Church statement on Charlottesville, Virginia

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

I can see that you are deeply upset about this in the wake of a long string of violent incidents in recent and past history, else you would never have referred to anyone as an "orange american." I mostly agree with the sentiments of your post. But we really all need to tone down the rhetoric, stop throwing labels at each other.Liberal, conservative, alt-left, alt-right have become pejorative terms. Social media has become a seething mass of hateful speech with so many intolerant of anything that does not conform to their own ideas.   I wish I could provide a concrete suggestion as to how to change the rhetoric nationally. I don't but I can start with myself.

Glenn

Upset is too generic a term. It's closer to deeply disturbed and disgusted by this... as well as a little frightened. There is definitely anger mixed in that slew. I don't think toning down the rhetoric is the best idea. To some extent sure....on using conservative and liberal as disqualifiers to opinions and potentially reasonable perspectives, albeit differing, I whole heartedly agree that that's not fair or accurate. But there is a point where extremist groups need to be labelled...and that label should have a negative connotation. I think some of the problem with not doing so is that it can foster normalization of terrible behaviors and situations. It creates a false equity in positions without that equity actually existing. Or enabling the belief and behaviors. Some of the reactions that were hesitant or flat-out refused to call out the White Nationalists for inciting violence and terrorism this weekend are the reasons why people like Ayla can sit on her twisted high horse and proclaim they're "just" about "protecting" their heritage. Or whatever other BS they're peddling.  It makes the actions disconnected from any group and expunges culpability for fostering hatred. 

This is not "normal" it's not like any other riot or protest violence. Bringing it back to the articles quoted, I believe Peterson's statement about Lee ignores the reality of what the Lee statues (and other confederate statues) represent, the still racially stratified power in the south, the decades long fights by white to maintain black oppression, the reasons for the confederate war, and the current set of people coming in defense of the statue not. They're largely not there for historical concerns and creating complex dialogue.  

Not labeling the behavior makes these events surprising as opposed to an offshoot of a pattern and growing problem.

I can't say much for social media.....I participate so little in it.

 

With luv,

BD 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

where do I sign up to throw the first stone?

LOL. One can condemn action and see promoting such views in the press as deeply problematic for the church without one being a hypocrite of the sort you suggest. In the same way I found Denver Snuffer pushing his particular form of Mormonism pretty problematic well before the excommunication. I also think that applies to people like Tom Phillips although in that case there must be some benefit to avoiding the excommunication since he's clearly demonstrated he's not Mormon. With this racist mommy blogger it's different because so many non-Mormons think she represents Mormonism. At a minimum her Stake President should be contacting her and telling her to stop it. If she doesn't then I think the Church has a duty to show she's not Mormon.

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

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

As a general principle, I agree with you.  As someone who was a target of verbal abuse (and sometimes worse) as a young person due to a disability, I had to develop a thick skin and realize the truth about the old saying regarding sticks and stones, on the one hand, and mere words, on the other, real quick.  Still, I would be interested to see how a modern invocation of the "Fighting Words" Doctrine as a defense, and more particularly, how such an invocation by a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, would play out.

[BlueDreams]

5 hours 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

Took him long enough. It still pisses me off that it took public pressure for him to make a clear condemnation of racism and bigoted violence. I'm still frustrated that this is not being labelled as a form of domestic terrorism.  <--misread

With luv,

BD

Edited August 14, 2017 by BlueDreams

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I know the sensitive folks are upset at this type of reasoning but I think it's a fair question.  We give those of the past a pass because they were influenced by the larger culture, I suppose.  But if someone is a man of God, you would think God would correct their egregious errors--that's why we don't call murderers and rapists men of God, or we should not.  Else we could say no one is a man of God, because if we all lived in the world of privilege quite like BY we might also have felt similarly regarding race.  We simply couldn't see well enough, perhaps.  Maybe that also means we're doing what BY today in other ways--we're simply unable to see clear enough.  Either that, or BY's views on race were despicable and he should be held accountable for his failure to lift up people trying to keep others down. 

