mikegriffith1 Posted June 11, 2017 Posted June 11, 2017 What is the difference between Ben Carson and Al Sharpton? Both are black. Both grew up in very humble circumstances. So what's the difference? Again, their race has nothing to do with their conduct and attitudes. The difference is how they were raised, what they were taught, and the worldviews they chose to embrace.
Meerkat Posted June 13, 2017 Posted June 13, 2017 On 6/1/2017 at 10:50 AM, Duncan said: Then Elder Eyring in 2005 visited our Stake and he said not to ask him if he has seen Christ but then he said that the way he looks like now, and he referenced DC 110, isn't the way he looked like on earth It's reasonable to think He looked different back in the day. Actually, my hair didn't look like the pure snow back in the 60's or 70's either. Although it did look kind of like those pictures. ( I don't mean to be irreverent.)
Meerkat Posted June 13, 2017 Posted June 13, 2017 On 6/11/2017 at 3:38 AM, mikegriffith1 said: What is the difference between Ben Carson and Al Sharpton? Both are black. Both grew up in very humble circumstances. So what's the difference? Again, their race has nothing to do with their conduct and attitudes. The difference is how they were raised, what they were taught, and the worldviews they chose to embrace. Yes, but both have experienced more racism-- probably Ben Carson to a lesser degree because of his life choices and the way he views others of God's children. I just hope prejudice doesn't come from me. 2
Bernard Gui Posted June 13, 2017 Posted June 13, 2017 (edited) On 6/1/2017 at 8:55 AM, Bob Crockett said: Which gives rise my fundamental objection to depicting Christ at all in imagery. Maybe ok to depict Biblical scenes but it doesn't seem right just to depict Him as it is neither Him nor really a depiction of HIm. But I'm in a minority. I feel much the same way, but my favorite portraits of Jesus...Rembrandt.... https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2011-11/faces-jesus Edited June 15, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
why me Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) I think that the whole idea of race is a US contruct. And we do hear a lot these days of whites in the US being privileged etc. The fact is that all races have a racist element. Hard for people to get along sometimes because of culture difference etc. I also think that in europe, race plays a less role in the church. Lilewise in other parts of the world. Are mormons racist? We should also ask: are catholics racist? Are muslims racist? Or are jewish people racist? etc. What does it mean to be a white mormon? Does it matter? Or a black mormon? The fact is: mormons call each other brother and sister. It applies to all races in the church. We are each others brother and sister. True, we can forget that fact because the US is a very racially divided society these days. Looking at the news, one can get the impression that the US is back in the 50s when it was a generally white, black society. These days, one hears very little of the asians and the people from other places in the world. The news is still focused on the so called white black divide. Amazingly whites will be in the minority soon. Hispanics will have the majority. What then for the white black so called divide. And what does that mean for a white church where whites are in the minority in the society at large? Edited June 16, 2017 by why me 1
Calm Posted June 16, 2017 Author Posted June 16, 2017 13 minutes ago, why me said: I think that the whole idea of race is a US contruct. The US was a British colony when slavery started and Americans weren't the only ones or first to use the Curse of Ham justification. And not to go Godwin's, but it makes the point the clearest....do you think the Germans got their ideas of racial superiority from Americans?
clarkgoble Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 17 hours ago, Calm said: The US was a British colony when slavery started and Americans weren't the only ones or first to use the Curse of Ham justification. And not to go Godwin's, but it makes the point the clearest....do you think the Germans got their ideas of racial superiority from Americans? That's definitely true although I think defenses of slavery, especially as it became so large by the 1830's - 50's, led to novel ideas. I believe that the idea of slavery being good for Africans was a novel southern idea. 1
Calm Posted June 17, 2017 Author Posted June 17, 2017 Much creativity is wasted on justifying evil or even just useless acts. 4
why me Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 On 17.6.2017 at 2:48 AM, Calm said: The US was a British colony when slavery started and Americans weren't the only ones or first to use the Curse of Ham justification. And not to go Godwin's, but it makes the point the clearest....do you think the Germans got their ideas of racial superiority from Americans? http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10925.html http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-nazis-studied-american-race-laws-for-inspiration-2017-2?r=US&IR=T&IR=T Hitler was very much influenced by US race laws and in eugenic research coming from the USA when he was young.
