ALarson Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: Scripture disagrees. I'm fine with that as I believe much of scripture comes from man too. 1
stemelbow Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: Again though, something (dealing with the treatment of people) is only discrimination if it is unjust. If the ban was condoned by God, could it be unjust? I know it probably seems like i'm being a goober by harping on this but what i'm getting at is that by definition, it seems that whether or not something is racist depends on the motivation behind it. It depends on the 'why'. That's why some people disagree with the idea that the ban had to be racist just because it existed. Something is unjust if there is no justifiable reason for it. There has yet to be a justifiable reason for the ban, therefore it is by definition unjust-whether God had His hand in it or not. Or if it was just, can you justify it for us? It doesn't depend on why. the ban promoted racism in the Church. the Church even officially stated false doctrine as being reason for the ban. Sometimes when it comes down to it, sometimes some people will be unreasonable. Those who say the ban was not racist are without logical reason, as I see it.
JLHPROF Posted September 15, 2016 Author Posted September 15, 2016 1 minute ago, ALarson said: I'm fine with that as I believe much of scripture comes from man too. Sounds like a lot of creating the gospel in your own image. You have every right to believe any doctrine you want from any religion. But in creating your own version of Mormonism with only the bits you like you become no different than CoC, FLDS, Hedrickites, AUB, etc. I too have differing beliefs from the official Church line, but I try to base mine firmly in what the founding prophets of the restoration have revealed. Following a Mormonism based not on the revelations, scriptures, and prophetic teachings but instead on personal feelings on doctrine seems like a Non-denominational course to me.
ALarson Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Sounds like a lot of creating the gospel in your own image. You have every right to believe any doctrine you want from any religion. But in creating your own version of Mormonism with only the bits you like you become no different than CoC, FLDS, Hedrickites, AUB, etc. From what I can tell, you've done the same thing regarding the current leadership and church. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's my impression. We may all do this to some extent.
stemelbow Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Sounds like a lot of creating the gospel in your own image. You have every right to believe any doctrine you want from any religion. But in creating your own version of Mormonism with only the bits you like you become no different than CoC, FLDS, Hedrickites, AUB, etc. I too have differing beliefs from the official Church line, but I try to base mine firmly in what the founding prophets of the restoration have revealed. Following a Mormonism based not on the revelations, scriptures, and prophetic teachings but instead on personal feelings on doctrine seems like a Non-denominational course to me. We have nothing at our disposal but what we perceive, JLHPROF. Show me a Mormon, anyone of them, and I'll see a person who has done just as you complained our friend ALarson has done. everyone is going on what we think is right. No one follows the church's mandates every whit partly because there's so much contradiction but also because we all are impressed with different emphases and priorities. No one can do it all. It's not possible. 1
bluebell Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 14 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Something is unjust if there is no justifiable reason for it. There has yet to be a justifiable reason for the ban, therefore it is by definition unjust-whether God had His hand in it or not. Or if it was just, can you justify it for us? That seems like a weird thing for a deist to say--that because we don't know a justifiable reason for the ban it means that, even if God condoned it, it's unjustifiable. That argument isn't going to seem reasonable to people who believe that one of the hallmarks of a belief in God is the belief that we often won't understand why He does what He does. I don't have to be able to justify something for it be just. I'm not the standard that decides that for the universe. Quote Sometimes when it comes down to it, sometimes some people will be unreasonable. I agree. I wish you should stop and just see things my way. Then you could be reasonable and logical like i am. 2
stemelbow Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: That seems like a weird thing for a deist to say--that because we don't know a justifiable reason for the ban it means that, even if God condoned it, it's unjustifiable. That argument isn't going to seem reasonable to people who believe that one of the hallmarks of a belief in God is the belief that we often won't understand why He does what He does. I don't have to be able to justify something for it be just. I'm not the standard that decides that for the universe. Well, suffice it to say the argument that it's not racism because God made it so, or it's just because God made it so, doesn't hold water. There's never been an argument presented to show how it's not racism, nor that the policy was just. Without those two items we have nothing but racism and unjust. Now, sure, someone could continue to think it was not racism and that it was just, but doing so is guesswork--in that God made it so, so it must not be bad. But we don't know that God made it so, and we don't know that God in doing so was not being racist nor unjust.
