Southern Baptist Convention – Publically & Formally Repudiating the Alt-Right Movement

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

They were, in the past, some of the main founders of the KKK

Beyond that white supremacy was key to the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention.  The convention was formed when Baptists came out against slavery leading to a schism. The churches associated with the convention pushed segregation during the civil rights era. Although to be fair the convention repudiated formally past racism in 1995.

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Where do you get that idea?  That's a far cry from anything I've said.  I don't even think Jana Reiss said anything near it.  How could McConkie be?  he has long passed from this earth. 

You responded to the OP that "on this topic" (the topic is repudiating the alt-right and white nationalist movement, in case you missed that) the church should speak out against Mckonkie and others.  I guess that I incorrectly assumed that you were on topic. 

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

You responded to the OP that "on this topic" (the topic is repudiating the alt-right and white nationalist movement, in case you missed that) the church should speak out against Mckonkie and others.  I guess that I incorrectly assumed that you were on topic. 

Guess so.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So in an organization with a racially charged past, and scriptures that are used to support that racism, it would seem to be wise to speak out on the issue and not let it fester, IMO.

Does this "official statement" not count?

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

Quote

the church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church." It referenced a 2006 statement by then-church President Gordon B. Hinckley, who said that "no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Does this "official statement" not count?

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

 

I think it's good. I've referenced it many times in HPG. Sadly, I've seen that quote dismissed numerous times because they say it "contradicts scripture" and it is not an "official" statement from church leaders. I think many people view the essays as something similar to an article in the Ensign. Sure, it's church sanctioned but doesn't hold the same weight as something like a First Presidency letter or a talk in conference.

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's good. I've referenced it many times in HPG. Sadly, I've seen that quote dismissed numerous times because they say it "contradicts scripture" and it is not an "official" statement from church leaders. I think many people view the essays as something similar to an article in the Ensign. Sure, it's church sanctioned but doesn't hold the same weight as something like a First Presidency letter or a talk in conference.

Well that's true of course. Except that it does reference Hinkley's talk on the subject when President. So anyone dismissing it seems to be on pretty thin ground at best.

Edited June 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's good. I've referenced it many times in HPG. Sadly, I've seen that quote dismissed numerous times because they say it "contradicts scripture" and it is not an "official" statement from church leaders. I think many people view the essays as something similar to an article in the Ensign. Sure, it's church sanctioned but doesn't hold the same weight as something like a First Presidency letter or a talk in conference.

President Gordon B. Hinckley did indeed speak out in conference (this is referenced in the quote), and this is indeed an "official statement" as stated in big red bold block.

People will always dismiss what the church says and does (there is not much we can do about that), but the church cannot be accused of not speaking out.  Just wanted to make that clear.

Edited June 15, 2017 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's kind of the point. There are some who disagree and cite LDS Canon to support their claims, so a statement from the top could help put that issue to rest. The Mormon Mommy Blog / Alt-right blogger. http://www.sltrib.com/home/5116879-155/mormon-blogger-trumpets-alt-right-racial-views

So in an organization with a racially charged past, and scriptures that are used to support that racism, it would seem to be wise to speak out on the issue and not let it fester, IMO.

This is good enough for me- whad'ya want?

Quote

 

The Church Today

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Give me a break

Who would not condemn White Supremacy?  This is news?

I need a headline someone!   "Bukowski Repudiates White Supremacy"

Did anyone think that Southern Baptists were in favor of White Supremacy?

Some of their members might have, specifically the white supremacist ones. This can be healthy for an organization to hopefully drive these people out.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Five Solas said:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/14/532998287/southern-baptist-convention-votes-to-condemn-white-supremacy

Should the LDS Church be equally pubic & clear about the "Alt-Right" movement and its connection with "white nationalism?"  Or would a similar undertaking not be useful/necessary? 

--Erik

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

Quote

 

The Church Today

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.²⁴

 

That was before alt right was invented.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's good. I've referenced it many times in HPG. Sadly, I've seen that quote dismissed numerous times because they say it "contradicts scripture" and it is not an "official" statement from church leaders. I think many people view the essays as something similar to an article in the Ensign. Sure, it's church sanctioned but doesn't hold the same weight as something like a First Presidency letter or a talk in conference.

There is no getting through to some people. See, for example, the people on the Right in the church trying to explain away the church's liberal stance on immigration.

[USU78]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If they do it was meant to be.

