So, I do expect them to be better than the rest of the world.

 

 

 The Nephites in general are compared and described as feasibly worse than the Lamanite 3-5 times in the BoM.

 

and that is why I don't expect apostate LDS to be better, in fact I expect them to be worst than other groups.

The question is, are they really worst? I think some apostate LDS are better than some faithful LDS

 

 

 The priesthood ban was never a fundamental doctrine (note that I didn't say it wasn't taught as doctrine, it was). There's a reason it never really shows up in scripture until it was removed. It was a mix of policy, a little actual doctrine, and far more folk beliefs and quasi-doctrinal extrapolations...then cemented both by internal prejudices and external pressures. It also went against one of the fundamental calls of the Gospel restoration and having the message of the gospel proclaimed to all. Throwing it out does not mean that now everything is on shaky ground

 

I am not talking about the priesthood ban or even Elder Peterson.

I simply want to see church leaders clarify that

1. Lamanite mark/curse is not dark skin

2. The mark of Cain is not black skin

Edited August 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

How come no one else tells me anything about the American Jews?

 

"By the early 20th century both the Jewish and African-American communities were organizing socially and politically to combat anti-Semitism and racism respectively"

http://northerncity.library.temple.edu/people-and-places/jewish-african-american-relations

 

"American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders to found the NAACP. Kivie Kaplan, a vice-chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now the Union for Reform Judaism), served as the national president of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975. Arnie Aronson worked with A. Philip Randolph and Roy Wilkins to found the Leadership Conference"

http://www.rac.org/jews-and-civil-rights-movement#sthash.q1jRLpSQ.dpuf

[ERayR]

How come no one else tells me anything about the American Jews?

 

 

Because no one can tell you anything about anything.

[rockpond]

Well that is good. That means you are just wrong and are not the next Hitler.

Funny. But this thread is basically a testament to why HJW's definitions are correct.

[busybee]

"Limited understanding" people with limited understanding really should not have repeatedly published the things that he published. We expect persons high up in the Church to not hide behind "limited understanding" , if they had such limited understanding they had a duty to recognize the fact that they had "limited understanding" and keep their mouths shut and their pens in their pockets. Especially, when we discourage anyone from criticizing whatever may come out of their mouths. Its one thing to have an opinion, its another thing to broadcast that opinion on clearly religiously relevant matters when you hold a high calling in the Church. If you want to express opinions without understanding on religious matters, then resign from your calling before doing so, or at least not condemn people who openly criticize what you have said.

The problem though with 'limited understanding' is that you are not usually aware that your understanding is, indeed, limited. You can't know what you don't know. If we demand that everyone 'keeps their mouths shut' until they have full understanding, the world would be rather quiet.

 

Consider this, do you have a full understanding on everything that you voice an opinion of?

[The Nehor]

Funny. But this thread is basically a testament to why HJW's definitions are correct.

No, you are wrong and now you are back to growing a Charlie Chaplin mustache.

 

Enough. Poster removed.