Church statement on Charlottesville, Virginia

[thesometimesaint]

Just now, longview said:

Salon is a hard left rag.

Facts have a definite liberal bias.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I don't pretend, I despise both equally. Hate is hate.  Black Lives Matter antics are no different than the KKK. they noth are founded on liez and both preach hate based on race. 

I do not despise both equally. White people tend to be in charge in our culture. This is changing a bit but there is a difference between punching up and punching down. To violate Godwin's Law I suspect many Jews hated Nazis to the same degree Nazis hated Jews. Guess which side I sympathize more with and am more willing to excuse despite there being hate on both sides?

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As we have seen in this and other threads racism exists in the Church. Perhaps the statement was an attempt to get white supremacist LDS off that bandwagon? Probably will not work but worth trying? Sure.

I guess.  I still can't get over this silliness of this statement--"this is sad stuff.....uh...we're not racists...see a leader said so more than a decade ago. #with the times, baby".

Sorry, this is just too silly not to make fun of. 

 

[bsjkki]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church's statement was cute - "we're not racists. we condemn it."  Was somebody questioning the Church or something?  Were there a bunch of members of the Church involved in this?  Did the SP organize a group of protesters?  Odd that the church responded, odd more that it felt the need to tell everyone it's not racist. 

It was good PR by the church. I think because of people like the "mommy blogger" it was smart to get ahead of any criticism and also an opportunity to make the church's position clear that racism is not acceptable. They should not have to say it but it certainly does not hurt to make their position clear. 

[bsjkki]

19 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It wasn't Antii-fascists that rioted in Berekley it was self identified Anarchists, and Alt-Right freaks.

SEE http://www.salon.com/2017/04/18/pro-trump-rioters-got-away-with-beating-anti-fascists-in-berkeley-and-they-likely-wont-stop-there/

Here is a more in depth, balanced report. http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/04/17/exactly-turned-downtown-berkeley-battlefield-april-15/ 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

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?

As a news anchor put it: did the counter protesters kill someone that day?

I am generally not ok with any form of violence. But the statement assumed a false equivalence. Both in that day, the current trends in violence from extreme left or right groups, the present issue at hand, etc. This was domestic terrorism. Lets say we changed the group and it was another terrorist motivation. Like someone doing so the exact same thing with the same dynamics in the name of ISIS and the president said what he did, unwilling to overtly condemn the group but talked in generalities about the violence of "many groups..." even when the reporters are specifically asking about direct condemnation. Just about everybody would find the inappropriate and deflecting. Possibly a silent nod or at least enabling religious extremism to continue unchecked.  

That's the problem. This isn't about all groups. It's about a specific incident with a specific group that was inciting violence and a growing problem that needs immediate addressing. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 14, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Dexter Eli]

22 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I don't pretend, I despise both equally. Hate is hate.  Black Lives Matter antics are no different than the KKK. they noth are founded on liez and both preach hate based on race. 

How can you say Black Lives Matter antics are no different than the KKK? I find that ridiculous and offensive. One has an extremely long history of atrocities, including MURDER, while the other is relatively new and founded to push back against a long standing racist culture. Please list for us the antics of BLM that measure up to the thousands of lynchings committed by the KKK? 

[The Nehor]

Before this thread gets shut down I would like to say that I hate these discussions. Only the darker part of my nature takes pleasure but I am drawn to them. Not entirely sure by what. I still firmly believe and am convinced I am right.

For any who would argue that if I was right I would not feel this way I would recommend the speech by Jacob near the beginning of his book where he feels constrained to speak out even when those words could do harm. He really hated having to give that speech but he had to. Being silent while others defend the indefensible is not healthy even though countering it can be even more uncomfortable and, for lack of a better word, blech.

[BlueDreams]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Before this thread gets shut down I would like to say that I hate these discussions. Only the darker part of my nature takes pleasure but I am drawn to them. Not entirely sure by what. I still firmly believe and am convinced I am right.

For any who would argue that if I was right I would not feel this way I would recommend the speech by Jacob near the beginning of his book where he feels constrained to speak out even when those words could do harm. He really hated having to give that speech but he had to. Being silent while others defend the indefensible is not healthy even though countering it can be even more uncomfortable and, for lack of a better word, blech.

This is probably wrong, but I enjoy these discussions. It's a means to express my frustration about what's happening and to confront problematic ideologies. There's probably some form of masochism buried in me somewhere....

 

With luv,

BD

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not despise both equally. White people tend to be in charge in our culture. This is changing a bit but there is a difference between punching up and punching down. To violate Godwin's Law I suspect many Jews hated Nazis to the same degree Nazis hated Jews. Guess which side I sympathize more with and am more willing to excuse despite there being hate on both sides?

The actual Godwin behind Godwin's law is on the record saying it's okay to compare these "alt right" guys to Nazis. Just a PSA.

 

[longview]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, he did not create the conspiracy but it was a minor blip on the radar until he started championing it.