I think we need to avoid presentism. Brigham Young was a complex figure with many negative qualities. Yet he also arguably successfully led the Church through trying times when perhaps a person with those broad characteristics was necessary. I'm not sure most people could have done the job at that time - so in many ways I'm more willing to excuse some of his weaknesses. However Brigham Young simply wasn't a Robert E. Lee. When someone had the audacity to pay tithing with a slave he freed the slave and refused to give him back. Yes he was a racist, but then so was the great freer of the slaves Abraham Lincoln. I honestly don't see much in Brigham that's much worse than Lincoln. Might I have wished Lincoln to have been more egalitarian on races? Sure. Could Lincoln likely have become President were he such a man? Almost certainly not. So there's a lot of complexity going on here.

Do I wish Brigham had been more egalitarian towards the blacks? Even if he believed the priesthood ban was of God he could have been far, far more accommodating of other races. He could have done more missionary work to blacks and made things equal in practical affairs. That he didn't is a great failure he'll have to give reckoning to with God. However again, who were the members of the 12 at the time of Joseph's death who would have done better? That's the point I think we forget.

Edited August 15, 2017 by clarkgoble
Fixed typo that could definitely be misconstrued

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Took him long enough. It still pisses me off that it took public pressure for him to make a clear condemnation of racism and bigoted violence. I'm still frustrated that this is not being labelled as a form of domestic terrorism. 

With luv,

BD

It is being labeled domestic terrorism. http://nypost.com/2017/08/14/sessions-virginia-attack-the-definition-of-domestic-terrorism/

[thesometimesaint]

Here are just some of the Alt-Right leaders at Charlotteville.

SEE http://www.newsweek.com/alt-right-leaders-are-addressing-largest-white-nationalist-rally-decades-650096

[BlueDreams]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It is being labeled domestic terrorism. http://nypost.com/2017/08/14/sessions-virginia-attack-the-definition-of-domestic-terrorism/

Thanks, I misread the KSL article on that point. 

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

This is not "normal" it's not like any other riot or protest violence. Bringing it back to the articles quoted, I believe Peterson's statement about Lee ignores the reality of what the Lee statues (and other confederate statues) represent, the still racially stratified power in the south, the decades long fights by white to maintain black oppression, the reasons for the confederate war, and the current set of people coming in defense of the statue not. They're largely not there for historical concerns and creating complex dialogue.  

There were warnings well before the rise of Trump that we were heading into a period of social upheaval akin to the late 60's. Peter Turchin has written a lot on this predicting 2020 as a huge period of stress primarily due to inter-elite competition. These other manifestations are likely due to those deeper and more "hidden" problems. It's not really hidden when you look at the numbers of people who fit the elite criteria in terms of education and wealth but with little way to exercise the power they think they are due. Other societal inequities play into this. There's less cooperation in many ways as well. Social capital is declining. Social norms are being attacked - which isn't always bad but likely parallels the late 60's.

The problem is we've become complacent. People forget the amount of violence from 1965 - 1975 in the United States. High levels of terrorism and violence were taken for granted. While in this case I think taking the focus off the white supremacists is mistaken for the events of the weekend, the reality is that to focus just on them is to miss the very broad widespread tensions in the country. The groups that will first turn to violence will be the extremes. And that violence will likely cascade. In particular the alt-right and alt-left will start fighting with each other and may well turn into more generalized terrorism much as many protestors in the 60's did.

To your other part, while I get where Dan was coming from with what he said about leaders in the south I fundamentally disagree. Particularly with regards to Lee whom I see as a monster.  Yes we have to avoid presentism. But at the same time the next 50 years in the south did not exactly demonstrate them as great. Far from it. One might well say that the next nearly 100 years were more a low level insurgency akin to what we see in Afghanistan. The KKK were portrayed as heroes by the south and have a direct line to Confederate leaders who refused to accept American legitimacy. The level of violence in the south continued (ultimately hurting the south - they never really recovered economically) and had more in common with Al Queda in Iraq or ISIS than anything else.

Edited August 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Took him long enough. It still pisses me off that it took public pressure for him to make a clear condemnation of racism and bigoted violence. I'm still frustrated that this is not being labelled as a form of domestic terrorism. 