😂

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's good. I've referenced it many times in HPG. Sadly, I've seen that quote dismissed numerous times because they say it "contradicts scripture" and it is not an "official" statement from church leaders. I think many people view the essays as something similar to an article in the Ensign. Sure, it's church sanctioned but doesn't hold the same weight as something like a First Presidency letter or a talk in conference.

Now we are ranking what is doctrinal and not doctrinal based on no evidence of such criteria from anyone?  While Joseph refused to espouse a creed? (the misuse of the Wentworth Letter notwithstanding.)

I know this hierarchy is commonly believed in the church- but now we have members debating if the "PROCLAMATION" on the Family is "doctrinal".  So an official proclamation is not doctrinal but a conference talk is?

Haven't you debated whether the Proclamation is doctrinal?   Is that at least a little better than a conference talk?

As always, my position is that we have no doctrine but orthopraxis according to the standards established in the Temple Recommend interview.

We are ordaining black folks and THAT is the orthopraxis right there.  Our Magisterium is the spirit in our hearts and that's all I need or want.

[mnn727]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is no getting through to some people. See, for example, the people on the Right in the church trying to explain away the church's liberal stance on immigration.

I don't explain it away, but I do disagree with it....but that's on me.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If they do it was meant to be.

You know for some of these Christian groups that allow homosexuality etc in their leadership, I wonder how they justify both original sin and gay practices as not being sinful though directly condemned in the Bible

Original sin- "You were born that way but it's still a sin"

Being Gay- "You were born that way but it's not a sin"

Uh oh.

Derail warning.  But heck I think we are done with Southern Baptists anyway

[HappyJackWagon]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is good enough for me- whad'ya want?

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

I would like for everyone to be on the same page, which they aren't right now as I mentioned referencing my HPG. Let's be honest, the essays weren't exactly rolled out for maximum viewing. Some people have been suspicious (if aware at all) of the essays since the beginning. I've mentioned before how my own father views the essays (after finally accepting that they weren't a hack by anti-Mormons) as PR spin that doesn't reflect the true intentions of leaders which, he claims, is why leaders haven't signed their names to them. So he persists in his thinking and there has been no publicized disavowal. Do I think he's reasonable? No. But I also know he's not the only one who feels and thinks that way. So I'd like for church leaders to be more proactive about getting everyone onto the same page. It would be pretty simple.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would like for everyone to be on the same page

Good luck with that!  It would be nigh impossible to find even one subject where we are all on the same page.

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Let's be honest, the essays weren't exactly rolled out for maximum viewing. Some people have been suspicious (if aware at all) of the essays since the beginning. I've mentioned before how my own father views the essays (after finally accepting that they weren't a hack by anti-Mormons) as PR spin that doesn't reflect the true intentions of leaders which, he claims, is why leaders haven't signed their names to them. So he persists in his thinking and there has been no publicized disavowal. Do I think he's reasonable? No. But I also know he's not the only one who feels and thinks that way. So I'd like for church leaders to be more proactive about getting everyone onto the same page. It would be pretty simple.

It is not just the essays though.  On top of the essay, you have a published "official statement" from the church "unequivocally" condemning racism, and you have the president of the church doing the same in a conference talk.  It is not as simple as you would think to get everybody on board.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would like for everyone to be on the same page, which they aren't right now as I mentioned referencing my HPG. Let's be honest, the essays weren't exactly rolled out for maximum viewing. Some people have been suspicious (if aware at all) of the essays since the beginning. I've mentioned before how my own father views the essays (after finally accepting that they weren't a hack by anti-Mormons) as PR spin that doesn't reflect the true intentions of leaders which, he claims, is why leaders haven't signed their names to them. So he persists in his thinking and there has been no publicized disavowal. Do I think he's reasonable? No. But I also know he's not the only one who feels and thinks that way. So I'd like for church leaders to be more proactive about getting everyone onto the same page. It would be pretty simple.

Open canon as directed by the spirit, no orthodoxy, but orthopraxis.

Nobody was on the same page in Joseph's day and it's the same today.  This church is not designed for that to happen.  Alma 32, Moroni 10 et al ASSURE that.

It is not SUPPOSED to happen.  Joseph eschewed creeds etc.  He said he did not want them or for the membership to be restricted by such things.

If you want everyone on the same page, we need a Magisterium with enforcers, books with Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats and a list of condemned literature.