You said Trump was biggest champion of the "birther" movement.  You know that is NOT the case.  Trump and anyone that raised questions on the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate were (and still are) justified in seeking answers.  Trump was not strident about the issue.  When he became a presidential candidate, he chose to de-emphasize it and put it off to the side.

18 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Trump is a birther.

SEE http://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/tracking-trump-s-statements-on-birtherism-845499971907

Every clip shows Trump being very reasonable and calm about the discussion.  When Obama released the so-called birth certificate, people were able to point out anachronisms in the document that proved it was NOT produced back in the time of his birth.  There were also very legitimate questions as to why Obama would pay serious money to prevent the release of his college transcripts and school papers and thesis.  Why so secretive?  Yet the partisan press go out of their way to paint those questioners as being "deranged conspiracy nuts."

[provoman]

17 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

As a news  put it: did the counter protesters kill someone that day?

I am generally not ok with any form of violence. But the statement assumed a false equivalence. Both in that day, the current trends in violence from extreme left or right groups, the present issue at hand, etc. This was domestic terrorism. Lets say we changed the group and it was another terrorist motivation. Like someone doing so the exact same thing with the same dynamics in the name of ISIS and the president said what he did, unwilling to overtly condemn the group but talked in generalities about the violence of "many groups..." even when the reporters are specifically asking about direct condemnation. Just about everybody would find the inappropriate and deflecting. Possibly a silent nod or at least enabling religious extremism to continue unchecked.  

That's the problem. This isn't about all groups. It's about a specific incident with a specific group that was inciting violence and a growing problem that needs immediate addressing. 

 

With luv,

BD

It is about groups. Violence is violence. We point the finger and say "They incited violence" Yet who made the personal choice to show up an offense rally to counter protest. Violence needs to be condemned. When we pick and choose what group gets to be violent, we strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

 

And I want to thank you for responding, I appreciate that you took the time.

Edited August 14, 2017 by provoman

[longview]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

The actual Godwin behind Godwin's law is on the record saying it's okay to compare these "alt right" guys to Nazis. Just a PSA.

Why did you call me a nazi earlier in this thread?

[BlueDreams]

42 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

"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." -- DCP

 

"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." -- The Nehor

 

Careful about escalation, guys.  The left has already escalated and escalated and escalated pretty stupendously far over the decades in their conflict against first-world-style civilization.  Now, the left is the in-group.  Has been my whole life, and yours, too.  They have all the power, they have all the cards, and they've been getting their way for two hundred years now.

 

How do you think that makes the out-group feel?

 

Hmm?

 

The left is supposed to have all the empathy.  Any empathy for the out-group, guys?  You can muster it for the Somali Muslim; can you muster it for the Anglo-Saxon boilermaker?

 

Answer, by the way: No.  And I get it, believe me.  The white boilermaker's a deplorable, irredeemable.  But you should then ask yourself: why can't I muster any empathy for the boilermaker?  It really is true that you have out-sized amounts of empathy.  It's your strength.  So how come it doesn't apply to normal, white middle-Americans?

 

Anyway, as one who does (now) have empathy, let me explain it to you.  Losing for 200 years is going to make the out-group feel bad.  Not very good.  Less than ecstatic.

 

Every once and a while I've been placed in a circumstance that I've had to pray for love for people I hated. They were mysoginistic, abusive, hard headed, and sometimes just evil. I would usually come to a place of pity as I came to see their course and how they got there. I could see it and see how their actions maintained a sense of power to extremely insecure people. It still didn't mean that I didn't call them on their crap, forewarn their loved ones, and label them as toxic. There is a fine line between empathy and enabling. What you're describing is enabling. It entails a level of blindness or shortsightedness that I am not willing to engage in. 

There ideology is false. And moreso it is dangerous. 

Natural outlets of beliefs in this suggest forced removal of minorities, immigrants, etc. It can remain silent to talk of violent means to their ends

It is evil. This whole "protecting our heritage" crap is a means to dress up and prettify cyanide.

I do not want them fired, because it can be a means to fuel martyrdom narratives. But I also want them monitored. Something has to be done. 

 

With luv,

BD

[pogi]

1 hour ago, longview said:

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?)

Are you now arguing that their reporting is "fair and balanced"?

I think you must concede that KSL's reporting was not some liberal partisan attack on conservative leadership, as you suggested. 

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

I appreciate and respect your perspective...however there are many remarks disparaging to the race that immerged out of Africa that have been made by former LDS GA's.  I'm not going to post them here...as I find them quite offensive and it wasn't my intent to drudge them up.

It's common knowledge that Black members of the church have been seeking an apology from the church for many years and would welcome such an apology.  I'm guessing that they seek an apology as a necessity of healing their wounds.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Tacenda]

59 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I don't pretend, I despise both equally. Hate is hate.  Black Lives Matter antics are no different than the KKK. they noth are founded on liez and both preach hate based on race. 

