Church statement on Charlottesville, Virginia

[bsjkki]

The church released this statement on Charlottesville, Virginia.  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-charlottesville-virginia  

It is with great sadness and deep concern that we view the violence, conflict and tragedy of recent days in Charlottesville, Virginia. People of any faith, or of no faith at all, should be troubled by the increase of intolerance in both words and actions that we see everywhere.

More than a decade ago, the late Church President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) addressed the topic of racism when speaking to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He powerfully and clearly taught this principle: "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 of Christ." For members of the Church, we reaffirm that teaching today and the Savior's admonition to love our neighbor.

Our prayers are with those who are suffering because of this intolerance and hatred. We pray for peace and for understanding. Above all, we pray that we may treat one another with greater kindness, compassion and goodness

I also read this blog post by Daniel Peterson.  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/08/beyond-repulsive-far-beyond.html

I don’t believe in making politics an issue at Church, nor in excommunicating otherwise faithful members over their political views.  To me, however, neo-Nazism of the sort that seems to be on display in the comments and images above is deeply troubling.  If I were the local leader of someone espousing such views, I would be very concerned.  And, candidly, I would be at least thinking about an eventual disciplinary council.
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/08/beyond-repulsive-far-beyond.html#js4jMe2c1CHjkvX5.99

[carbon dioxide]

Yes the views of these people are troubling though they must be protected under the First Amendment.  The most important form of speech is pretty much the most vile form. As long as that is protected, we can be assured that our speech which is much less extreme will be protected. What I do find also troubling is the notion that exist that really the only racists that exist are whites.  If a group of white people get together and celebrate their heritage, they may be called racists.  If a group of non-whites get together to celebrate, no connotations of racism is given.  This double standard I believe just makes some white people angry and encourages these groups. 

[The Nehor]

I disagree with Dan Peterson on Robert E. Lee being a great man. He got a bit of a historical whitewash to protect the dignity of the losing Southerners. He was a competent general but his views postwar were not helpful even for his day. Don't let blacks vote. Deportation of all blacks from Virginia which he insisted Virginia would kindly assist in doing.

He signed a political statement arguing that whites loved the blacks and look upon them with kindness but giving them the vote would detrimental. This is not from enmity but because they "have neither the intelligence or other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power." Lovely. On some level I think he believed this. The poor guy was naive.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes the views of these people are troubling though they must be protected under the First Amendment.  The most important form of speech is pretty much the most vile form. As long as that is protected, we can be assured that our speech which is much less extreme will be protected. What I do find also troubling is the notion that exist that really the only racists that exist are whites.  If a group of white people get together and celebrate their heritage, they may be called racists.  If a group of non-whites get together to celebrate, no connotations of racism is given.  This double standard I believe just makes some white people angry and encourages these groups. 

I am in favor of protecting this kind of speech. I am also in favor of social ostracism, boycotts, public humiliation, and all other legal forms of punishing people socially and economically (but not legally) for being colossal putzes.

[The Nehor]

The comments on that thread apologizing for the South are kind of darling.

The Southern States have waged a masterful propaganda campaign to say the Civil War was also about State's Rights, self-determination, economic differences, and yada yada. Sadly it was about a State's right to allow people to own other people, self-determination only for the free, and the economic right to view people as property.

My favorite rebuttal to the idea that the war was fought over State's Rights to govern themselves is to look at the federal Fugitive Slave Act. Amazingly the South did not support other state's rights to refuse to follow that law. It is almost as if their love for state's rights was like Trump's love for the electoral college. When it helps I like it. When it does not I do not.

[Duncan]

J.k. Rowling said it best, something like what a day to forget how to tweet

[cdowis]

29 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes the views of these people are troubling though they must be protected under the First Amendment.  

You would agree that the First Amendment does not protect incitement to violence. etc

[bsjkki]

Instead of turning this overtly political...what do you think of using church discipline for racist thoughts or is there anything in the temple recommend questions that would prevent a white supremacist from getting a temple recommend?

Edited August 14, 2017 by bsjkki

[cdowis]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He signed a political statement arguing that whites loved the blacks and look upon them with kindness but giving them the vote would detrimental. This is not from enmity but because they "have neither the intelligence or other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power." Lovely. On some level I think he believed this. The poor guy was naive.

Would it have made a difference if he couched it in these terms, that it is detrimental to give the right to vote to those who are uneducated, who cannot read nor write regardless of race.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

Instead of turning this overtly political...what do you think of using church discipline for racist thoughts or is there anything in the temple recommend questions that would prevent a white supremacy from getting a temple recommend?

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[bsjkki]

11 hours ago, cdowis said:

You would agree that the First Amendment does not protect incitement to violence. etc

Is gathering and holding a rally incitement to violence? Antifa views the G20 a reason to burn cars and protest. Antifa views conservatives speaking on campus as a reason to be violent. Heck, unpopular election results incited violence. Was it justified?

Edited August 14, 2017 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

That should do it! 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, cdowis said:

Would it have made a difference if he couched it in these terms, that it is detrimental to give the right to vote to those who are uneducated, who cannot read nor write regardless of race.

I sympathize with the view. If we denied the uneducated the right to vote in the United States I would argue we would have ended up with a different president I would have preferred but I am a fan of democracy and not restricting the right to vote. Not because I think people are smart and wise and deserve a voice in their own government. Some people talk as if the will of the American people represents some vast pool of wisdom. I laugh at that idea. I believe in democracy because I believe people are fallen and no one can be trusted with power over another in the government without some kind of check. Democracies are inefficient and often incompetent. I believe that the check on tyranny though is worth it. It doesn't always work but it is better then nothing.

