Church statement on Charlottesville, Virginia

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not condoning racism or the racist views of any particular person (e.g., General Robert E. Lee or President Abraham Lincoln), or the racism and other race-based problems that occurred in the Southern United States following the Civil War in any way.  However, I do wonder how Reconstruction would have proceeded under President Lincoln: "With malice toward none, with charity for all ..." (see President Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address).  Were certain aspects of Reconstruction more punitive than they might have been otherwise?  I wonder.  

[Dexter Eli]

4 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. 

And it's not just Brigham Young. There are plenty of church leaders from much more recent times who were also extremely racist. I could list them.

It is extremely rich for the Church to criticize anyone for racism. It should not have issued a statement unless it was to apologize for its racist past. Or it should have issued a statement that makes sense, in light of its history. Please, allow me:

SINCE 1978, NO MAN WHO MAKES DISPARAGING REMARKS CONCERNING THOSE OF ANOTHER RACE CAN CONSIDER HIMSELF A TRUE DISCIPLE OF CHRIST.

FIXED!

 

 

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, longview said:

Ridiculous.  Sounds like mind-reading.  And hyperventilating.

Trump uses explosive rage against those who personally offend or fight him. He calls their father a murderer or threatens them with non-existent recordings or threatens to destroy them politically. Then he gives half-hearted chides against hate groups but only when prompted by a bipartisan effort. And reading anything into that is mind reading? How can you say that with a straight face?

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

That's fine.  What more can we say?  You like his accomplishments.  I will add, without his accomplishments Mormonism would either be gone or quite different.  But that might be a good thing.  We'd never know. 

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, which of the people available in Nauvoo after Joseph's death could have done that?

This is really beside the point.  But I'd say, we'd never know because none others were given the chance.  Perhaps any one person could have done a stellar job, leading the whole ordeal.  Perhaps someone else could have saved more people, or someone else could have staved off US military action or the fed government's concerns.  Someone else might have denounced any notion of racism at all, set up a kingdom embracing other races in the Rockies and we'd be much more diverse and much further along.  Perhaps we'd have seen no MMM or other disgusting events.  We'd never know, of course.  And to me, that is all beside the point.  Yes, BY accomplished.  Does that excuse evil teaching?  I think you say it does.  I'm not so sure. 

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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)

Alright.  Your guessing at the notion that it worked out because only BY could have done it, is fine enough.  I mean I don't know how we'd ever know, but have fun with that. 

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Thanks.  So it sounds like God must wink at any perceived evil we might pick up because, well, at least we're trying. 
The problem is of course, how far can we take this? 

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

You might have done much better.  It's easy to be a Monday QB modest mouse now. 

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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?

 

I'm not judging the men.  I'm judging BY's comments on race and Hinckley's absolute statement regarding racist statements.  If both BY and Peter are saved.  I don't know that it's their righteousness that did it for them, nor their accomplishments.  But if you think so, so be it. 

[longview]

22 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

As is typically the case with the partisan press, they called it terrorism but were VERY slow in acknowledging the background of the perpetrators.  In this one, the shooter shouted "Allahu Akbar" and had already left manifestos on various media declaring his actions to be an Islamic "martyrdom operation."

Trump condemned ALL sides but the partisan press immediately jumped down his throat for NOT specifying each and every perp.  For not directly mentioning the KKK and other extremists was SO SO SO politically UNcorrect.

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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. .

How do know we have no leeway now?

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not condoning racism or the racist views of any particular person (e.g., General Robert E. Lee or President Abraham Lincoln), or the racism and other race-based problems that occurred in the Southern United States following the Civil War in any way.  However, I do wonder how Reconstruction would have proceeded under President Lincoln: "With malice toward none, with charity for all ..." (see President Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address).  Were certain aspects of Reconstruction more punitive than they might have been otherwise?  I wonder.  

I would argue it was not punitive enough. After the Second World War there was a big movement to deNazify the nation. The South needed to be further broken instead of kicking the Civil Rights can further down the road and allowing de facto slavery and other racial abuses to thrive in the interest of immediate peace.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

And it's not just Brigham Young. There are plenty of church leaders from much more recent times who were also extremely racist. I could list them.

It is extremely rich for the Church to criticize anyone for racism. It should not have issued a statement unless it was to apologize for its racist past. Or it should have issued a statement that makes sense, in light of its history. Please, allow me:

SINCE 1978, NO MAN WHO MAKES DISPARAGING REMARKS CONCERNING THOSE OF ANOTHER RACE CAN CONSIDER HIMSELF A TRUE DISCIPLE OF CHRIST.

FIXED!