I wish you were kidding right now. How are blacks preaching hate? Have you ever read the statistics on the number of times blacks get pulled over by the police vs. whites? I'd be very afraid right now if I had black children I'd adopted, in fact my niece on my husband's side is totally afraid. Look into it, and then see why black lives matter please. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

It is about groups. Violence is violence. We point the finger and say "They incited violence" Yet who made the personal choice to show up an offense rally to counter protest. Violence needs to be condemned. When we pick and choose what group gets to be violent, we strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

 

And I want to thank you for responding, I appreciate that you took the time.

You're welcome, but I have to say that is absolutely ridiculous reasoning. By this logic no one should ever stand up against a social problem and captain Moroni should've stuck with the tactile business instead of writing up some statement and leading a army to push back a threat. Their ideology is repugnant and dangerous to our pluralistic american society. It is preying on the sympathies of some southerners who may still hold racist sympathies. I would be ashamed is someone didn't stand up to them. 

 

With luv,

BD  

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, longview said:

You said Trump was biggest champion of the "birther" movement.  You know that is NOT the case.  Trump and anyone that raised questions on the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate were (and still are) justified in seeking answers.  Trump was not strident about the issue.  When he became a presidential candidate, he chose to de-emphasize it and put it off to the side.

Every clip shows Trump being very reasonable and calm about the discussion.  When Obama released the so-called birth certificate, people were able to point out anachronisms in the document that proved it was NOT produced back in the time of his birth.  There were also very legitimate questions as to why Obama would pay serious money to prevent the release of his college transcripts and school papers and thesis.  Why so secretive?  Yet the partisan press go out of their way to paint those questioners as being "deranged conspiracy nuts."

He did not deemphasize it. He 180'd.

You drank the Kool-Aid? Okay. Crazy people came up with those 'anachronisms' because they are, you know, crazy.

Do you think it is consistent to defend Trump's break with Presidential tradition in refusing to disclose his tax returns while demanding Obama release documentation other Presidents have not been expected to disclose. Just curious.....

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

The actual Godwin behind Godwin's law is on the record saying it's okay to compare these "alt right" guys to Nazis. Just a PSA.

 

Woohoo!!! Exoneration!!!  

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

It wasn't Antii-fascists that rioted in Berekley it was self identified Anarchists, and Alt-Right freaks.

SEE http://www.salon.com/2017/04/18/pro-trump-rioters-got-away-with-beating-anti-fascists-in-berkeley-and-they-likely-wont-stop-there/

Alt Right freaks? That's fine but just make it clear that racism has NOTHING to do with Conservatism and little to do with the political Right, and definitely nothing to do with the mainstream political Right. The media most assuredly wants the publc to think otherwise. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Darren10

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Helmuth said:

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.

That is absolutely not true. Even the part where they were mostly well dressed (the night torch march) is by no means a gentle stroll. The imagery was a direct nod to the terrorist group, the KKK.

https://www.google.com/search?q=KKK+rally+torches&rlz=1C1NDCM_enUS725US726&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC5PGu3dfVAhWpv1QKHUkRBIkQ_AUICygC&biw=1536&bih=735

See this video for the varying weapons and the "Well dressed/civilized" rally:

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 14, 2017 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Alt Right freaks? That's fine but just make it clear that racism has NOTHING to do with Conservatism and little to do with the political Right, and definitely nothing to do with the mainstream pitical Right. The media most assuredly wants the publc to think otherwise. 

If the Right did as good a job as the Left in isolating their fringe whackos instead of making them presidential candidates the distinction might be easier to see.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I appreciate and respect your perspective...however there are many remarks disparaging to the races that immerged out of Africa that have been made by former LDS GA's.  I'm not going to post them here...as I find them quite offensive and it wasn't my intent to drudge them up.

There's no need to post them. Everyone already knows them, ad nauseum. My point (which you understand, I think) is that the simple existence of statements explaining the ban are not disparaging, in and of themselves. 

I would like to know if anyone (i.e., not you, or not just you) can articulate what is disparaging about them? Actually disparaging --- beyond, "Denying the priesthood is racist and unfair!"

I'm not aware of any actually disparaging remarks. It seems like what the argument boils down to is that simply allowing and explaining the ban by itself was disparaging.

I

t's common knowledge that Black members of the church have been seeking an apology from the church for many year and would welcome such an apology.  I'm guessing that they seek an apology as a necessity of healing their wounds."

How many black members are seeking an apology from the church, I wonder? Dollars to doughnuts that there is a lot of Venn diagram overlap between those who do, and those having other social issues with the church (e.g., gay marriage, women ordination, worthiness interviews, etc.).

Would "The CoJCoLDS apologizes for the priesthood ban and any attempts to explain or defend it" cut it as an apology? Just how much or how long would the Church be required to wear the hair shirt? What addenda would be required in addition to the "base apology?"

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, longview said:

Why did you call me a nazi earlier in this thread?

It is okay. Sometimes they realize what is going wrong. You can too.