Church statement on Charlottesville, Virginia

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, bsjkki said:

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

I'm sorry you can't be a good LDS and be a member of the KKK, Nazis, or Alt-Right.

[provoman]

14 hours ago, cdowis said:

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

If a person protests at Temple Square saying all manner of indignity towards the LDS AND someone walks up and punches the speaker; who is at fault? The speaker for making offensive protected speech, or the person who opted for physical violence becauae she was offened by speech?

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours 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 supremacist from getting a temple recommend?

There may not be anything in the Temple Recommend questions themselves that would prevent a racist or a white supremacist from getting a Temple Recommend, but, clearly, the covenants made once in the Temple are incompatible with such views.

[provoman]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, she's an alt-right person saying all sorts of stuff. Her husband reportedly had been locked up in jail for drug dealing as well. Which makes it even weirder as she portrays her self as this ideal family.

where do I sign up to throw the first stone?

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'm sorry you can't be a good LDS and be a member of the KKK, Nazis, or Alt-Right.

Yes, I agree.  I find the white nationalist movement scary. The deluded, racist mommy blogger doesn't view herself as a white supremacist and thinks her views are not incompatible with the gospel. I listened to a call on local talk radio from a woman much like her. She felt there was nothing wrong with advocating for "white" culture but that the kkk was wrong and extreme. Scary stuff. 

Is this thinking a by product of identity politics?

[longview]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

That something like this would happen is disturbing, but we've seen the predictable trajectory, accelerating since November. The rise of the Alt Reich has been fast - may their downfall be much faster.

Yet you remain oblivious to (or are frantically soft pedaling) the excesses of Antifa that violently agitated against the right of conservatives to speak at Berkeley.  They were actually the ones that touched off the conflagration in Charlotte.  The neo-nazis and KKK?   They were not the original permit holders for a demonstration.  They camped on the libertarians' campaign for preserving historic sites.  But the libertarians had their permit revoked.   Trump was right in saying ALL sides were to be condemned.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, longview said:

Yet you remain oblivious to (or are frantically soft pedaling) the excesses of Antifa that violently agitated against the right of conservatives to speak at Berkeley.  They were actually the ones that touched off the conflagration in Charlotte.  The neo-nazis and KKK?   They were not the original permit holders for a demonstration.  They camped on the libertarians' campaign for preserving historic sites.  But the libertarians had their permit revoked.   Trump was right in saying ALL sides were to be condemned.

I'm not terribly surprised to see you defending the alt reich and trying to lay blame on other groups. But I am disappointed.

[oremites]

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

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

I assume that's a jab at President Trump, but since he did, in fact, tweet and condemn the violence, how exactly is that saying it "best".

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, longview said:

Yet you remain oblivious to (or are frantically soft pedaling) the excesses of Antifa that violently agitated against the right of conservatives to speak at Berkeley.  They were actually the ones that touched off the conflagration in Charlotte.  The neo-nazis and KKK?   They were not the original permit holders for a demonstration.  They camped on the libertarians' campaign for preserving historic sites.  But the libertarians had their permit revoked.   Trump was right in saying ALL sides were to be condemned.

Thank goodness most do not stand for the violence that occurred and anybody promoting it should be condemned.  And now let's turn back to blaming russia for clinton's inept campaign and how russia somehow caused clinton to conspire with the dnc to keep sanders from winning. 

[longview]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not terribly surprised to see you defending the alt reich and trying to lay blame on other groups. But I am disappointed.

I have identified myself as being a deeply principled conservative in previous threads.  What right do you have for slandering me as being a nazi?  I abhor racial supremacist of any stripe.  That includes Louis Farrakhan and his "Nation of Islam" racist organization.

[Kenngo1969]

27 minutes ago, provoman said:

If a person protests at Temple Square saying all manner of indignity towards the LDS AND someone walks up and punches the speaker; who is at fault? The speaker for making offensive protected speech, or the person who opted for physical violence becauae she was offened by speech?

The "Fighting Words" Doctrine announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), has become something of a "dead letter" in the law, as, recently, it has rarely been invoked, and a court probably would be unlikely to enforce it if it were.  Still, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been overturned. However, broadly and generally speaking, if a speaker uses words which would be likely to provoke a reasonable person in the hearer's class or situation to violence (calling a black person the N-word, for example), per Chaplinsky, such "fighting words" are not protected speech.  Would a court find that Chaplinksy applies to a violent reaction by a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose adherents are taught to "turn the other cheek"?  That's certainly debatable.  However, the disuse of the "Fighting Words" Doctrine notwithstanding, the Doctrine remains on the books.