That doesn't fix it, and is a stretch to propose it. Joseph Smith allowed blacks to hold the Priesthood, and attend the Temple.

SEE http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blacks

[longview]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

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

KSL is a business.  As you know, there are plenty of liberals in the SLC metropolitan area.  It would not want to alienate too many of those people.  AND it is reasonable for it to try to be more inclusive of different perspectives.  (Does "Fair and Balanced" ring a bell for you?)

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

As is typically the case with the partisan press, they called it terrorism but were VERY slow in acknowledging the background of the perpetrators.  In this one, the shooter shouted "Allahu Akbar" and had already left manifestos on various media declaring his actions to be an Islamic "martyrdom operation."

Trump condemned ALL sides but the partisan press immediately jumped down his throat for NOT specifying each and every perp.  For not directly mentioning the KKK and other extremists was SO SO SO politically UNcorrect.

Would the others have even been there if the KKK and others of their foul ilk were not marching around symbolizing racist hate? They aimed to provoke and I do not blame the counter protesters for showing up. Allowing this racist scum to parade around without at least symbolic opposition would be to allow them a symbolic victory towards normalcy.

Good news though. Social media is hard at work identifying attendees and people are already losing their jobs after being identified. Turns out Twitter can be a voice for good.

 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Would the others have even been there if the KKK and others of their foul ilk were not marching around symbolizing racist hate? They aimed to provoke and I do not blame the counter protesters for showing up. Allowing this racist scum to parade around without at least symbolic opposition would be to allow them a symbolic victory towards normalcy.

Good news though. Social media is hard at work identifying attendees and people are already losing their jobs after being identified. Turns out Twitter can be a voice for good.

 

Interesting sounding development.  It'll probably only empower though, as they use this type of stuff to say they are being persecuted and are being stripped of 1st Am rights.  Might only get uglier.

[Dexter Eli]

9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That doesn't fix it, and is a stretch to propose it. Joseph Smith allowed blacks to hold the Priesthood, and attend the Temple.

SEE http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blacks

So JS not being a racist excuses all the racism that came after him? I am well aware of JS allowing blacks to hold the priesthood. What does that have to do with the racism that followed? If anything, that makes the racism of the church post JS WORSE because subsequent leaders deviated from precedent established by JS. 

[oremites]

If you don't mind a bit of friendly advice, Nehor, I'd like to dispense some.  As always, you are free to ignore and disagree with everything I say.

I like you, Nehor, and I think your posts show a lot of humor and intelligence.  When it comes to politics, however, you really need to step out of your bubble.  I'm not saying your politics are wrong, I'm just saying to actually learn about the other side of things with an open mind.  I grew up in an environment where the prevailing opinion was that you couldn't be a good Mormon and a Democrat.  I admit I absorbed a lot of that before getting out into the world and learning that good people can have different opinions.

Americans are by and large good people.  Do you really think that Donald Trump could have been elected by urging them to indulge in hatred?  The monster you describe would never even have come close to winning the election.  I'm not asking you to agree with Trump or his policies, but you really should try to understand why the average American voted him into office and why they still continue to support him.

[longview]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Trump uses explosive rage against those who personally offend or fight him.

Never seen that happen.  Don't even remember ANY kind of raging.  He knows the "Art of the Deal" and the best way to do that is to maintain self discipline which he has plenty of.  One of the most dramatic moment I recall was when Trump refused to allow Jim Acosta of CNN to ask a question.  Trump called him "fake news" and gave other reporters their chance to ask questions.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Interesting sounding development.  It'll probably only empower though, as they use this type of stuff to say they are being persecuted and are being stripped of 1st Am rights.  Might only get uglier.

Employment is not a first amendment right. Employee's political views are not protected (in most jurisdictions and definitely not at the federal level) from blowback from employers. The First Amendment protects from government persecution and sanction only.

I suppose White Supremacists could try to become a protected class. It would be funny to watch them try.

[longview]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Allowing this racist scum to parade around without at least symbolic opposition would be to allow them a symbolic victory towards normalcy.

Good news though. Social media is hard at work identifying attendees and people are already losing their jobs after being identified. Turns out Twitter can be a voice for good.

Oh really?  You would give license to Antifa and BLM to commit violence and taking the law into their own hands?

[provoman]

1 hour 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

Why is Trump's first statement unacceptable? Do we accept violence from one group becauae they target a group we do not like.

Should I post a video of counter protestors in seattle or portland who assualted those whose message they did not agree with? One of the assaultors was wearing a firearm and I believe his hoodie had La Raza on the back.

Why must the President condem one group but not all who encite violence or resort to violence?