JLHPROF Posted September 15, 2016 Author Posted September 15, 2016 15 minutes ago, ALarson said: From what I can tell, you've done the same thing regarding the current leadership and church. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's my impression. We may all do this to some extent. 10 minutes ago, stemelbow said: We have nothing at our disposal but what we perceive, JLHPROF. Show me a Mormon, anyone of them, and I'll see a person who has done just as you complained our friend ALarson has done. everyone is going on what we think is right. No one follows the church's mandates every whit partly because there's so much contradiction but also because we all are impressed with different emphases and priorities. No one can do it all. It's not possible. I do understand all this and I am not trying to sound accusatory. All anyone can do is what they think is right and follow things they have a testimony in. I realize that my arguing this side of things seems hypocritical considering my approach to the current leadership and Church. But I try very hard to only reject things I see as contradicting establish gospel principles laid out in scripture and revelation. I see a clear differentiation between doing that and rejecting the scriptures and revelations themselves. Perhaps there is no difference, but I see one. Rejecting the words of men (even prophets) that contradict what God has already said seems a long way from rejecting things that are known to be the word of God.
ALarson Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: I do understand all this and I am not trying to sound accusatory. All anyone can do is what they think is right and follow things they have a testimony in. I realize that my arguing this side of things seems hypocritical considering my approach to the current leadership and Church. But I try very hard to only reject things I see as contradicting establish gospel principles laid out in scripture and revelation. I see a clear differentiation between doing that and rejecting the scriptures and revelations themselves. Perhaps there is no difference, but I see one. Rejecting the words of men (even prophets) that contradict what God has already said seems a long way from rejecting things that are known to be the word of God. I think that's the key (word I put in bold). (By the way, I always enjoy reading your perspective, JLHPROF!) 1
Gray Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Again though, something (dealing with the treatment of people) is only discrimination if it is unjust. If the ban was condoned by God, could it be unjust? It would still be a form of discrimination if it were just. 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I know it probably seems like i'm being a goober by harping on this but what i'm getting at is that by definition, it seems that whether or not something is racist depends on the motivation behind it. It depends on the 'why'. That's why some people disagree with the idea that the ban had to be racist just because it existed. There are a couple of definitions for racism. One of those definitions has to do with motive, but another does not. By the broader definition of the term, any race-based ban, no matter how well intended, is racist. 2
Gray Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Scripture disagrees. Quote he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
bluebell Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 42 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well, suffice it to say the argument that it's not racism because God made it so, or it's just because God made it so, doesn't hold water. I disagree. Racism by definition is unjust. God can't make something that is fundamentally unjust. 1
JLHPROF Posted September 15, 2016 Author Posted September 15, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Gray said: he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. Do you really want a list of EVERY scripture that refers to God discriminating against/favoring specific families, tribes (which sometimes meant races), individuals? Yes, God is no respecter of persons and all are alike etc, etc - when it comes to access to the atonement and salvation. But the idea that God doesn't discriminate is not born out in scripture. There are dozens of examples. We'd like to think everything is individual focused, but that's not what it shows. Edited September 15, 2016 by JLHPROF
bluebell Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 15 minutes ago, Gray said: It would still be a form of discrimination if it were just. There are a couple of definitions for racism. One of those definitions has to do with motive, but another does not. By the broader definition of the term, any race-based ban, no matter how well intended, is racist. I haven't seen a definition of discrimination (as it applies to people) that doesn't involve being unjust or unfair.
Gray Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Do you really want a list of EVERY scripture that refers to God discriminating against/favoring specific families, tribes (which sometimes meant races), individuals? Yes, God is no respecter of persons and all are alike etc, etc - when it comes to access to the atonement and salvation. But the idea that God doesn't discriminate is not born out in scripture. There are dozens of examples. We'd like to think everything is individual focused, but that's not what it shows. The problem is that you're trying to harmonize them. They don't harmonize. So you have to choose which passage you think gets at the truth more effectively.
JLHPROF Posted September 15, 2016 Author Posted September 15, 2016 Just now, Gray said: The problem is that you're trying to harmonize them. They don't harmonize. So you have to choose which passage you think gets at the truth more effectively. I think they can be harmonized if applied correctly and in context. We just hate the idea of anything that looks like discrimination. God judges us and categorizes us all the time.