Uh uh.  Not going to happen.

If you want everyone on the same page, that is what we euphemistically call "Satan's Plan".  Blind obedience, no arguing with anything from the pulpit.

Never gonna happen unless the church apostasizes.  THAT could happen.

[clarkgoble]

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is not just the essays though.  On top of the essay, you have a published "official statement" from the church "unequivocally" condemning racism, and you have the president of the church doing the same in a conference talk.  It is not as simple as you would think to get everybody on board.  

Yup. At this stage I think someone pushing racist views would continue to do so even if several apostles came and met with them personally. The only real question is what the consequences for pushing their belief should be. I mean look at something like gay marriage that the church will excommunicate people for yet there's no shortage of people believing.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is no getting through to some people. See, for example, the people on the Right in the church trying to explain away the church's liberal stance on immigration.

The people on the right have no problem with immigration- they are called "libertarians".  Put me on that list.

The prime directive of libertarians, I would think, would be to get to the country nearest to your personal beliefs ASAP and stay there forever.  That would be me if I was born anywhere else.

There was one of them old guys that said "Give me liberty or give me death".  THAT is what "people on the right" think.  Stay out of my business and I will be happy.  That includes my neighbor as long as the Mariachi music is not too loud.

Then you have "Republicans".   Meh.  Compromise.

 

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are okay with white nationalists? That is disturbing.

I am okay with others thinking what they choose to think. In other words, I don't think it is appropriate legislating or judging individuals for their thoughts or beliefs.  

Who else do you want to ridicule for their thoughts - other than white nationalists?  Please tell me.  I find it disturbing that you want to control everyone that thinks differently or so beneath your vaunted white tower.

This subtle movement to attack, destroy, ridicule all groups that don't march to one group's specific drummer is stunning.  The fact that we have Latter-day Saints wanting to enforce a standard for what are and what not acceptable or appropriate thoughts is disheartening.  

The public square should be a place where anyone can discuss their thoughts safely.  Allow the better ideas, the better way to win through civil discussion rather than moral brow-beating or self-righteous condemnation.

I thought more highly of you. 

[USU78]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Quote

 

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would like for everyone to be on the same page

 

 

Good luck with that!  It would be nigh impossible to find even one subject where we are all on the same page.

If members were on the same page, they'd be criticized for being lockstep Morgbots  ...  oh yeah, they do get so criticized on a daily basis.

[Darren10]

19 hours ago, Five Solas said:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/14/532998287/southern-baptist-convention-votes-to-condemn-white-supremacy

Should the LDS Church be equally pubic & clear about the "Alt-Right" movement and its connection with "white nationalism?"  Or would a similar undertaking not be useful/necessary? 

--Erik

I'm alt right and I hate the white nationalist movement. 

I've no doubt Hillary Clinton does too: http://www.dailywire.com/news/4098/kkk-leader-comes-out-support-hillary-she-has-james-barrett

Edited June 16, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

56 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If members were on the same page, they'd be criticized for being lockstep Morgbots  ...  oh yeah, they do get so criticized on a daily basis.

I threw away my brain when I was 8 years old.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I am okay with others thinking what they choose to think. In other words, I don't think it is appropriate legislating or judging individuals for their thoughts or beliefs.  

Who else do you want to ridicule for their thoughts - other than white nationalists?  Please tell me.  I find it disturbing that you want to control everyone that thinks differently or so beneath your vaunted white tower.

This subtle movement to attack, destroy, ridicule all groups that don't march to one group's specific drummer is stunning.  The fact that we have Latter-day Saints wanting to enforce a standard for what are and what not acceptable or appropriate thoughts is disheartening.  

The public square should be a place where anyone can discuss their thoughts safely.  Allow the better ideas, the better way to win through civil discussion rather than moral brow-beating or self-righteous condemnation.

I thought more highly of you. 

"I am okay with others thinking what they choose to think. In other words, I don't think it is appropriate legislating or judging individuals for their thoughts or beliefs."

 

Amen, brother! 

"I thought more highly of you. "

The Nehor is a fun read and I've no doubt does great things in life for others, but I've long relegated him as one who condescends those who disagree with him and as one whose solution to dissent is to control others via governmental force. That has never ended well throughout human history. In fact, it's the core reason America's Founding Fathers divided government as much as they did. Bicameral legislation and three branches co-equal and independent of each other.