With luv,

BD

I agree, but I think they actually have labeled the car incident domestic terrorism.

edit: looks like bsjkki has already addressed that.

Edited August 14, 2017 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Why all the secrecy about who that historical monument is to? You do know who that historical monument is to don't you? It is Robert E. Lee, a slave owning, traitor to the US, General who lead an armed Army(CSA) of like minded bigots against their own country.

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Took him long enough. It still pisses me off that it took public pressure for him to make a clear condemnation of racism and bigoted violence. I'm still frustrated that this is not being labelled as a form of domestic terrorism. 

With luv,

BD

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Trump's father was apparently a white supremacist. He seems to hire enough of them as well.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think we need to avoid presentism. Brigham Young was a complex figure with many negative qualities. Yet he also arguably successfully led the Church through trying times when perhaps a person with those broad characteristics was necessary. I'm not sure most people could have done the job at that time - so in many ways I'm more willing to excuse some of his weaknesses.

We have to have room to address issues and not sweep anything and everything under the rug of presentism, I'd say.  But your giving a pass to what Hinckley described as being a view not acceptable of a man of God because he was good at managing things in interesting.  I think we all do that, and that's why they say, CEOs tend to have a higher rate of psychopathic tendencies than others.  Or so they say.  When Hinckley gave his unbendable opinion about men of God I do not know that presentism leaked into his thoughts, but likely they did, since it's likely he too gave BY a pass. 

"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"

Couched under the concept of presentism, we must ask, what else then must we be like BY regarding race?  If we can't condemn him for thinking I he did because of his culture made him, then what has our culture made us do that is so despicable in the future we ought not be considered a true disciple of Christ?

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

However Brigham Young simply wasn't a Robert E. Lee. When someone had the audacity to pay tithing with a slave he freed the slave and refused to give it back. Yes he was a racist, but then so was the great freer of the slaves Abraham Lincoln. I honestly don't see much in Brigham that's much worse than Lincoln. Might I have wished Lincoln to have been more egalitarian on races? Sure. Could Lincoln likely have become President were he such a man? Almost certainly not. So there's a lot of complexity going on here.

Sure.  there's complexity, but I don't see excusing such based on complexity as helpful. 

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Do I wish Brigham had been more egalitarian towards the blacks? Even if he believed the priesthood ban was of God he could have been far, far more accommodating of other races. He could have done more missionary work to blacks and made things equal in practical affairs. That he didn't is a great failure he'll have to give reckoning to with God. However again, who were the members of the 12 at the time of Joseph's death who would have done better? That's the point I think we forget.

Well we'll never know, of course.  We give credence to Brigham because in isolation, fomenting anger to the outside, in many cases, he did a good job in keeping it together.  But who knows?  Any other leader might have done better.  We'd never know.  But, again, it makes ya wonder, does accomplishing something mean all sins shall not be discussed?  Shall we hide behind the tag of presentism because, afterall, it was likely most white americans were racism offering all sorts of ugly comments in his day?  If so, then treating history as a lesson for us, we may need to confront the evil that we gladly accept within the Church.  That which we simply aren't willing to see. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour 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

Too little, too late.

[longview]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The guy who drove his car over people was alt-right. Let's call a spade a spade here.

We know VERY little about the driver.  One source said he is a registered Republican.   Whoopee do!   If he really was a racist extremist, would he have not plowed into demonstrators and reaping a much higher death toll?   It looks suspiciously like absent minded driving resulting in a rear-ender.

45 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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?

You are not being clear here.  Terrorists are NOT the main problem?

48 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

- - - 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. - - -

You have fallen victim to the partisan press disinformation campaign.  Bannon is NOT alt-right.  See http://www.richmond.com/news/local/government-politics/article_0f87d838-4aaa-5e4f-b717-6a342a00b89c.html?mode=jqm

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We have to have room to address issues and not sweep anything and everything under the rug of presentism, I'd say.  But your giving a pass to what Hinckley described as being a view not acceptable of a man of God because he was good at managing things in interesting.  I think we all do that, and that's why they say, CEOs tend to have a higher rate of psychopathic tendencies than others.  Or so they say.  When Hinckley gave his unbendable opinion about men of God I do not know that presentism leaked into his thoughts, but likely they did, since it's likely he too gave BY a pass. 