For what it's worth. 

P.S.:  Oops.  I forgot to issue my usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.  I just "play" one here at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board.   Individual fact situations vary, and the foregoing analysis may or may not apply to a particular set of actual facts.  Furthermore, that analysis should not be considered legal advice.  Anyone with questions about his rights under the "Fighting Words" Doctrine or about any other aspect of law should contact an attorney who is licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the matter arose.  Thank you.  

Edited August 14, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[oremites]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Unsurprisingly our President still refuses to condemn his racist base and instead tweeted out some false equivalency trash about all sides needing to behave as if all sides are equally culpable.

Since most the problems and violence were caused by the leftist counter-protestors, how was that "false equivalency". 

President Trump's base is not racist.  Condemning an entire group based on the excesses and views of the fringe element is nothing but bigotry.

This Charlottesville protest was not a pro-Trump rally.  There have been several pro-Trump rallies since his election.  Can you point to any violence or racism associated with any of those?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Unsurprisingly our President still refuses to condemn his racist base and instead tweeted out some false equivalency trash about all sides needing to behave as if all sides are equally culpable.

It looks like Trump finally caved to the pressure:

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45409677&nid=157&title=trump-speaks-on-charlottesville-racism-is-evil

[bsjkki]

Nice video explaining how "thought germs" spread and purposely divide people. As members of the church, we should not allow ourselves to become manipulated by purposeful divisive rhetoric. Conservatives and liberals condemn racism, the kkk and white supremacists and should condemn violent anarchists like antifa too. Violent protests should all be condemned. 

 

[longview]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

It looks like Trump finally caved to the pressure:

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45409677&nid=157&title=trump-speaks-on-charlottesville-racism-is-evil

Don't see any caving on his part.  Simply the usual narrative of the non-objective partisan press to constantly demonize conservative leaders.  Statements below were (are) sufficient and still applicable:

"We will not allow these extremist groups to obtain credibility," Sessions told "CBS This Morning."

In the hours after the incident on Saturday, Trump addressed the violence in broad strokes, saying that he condemns "in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides."

[provoman]

22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The "Fighting Words" Doctrine announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), has become something of a "dead letter" in the law, as, recently, it has rarely been invoked, and a court probably would be unlikely to enforce it if it were.  Still, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been overturned. However, broadly and generally speaking, if a speaker uses words which would be likely to provoke a reasonable person in the hearer's class or situation to violence (calling a black person the N-word, for example), per Chaplinsky, such "fighting words" are not protected speech.  Would a court find that Chaplinksy applies to a violent reaction by a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose adherents are taught to "turn the other cheek"?  That's certainly debatable.  However, the disuse of the "Fighting Words" Doctrine notwithstanding, the Doctrine remains on the books.

For what it's worth. 

P.S.:  Oops.  I forgot to issue my usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.  I just "play" one here at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board.   Individual fact situations vary, and the foregoing analysis may or may not apply to a particular set of actual facts.  Furthermore, that analysis should not be considered legal advice.  Anyone with questions about his rights under the "Fighting Words" Doctrine or about any other aspect of law should contact an attorney who is licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the matter arose.  Thank you.  

 

We are respinsible for our own actions, snowflake or not.

[clarkgoble]

49 minutes ago, longview said:

Yet you remain oblivious to (or are frantically soft pedaling) the excesses of Antifa that violently agitated against the right of conservatives to speak at Berkeley.  They were actually the ones that touched off the conflagration in Charlotte.  The neo-nazis and KKK?   They were not the original permit holders for a demonstration.  They camped on the libertarians' campaign for preserving historic sites.  But the libertarians had their permit revoked.   Trump was right in saying ALL sides were to be condemned.

The guy who drove his car over people was alt-right. Let's call a spade a spade here. I'm all about stopping antifa as well. But they aren't the main threat nor the people engaging in terrorist action. Remember what we called that when it happened in France?

The reason this is an issue and wouldn't have been an issue had we'd had almost anyone else as President, is because Trump has surrounded himself with people sympathetic to the alt-right. Bannon provided a place for them to get attention with his takeover at Breitbart. Trump has consistently raged at everyone except the alt-right. He'll only engage them in vague ways. That makes the threat and concern with these alt-right figures greater. Had Trump acted Presidential and called out clearly by name these people the way a Reagan would have then there'd be no issue and we could focus on Antifa and related groups. Again, as with so much, this is a problem of Trump's own creation.