Churchill was quoting some unknown person when he said: "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Pretty smart statement.

[Duncan]

Just now, bsjkki said:

Instead of turning this overtly political...what do you think of using church discipline for racist thoughts or is there anything in the temple recommend questions that would prevent a white supremacy from getting a temple recommend?

I'd be all for it. Our stake years ago exed a guy who was KKK, his parents are super active, he however spent time in the clink. I may have told this story on here previously but there are racists in our stake. Maybe 2 years ago? now I went to the Temple and one of them was two ahead of me in line and their was this spanish brother ahead of me in line that I didn't know. Anyways when he went into the endowment room, he sat right next to the racist guy and boy oh boy would I have like to know what he was thinking. That same guy told the elders that brought an investigator from Pakistan to church to pat him down for bombs and he told others elders that you can take a black out of the jungle but.....he somehow gets a recommend. I knew all of this of course and I gave a talk in that ward to talk about racism and mysogyny as the ward mission leader tied up a sister missionary as an object lesson in gospel principles class and later in another class dropped his pants among other things, so I don't know how they get a recommend.

[Storm Rider]

I am deeply troubled when the public circle begins to be monitored by those who think they are capable of judging who can speak and who must shut up and if they don't shut up then they must be forced to shut up.  I favor the allowing people to think what they choose and if they are capable and willing to stand up and say this is what I believe in the public they should be allowed to regardless if you, me, or anyone else agrees with them.  I believe it is the the sharing of ideas that good moral positions are achieved and strengthened.  Poor ideas fade away because it becomes evident through discussion they are wrong or that there is a better path.

I reject those who believe that it is acceptable to punish others simply for their thoughts.  I don't fear racists, bigots, or any other group of similar ilk, but those that seek to control the thoughts of others terrify me.

[Duncan]

Just now, Storm Rider said:

I am deeply troubled when the public circle begins to be monitored by those who think they are capable of judging who can speak and who must shut up and if they don't shut up then they must be forced to shut up.  I favor the allowing people to think what they choose and if they are capable and willing to stand up and say this is what I believe in the public they should be allowed to regardless if you, me, or anyone else agrees with them.  I believe it is the the sharing of ideas that good moral positions are achieved and strengthened.  Poor ideas fade away because it becomes evident through discussion they are wrong or that there is a better path.

I reject those who believe that it is acceptable to punish others simply for their thoughts.  I don't fear racists, bigots, or any other group of similar ilk, but those that seek to control the thoughts of others terrify me.

why do you think neo nazi's are still around? do you think they listen and open their hearts and minds?

[Thinking]

40 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

If a group of white people get together and celebrate their heritage, they may be called racists.

It depends entirely upon how they celebrate. For example, my paternal grandparents are from Sweden so I have a place in my heart for all things Swedish. It warms my soul when a Swedish athlete wins a medal at the Olympics. However, in celebrating my heritage I don't think that Swedes are somehow superior to others. It is the feeling of superiority that differentiates racists from non-racists.

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance

Edited August 14, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Dexter Eli]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

 

More than a decade ago, the late Church President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) addressed the topic of racism when speaking to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He powerfully and clearly taught this principle: "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 of Christ." For members of the Church, we reaffirm that teaching today and the Savior's admonition to love our neighbor.

 

So was Brigham Young a true disciple of Christ? 

[Thinking]

1 minute ago, Dexter Eli said:

So was Brigham Young a true disciple of Christ? 

Thread shutdown in 3...2...1...

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

So was Brigham Young a true disciple of Christ? 

This thread is definitely going places.

[Tacenda]

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ryanjent/twitter_is_identifying_white_supremacist_neo_nazi_marchers_and_you_can_help

I believe in free speech, and I believe we should expose the people who cause harm with their actions and words. 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ryanjent/twitter_is_identifying_white_supremacist_neo_nazi_marchers_and_you_can_help

I believe in free speech, and I believe we should expose the people who cause harm with their actions and words. 

why can't I ever rep you for your posts?!

[Tacenda]

Just now, Duncan said:

why can't I ever rep you for your posts?!

It's not you it's me, I'm on "limited". But it's probably a good thing, haha!! Thank you though.

[deli_llama]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

If a group of white people get together and celebrate their heritage, they may be called racists.  If a group of non-whites get together to celebrate, no connotations of racism is given.  This double standard I believe just makes some white people angry and encourages these groups. 

And @Thinking "However, in celebrating my heritage I don't think that Swedes are somehow superior to others. It is the feeling of superiority that differentiates racists from non-racists."

I have more than once attended a huge celebration of white heritage. All I heard over and over, and over again, was how much more awesome these people were compared to the rest of the world. They were mightier, better looking, braver, smarter (according to them they invented and saved the modern world), harder working, and stronger. They even tossed logs and threw hammers and huge stones to prove it. I have, however, never heard of anyone one calling anyone else a racist for attending the Highland Games. 

These folks weren't attending some highland games, the night before they lit torches and wallowed in hate. There are lots of ways we celebrate aspects of white culture that don't end up being seen as racist. Days of 47 (there is a chance I will take grief for that...), Oktoberfest, and Lutefisk Festivals. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by deli_llama
Because I can?