I don't think that's quite what I said. We're talking about keeping the Church together after an assassination when there was huge upheaval with a group that had suffered extreme persecution. This entailed moving huge numbers of poor people across the plains and building a community in a frankly inhospitable environment. (I can't imagine trying to live in Utah in the conditions they were in) Then in less than a year more or less facing the threat of even greater persecution and potential destruction by the US military. No offense, but that's a bit different than running GE.

Again, which of the people available in Nauvoo after Joseph's death could have done that? We joke about Rumsefeld's quip before the Iraq war about the army we have not the army we want. Yet I think God is in a similar position. He has to deal with the leaders he has not the people he might want the way he might ideally want them. Or to modify J. Golden Kimball a bit, there are three "sions" in the Church: inspiration, revelation and desperation.

It's easy to criticize in terms of the best of all possible worlds. It's quite an other to figure out how to get the best one can with the tools at hand. (Something I think anyone in leadership quickly realizes)

Quote

Couched under the concept of presentism, we must ask, what else then must we be like BY regarding race?  If we can't condemn him for thinking I he did because of his culture made him, then what has our culture made us do that is so despicable in the future we ought not be considered a true disciple of Christ

Yup, in that sense he wasn't a true disciple of Christ. He was flawed. Joseph Smith too. Me also although for quite different reasons.

Fortunately God doesn't demand we be perfect here and now. He demand we put our lives in his hands, open ourselves up to the spirit as best we can and let him transform us. I do think Brigham did that. Further I don't think I'd have done nearly as good of a job of being a disciple of Christ were I put in his shoes. While I recognize his weaknesses, I also recognize my own shortcomings.

Quote

Sure.  there's complexity, but I don't see excusing such based on complexity as helpful. 

I disagree. I don't think you can separate the person from the circumstance.

Let's put it an other way. Was Brigham much worse than Peter?

 

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, longview said:

We know VERY little about the driver.  One source said he is a registered Republican.   Whoopee do!   If he really was a racist extremist, would he have not plowed into demonstrators and reaping a much higher death toll?   It looks suspiciously like absent minded driving resulting in a rear-ender.

Quote

 

Fields was fascinated with Nazism, idolized Adolf Hitler, and had been singled out by school officials in the 9th grade for his "deeply held, radical" convictions on race, a former high school teacher said Sunday. He also confided that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was younger and had been prescribed an anti-psychotic medication, Derek Weimer said in an interview with The Associated Press.

In high school, Fields was an "average" student, but with a keen interest in military history, Hitler, and Nazi Germany, said Weimer, who said he was Fields' social studies teacher at Randall K. Cooper high school in Union, Kentucky, in Fields' junior and senior years.

"Once you talked to James for a while, you would start to see that sympathy towards Nazism, that idolization of Hitler, that belief in white supremacy," Weimer said. "It would start to creep out."

 

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45411094&nid=157&title=man-accused-of-car-ramming-in-charlottesville-remains-jailed

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, longview said:

We know VERY little about the driver.  One source said he is a registered Republican.   Whoopee do!   If he really was a racist extremist, would he have not plowed into demonstrators and reaping a much higher death toll?   It looks suspiciously like absent minded driving resulting in a rear-ender.

You're joking, right? Did that video look like absent minded driving? He had symbols of Vanguard America. 

Quote

You have fallen victim to the partisan press disinformation campaign.  Bannon is NOT alt-right.  See http://www.richmond.com/news/local/government-politics/article_0f87d838-4aaa-5e4f-b717-6a342a00b89c.html?mode=jqm

Note what I said. "Bannon provided a place for them to get attention with his takeover at Breitbart." That seems undeniable. I did not say Bannon himself was alt-right. Bannon himself said Breitbart was "the platform for the alt-right" during an interview at the RNC last July.

Quote

You are not being clear here.  Terrorists are NOT the main problem?

This was terrorism. The government is calling it terrorism. I'm simply pointing out that when a similar act happened in France last summer we quickly called it terrorism. For some reason Trump didn't treat Saturday's events in the same way.