Edited August 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, longview said:

Don't see any caving on his part.  Simply the usual narrative of the non-objective partisan press to constantly demonize conservative leaders.  Statements below were (are) sufficient and still applicable:

"We will not allow these extremist groups to obtain credibility," Sessions told "CBS This Morning."

In the hours after the incident on Saturday, Trump addressed the violence in broad strokes, saying that he condemns "in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides."

KSL demonizes conservative leaders?

If those statements were "sufficient", then why would Trump come out with this new statement?  Clearly people were not happy with Trumps original statement, from both the right and the left.  Trump clearly caved to pressure to specifically call out those groups.

Edited August 14, 2017 by pogi

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm actually surprised that the church PR Newsroom chose to use these words...an easy google search will produce a long list of past LDS General Authorities who under this standard would NOT be considered disciple's of Christ.

While I applaud the church for making this statement, until they publically apologize for their past racist history and the racist comments of their past leaders...comments like this one just released seem disingenuous to say the least.

I'm well aware of "the usual suspects" (statements from past Church leaders) normally brought up in this regard. A couple of thoughts on what you wrote:

1) While these statements clearly subscribe to line of Cain/Ham thinking, biblical curses on wayward Israel, etc. --- I think a key word is "disparaging." Can anyone demonstrate that these past statements "disparaged" people because of race? I know for modern progressives, the mere existence of a ban (or belief that a ban was God's will) is by definition "disparaging," but this doesn't work for me. The brethren, on balance, also went out of their way to point out the good despite justifying the ban on religious grounds. Even the Book of Abraham describes Pharaoh as "being a righteous man" who "judged his people wisely and justly all his days" who "[sought] earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers," and being blessed "with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom," even while being "cursed . . . as pertaining to the Priesthood." Statements from the Brethren explaining or justifying the ban are exactly like this, in my experience.

I see no disparaging of people or races.

2) What, exactly, would apologizing for "past racist history and racist comments" accomplish? Would it "exonerate" the Brethren one iota in critics' eyes? Would they then acknowledge that prophets are people of their times, and that this plays at least some role --- even if there really are prophets and God really exists?

I am very skeptical that internal and external critics would ever put down this favorite stick for beating past prophets. If anything, they would press their perceived advantage and try to further erode belief in them with this concession. 

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, longview said:

Don't see any caving on his part.  Simply the usual narrative of the non-objective partisan press to constantly demonize conservative leaders.  Statements below were (are) sufficient and still applicable:

"We will not allow these extremist groups to obtain credibility," Sessions told "CBS This Morning."

In the hours after the incident on Saturday, Trump addressed the violence in broad strokes, saying that he condemns "in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides."

The problem is that you have to judge the nature of the rhetoric relative to things that clearly do get him upset. To quote David French (a conservative) "Trump is very, very specific when he wants to condemn someone - ask the Khans, Judge Curiel, Comey, his AG - his vagueness has a purpose." Had he said what he said today on Saturday there would have been far less controversy. The fact he waited days and appears to have said these things only when forced really speaks loudly.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Of course. Every generation has to blame some other generation for their own failings. It is only human nature. But I wish they would wait until we be gone as we are getting too long in the tooth and feeble minded to really defend ourselves.

Glenn

So agree...I read a fiction novel once that was all about killing us off because they couldn't afford our social security..??!!

[rongo]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

If a person protests at Temple Square saying all manner of indignity towards the LDS AND someone walks up and punches the speaker; who is at fault? The speaker for making offensive protected speech, or the person who opted for physical violence becauae she was offened by speech?

I am offended by you assuming that the person throwing the punch is female . . .

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

There may not be anything in the Temple Recommend questions themselves that would prevent a racist or a white supremacist from getting a Temple Recommend, but, clearly, the covenants made once in the Temple are incompatible with such views.

The questions can be modified. If this is an issue in the Church (and that mommy blogger notwithstanding I'm not convinced it's a major problem) then they'll probably do that.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

If a person protests at Temple Square saying all manner of indignity towards the LDS AND someone walks up and punches the speaker; who is at fault? The speaker for making offensive protected speech, or the person who opted for physical violence becauae she was offened by speech?

The US Constitution gives us the right to be a jerk. It doesn't require it.

[Gray]

51 minutes ago, longview said:

I have identified myself as being a deeply principled conservative in previous threads.  What right do you have for slandering me as being a nazi?  I abhor racial supremacist of any stripe.  That includes Louis Farrakhan and his "Nation of Islam" racist organization.

If you abhor them, why defend them? Why the whataboutism and deflection of criticism away from this Nazi group? The alt right murdered a young woman, and you only condemn Antifa.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Gray