MiserereNobis Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 On 6/16/2017 at 5:32 PM, why me said: Are mormons racist? We should also ask: are catholics racist? Are muslims racist? Or are jewish people racist? etc. What does it mean to be a white mormon? Does it matter? Or a black mormon? The fact is: mormons call each other brother and sister. It applies to all races in the church. The problem is that Mormonism had a very strict racist ban on the priesthood and exaltation, so the issue of race (for whatever reason, be it revelation or Young's personal racism) plays a major part in the history of Mormonism in particular.
clarkgoble Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: The problem is that Mormonism had a very strict racist ban on the priesthood and exaltation, so the issue of race (for whatever reason, be it revelation or Young's personal racism) plays a major part in the history of Mormonism in particular. I agree on priesthood but not on exaltation although Brigham Young had a view that they'd be the last to get the priesthood and likely not until everyone else did. An important difference which pretty well means they'd get exalted around the time most of us would have. Clearly wrong, but also not really accepted by everyone either -- including many Apostles well before the revelation through Kimball. I think Young's own views are turning out to be more nuanced than many people (myself included) assumed. But we'll have to await some of the studies looking at the originals of his sermons. Apparently the person who did a lot of the shorthand modified them a fair bit in places. Edited June 19, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
MiserereNobis Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 Just now, clarkgoble said: I agree on priesthood but not on exaltation although Brigham Young had a view that they'd be the last to get the priesthood and likely not until everyone else did. Clearly wrong, but also not really accepted by everyone either -- including many Apostles well before the revelation through Kimball. I think Young's own views are turning out to be more nuanced than many people (myself included) assumed. But we'll have to await some of the studies looking at the originals of his sermons. Apparently the person who did a lot of the shorthand modified them a fair bit in places. Fair enough. "Exaltation" was just my short-hand for the temple, but I see that it wasn't good short-hand.
why me Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 24 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: The problem is that Mormonism had a very strict racist ban on the priesthood and exaltation, so the issue of race (for whatever reason, be it revelation or Young's personal racism) plays a major part in the history of Mormonism in particular. Most christian churches have had a race problem in their history. Mormonism is not distinct in this. However, for critics of the lds church, it is mormonism that is seemed to be alone in its race history.
clarkgoble Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, why me said: Most christian churches have had a race problem in their history. Mormonism is not distinct in this. However, for critics of the lds church, it is mormonism that is seemed to be alone in its race history. Had things happened 10 years earlier or back earlier when the Apostles nearly overturned the practice (with Harold B Lee reportedly being the one vote against) I think that it'd be judged very differently. Part of the problem is that the inherent small c conservatism of Mormonism (we need strong evidence for change) meant we changed in many ways after many other sects. 1
Marginal Gains Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 9 hours ago, why me said: Most christian churches have had a race problem in their history. Mormonism is not distinct in this. However, for critics of the lds church, it is mormonism that is seemed to be alone in its race history. The problem is that Mormonism should be distinct. It should stand apart. That other organizations saw the folly of racial discrimination and changed long before an organization that claims to be the only one led directly by God's Priesthood, the only Church where it's leader is given direct communication from The Lord etc. is THE problem. The Church should have led not followed.
why me Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: The problem is that Mormonism should be distinct. It should stand apart. That other organizations saw the folly of racial discrimination and changed long before an organization that claims to be the only one led directly by God's Priesthood, the only Church where it's leader is given direct communication from The Lord etc. is THE problem. The Church should have led not followed. All churches should be distinct and not just the mormon church. No reason why it should stand apart. I suppose that members of other churches feel the same way about their church too. God's priesthood is not perfect. They make mistakes and these mistakes are normal. The problem comes when members think that the church should be different: more perfection. But since people lead the church and people are far from perfect, there will only be disappointment. The church leads in many areas. But it goes unnoticed. But this is not to say that it will not drop the ball sometimes. It just needs to be prepared to pick the ball up.
why me Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 22 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Had things happened 10 years earlier or back earlier when the Apostles nearly overturned the practice (with Harold B Lee reportedly being the one vote against) I think that it'd be judged very differently. Part of the problem is that the inherent small c conservatism of Mormonism (we need strong evidence for change) meant we changed in many ways after many other sects. The lds church will always be judeged harshly. It has been throughout its history. Why would it have changed? There will always be harsh judgement. Ten years earlier? I doubt it. Exmembers would claim that the practice should have never happened. All races were welcomed into the lds church. And all races sat together in the meeting houses. That was quite a revolutionary idea back in the day. And the church led the way.
Rivers Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 On 6/19/2017 at 3:59 PM, MiserereNobis said: The problem is that Mormonism had a very strict racist ban on the priesthood and exaltation, so the issue of race (for whatever reason, be it revelation or Young's personal racism) plays a major part in the history of Mormonism in particular. I really wish that part of our history didn't happen....But it did. 1
Recommended Posts