Edited August 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, oremites said:

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?

No, most of the problems were not caused by the counter protestors.

Not all of Trump's supporters are racist but he does cater to them. His stupid wall. His word choice maintains deniability while signaling racism. He tweets about foreign Muslim attacks but stays silent on a domestic attack on a mosque.

Trump's supporters are not all racist but they are supporting a racist. You cannot defend this stuff as fringe when the leader of the movement is part of said fringe. In normal politics if a white supremacist or a KKK member or a Muslim terrorist or a domestic terrorist or whatever were to endorse a candidate the candidate would quickly denounce the endorsement and condemn the group. Trump kept silent and pretended he had never heard of the KKK guy who endorsed him. Unfortunately he did know who the guy was and he was just playing stupid.

Trump appeals to the darker side of human nature. He does not urge people to aspire; he urges them to indulge in hatred. He never outright says it but he plays to the basest elements of humanity. He downplays decency and civility, encourages enmity, stirs up hatred and anger, and is just a vile human being. If he were not so fundamentally dumb and lazy he would have made a decent devil.

[longview]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.

You know better.  KSL was quoting CBS.  What is to stop Trump from making a second statement that would reinforce his very appropriate original statement?  And Antifa and BLM still need to be condemned also.  ALL sides are to be condemned.

[longview]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Ridiculous.  Sounds like mind-reading.  And hyperventilating.

[thesometimesaint]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We have to have room to address issues and not sweep anything and everything under the rug of presentism, I'd say.  But your giving a pass to what Hinckley described as being a view not acceptable of a man of God because he was good at managing things in interesting.  I think we all do that, and that's why they say, CEOs tend to have a higher rate of psychopathic tendencies than others.  Or so they say.  When Hinckley gave his unbendable opinion about men of God I do not know that presentism leaked into his thoughts, but likely they did, since it's likely he too gave BY a pass. 

"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"

Couched under the concept of presentism, we must ask, what else then must we be like BY regarding race?  If we can't condemn him for thinking I he did because of his culture made him, then what has our culture made us do that is so despicable in the future we ought not be considered a true disciple of Christ?

Sure.  there's complexity, but I don't see excusing such based on complexity as helpful. 

Well we'll never know, of course.  We give credence to Brigham because in isolation, fomenting anger to the outside, in many cases, he did a good job in keeping it together.  But who knows?  Any other leader might have done better.  We'd never know.  But, again, it makes ya wonder, does accomplishing something mean all sins shall not be discussed?  Shall we hide behind the tag of presentism because, afterall, it was likely most white americans were racism offering all sorts of ugly comments in his day?  If so, then treating history as a lesson for us, we may need to confront the evil that we gladly accept within the Church.  That which we simply aren't willing to see. 

God works with us very fallible mortals. Brigham Young for all his faults stayed with the Union,and keep the Church together. Something I don't believe JS could have done in the trek west. So he has some leeway especially when compared with Robert E. Lee. OTOH That was over 100 years ago. There is no such leeway now. None of us can go back and change the past. But we can learn from it so as to not repeat its tragedies. .

Edited August 14, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

Ridiculous.  Sounds like mind-reading.  And hyperventilating.

It's not mind reading to note that the statement on Saturday was quite unlike most statements he makes about other types of violence. Are you honestly saying there was no difference? 

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, longview said:

You know better.  KSL was quoting CBS.  

They were quoting Washington (AP), and I think you know that a news organization wouldn't quote and report news that they disagreed with. 

[longview]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

 

Fields was fascinated with Nazism, idolized Adolf Hitler, and had been singled out by school officials in the 9th grade for his "deeply held, radical" convictions on race, a former high school teacher said Sunday. He also confided that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was younger and had been prescribed an anti-psychotic medication, Derek Weimer said in an interview with The Associated Press.

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45411094&nid=157&title=man-accused-of-car-ramming-in-charlottesville-remains-jailed

So he is schizophrenic?  Makes him less of a credible presence in any political movement, left or right.  Just like James Hodgkinson, 66, of Belleville, Illinois (emotional hard core Democrat shooter at the DC baseball practice) and Dylann Roof (wannabe Columbine type shooter).