Edited August 14, 2017 by provoman

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Employment is not a first amendment right. Employee's political views are not protected (in most jurisdictions and definitely not at the federal level) from blowback from employers. The First Amendment protects from government persecution and sanction only.

I suppose White Supremacists could try to become a protected class. It would be funny to watch them try.

I'm not disagreeing.  I'm just saying, just wait and see, if what you are saying is true, I imagine cries of persecutions and 1st Amendment will be invoked. 

[thesometimesaint]

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

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

 

He tried to kill and maim as many as he could. Did you see the video?

SEEhttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-unite-the-right-charlottesville-20170812-story.html

Deliberately driving a car into a crowd of people is terrorism, Just ask your hero Drumpf, except when it is white Christian terrorism.

SEE https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/14/16143634/trump-charlottesville-white-supremacy-terrorism-islamism

Bannon and his Breitbart News is part of the Alt-Right he even claims so himself.

SEE Bannon once described Breitbart News in an interview with the Investigative Fund as the "platform for the alt-right," or alternative right. It's a brand of far-right conservatism that generally embraces and promotes white nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia and misogyny.

[cdowis]

3 hours 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? 

I find it interesting that you are having an issue understanding what "provoke to violence" means.  I think it is safe to assume everybody else knows what I meant.

[Helmuth]

I've got to say, I take the side of the alt-right on this.  Absolutely and completely.  They followed the law completely, were grossly mistreated and abused by both the police and the leftist mob, and yet comported themselves quite well.  They were well-dressed, calm, and civilized, while the other side attacked them with mace, baseball bats, and (yikes!) flamethrowers.

Dr. Peterson, I love you, but let us all note: your article contains no arguments.  No refutations of ideas.  Just raw emotion.

Emotion is fine.  Emotion is who we are as humans.  Emotions rule us completely -- our thoughts, our actions, our political opinions -- ..... if we let them.  Is it a bad thing to let them?  Not necessarily.  Some would say it is not.  But the opinions informed and backed up solely by raw emotion are not going to tend to be particularly fact-based, nor, obviously, have anything to do with logic or rationality.

Myself, I prefer logic and rationality.  But, I mean, that's just my own patrio-euro culture and my own bias.  I'm not saying it's superior to any other culture.  Oh no.  We must never say disparaging things like that.  I would never say that.  Would I?

[thesometimesaint]

9 minutes ago, longview said:

Oh really?  You would give license to Antifa and BLM to commit violence and taking the law into their own hands?

Here is why they must be opposed.

SEE

 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

Never seen that happen.  Don't even remember ANY kind of raging.  He knows the "Art of the Deal" and the best way to do that is to maintain self discipline which he has plenty of.  One of the most dramatic moment I recall was when Trump refused to allow Jim Acosta of CNN to ask a question.  Trump called him "fake news" and gave other reporters their chance to ask questions.

He did not write the "Art of the Deal". A guy ghost wrote the book for him. He admits he mischaracterized Trump when he wrote the book to make him more sympathetic. He stood against Trump in the election. Once Trump won he left the country as he knows Trump despises him.

As to him being well-balanced how do you explain reports that he yells at the TV while watching cable news that show him in an unfavorable light? His need to hold on to decades old grudges? His neurotic need to believe his inauguration was the biggest and bestest ever? His need to vilify his political opponent long after the race is over? His angry tweets? His false threats about recordings to Comey? His yo-yo of support vs contempt for McCain? The whole stupid Birther conspiracy he largely led? The patheticism he displayed on the phone with the Mexican president asking him to stop refuting his dumb campaign promise? His childish need to insult individuals on Twitter? His pointless theatrical grandstanding on North Korea? His stupid thanks to Putin for expelling US diplomats?

The man has no discipline or political instinct. He lies when it is not necessary or even advisable. He shoots himself in the foot making grand promises he should know he cannot deliver and blames others when they fail to be realized. His staff prepare stupid reports to keep his morale up because telling him the truth leads to Twitter meltdowns. His popularity is shrinking. His party is starting to ignore him and some are turning on him. His agenda is dying. He is not nominating enough people to fill out the government. His only accomplishment of any note is getting a Supreme Court Justice approved and that is really not impressive when your party controls the Senate.

[bsjkki]

I think this thread should be shut down now...we have again proven civil dialogue is not possible.

After the current election, I "unfollowed" anyone who posted politically on Facebook. I realized I did not want the emotionally response those posts instigated and I wanted to continue to love and serve with those I attend church with and not think negatively about them based on their political opinions. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by bsjkki

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, longview said:

He knows the "Art of the Deal" and the best way to do that is to maintain self discipline which he has plenty of.

Bless your heart.