Gray Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 40 minutes ago, bluebell said: I haven't seen a definition of discrimination (as it applies to people) that doesn't involve being unjust or unfair. Full Definition of discrimination 1a : the act of discriminatingb : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently 2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing 3a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individuallyb : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
stemelbow Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 47 minutes ago, bluebell said: I disagree. Racism by definition is unjust. God can't make something that is fundamentally unjust. That's just assumption, though. God can do what He wants. He most certainly can in theory make something that is fundamentally unjust.
JLHPROF Posted September 15, 2016 Author Posted September 15, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, stemelbow said: That's just assumption, though. God can do what He wants. He most certainly can in theory make something that is fundamentally unjust. God cannot do whatever he wants. At least not in Mormon belief. Edited September 15, 2016 by JLHPROF 1
Gray Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I think they can be harmonized if applied correctly and in context. We just hate the idea of anything that looks like discrimination. God judges us and categorizes us all the time. Let me clarify - of course you can interpret any passage any way you like. But to do so in this case I think violates the spirit of what was trying to be conveyed in the passage I quoted. Edited September 16, 2016 by Gray
cinepro Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: That wasn't the question. The question was whether you think God could have had a non-racist reason for decreeing the ban. You didn't ask me, but I don't think there could be a non-racist reason for implementing the ban. Suppose you went to a large wedding reception, and there were people from many different cultures attending. The dinner buffet is ready, and the host realizes that he can't excuse the hundreds of guests all at once to get dinner. There needs to be some order. So he has a great idea. He stands up and says "Please wait until you are excused to go get dinner. The first group to go will be the white people. White people only!" Next, "Okay, the next group to go will be the Japanese. If you are Japanese, then please go get dinner." A few minutes later, the food is getting colder, and some of the trays are empty. "Okay, let's have the Mexicans go. If you're Mexican, please go get some dinner." "Okay, now the Samoans. Samoans, please help yourself to dinner. The steak is all gone, but there's still plenty of chicken." The white people are all done with their dinners by the time he gets to, "Alright, all the black people. Help yourself to the remaining salad and breadsticks. Sorry, but it looks like the chicken and steak are gone. Should have ordered more food!" Some people are upset, so they confront the host. "You stupid racist. Why did you make the black people wait until last to eat? We didn't get any of the steak or chicken." Host: "Whoa, hold on. I am not racist at all. You could easily see that everyone couldn't go up to the buffet at once. I simply created an order for people to get their food. Race had nothing to do with it. I love people of all races, and there isn't a racist bone in my body. The idea that you didn't get steak or chicken because of your race is absurd. You didn't get steak or chicken because you were the last people to go to the buffet. I know you people have a history of segregation and persecution, but in this one case, you have to understand that it wasn't racism or persecution; it was just dumb luck. The fact that you just all happened to be black is irrelevant." Can you sketch out a scenario where the host isn't either very racist or very stupid? Edited September 15, 2016 by cinepro 2
stemelbow Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: God cannot do whatever he wants. At least not in Mormon belief. Sure...in the realm of belief people can put limits out there and make claims about God's omniscience. But that's not what I mean in this instance. I mean God in theory can make an unjust decision. Now I realize we can offer a quote from the BoM that'll challenge that theory, but the BoM could not be a good representation of what God can and can't do.
JLHPROF Posted September 15, 2016 Author Posted September 15, 2016 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Sure...in the realm of belief people can put limits out there and make claims about God's omniscience. But that's not what I mean in this instance. I mean God in theory can make an unjust decision. Now I realize we can offer a quote from the BoM that'll challenge that theory, but the BoM could not be a good representation of what God can and can't do. Well if we start doubting EVERY source of knowledge on God we might as well not believe in a God at all. I think if I ever foolishly decided Mormonism wasn't true I'd become an atheist. Because no other version of God makes a lick of sense to me.
Jeanne Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 Just now, JLHPROF said: Well if we start doubting EVERY source of knowledge on God we might as well not believe in a God at all. I think if I ever foolishly decided Mormonism wasn't true I'd become an atheist. Because no other version of God makes a lick of sense to me. This is the most difficult thing to do when you leave mormonism. Hanging on to God.
stemelbow Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Well if we start doubting EVERY source of knowledge on God we might as well not believe in a God at all. I think if I ever foolishly decided Mormonism wasn't true I'd become an atheist. Because no other version of God makes a lick of sense to me. Doubt your doubts, my man. It'll save you the trouble.
Recommended Posts