Church statement on Charlottesville, Virginia

[Helmuth]

6 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

I also disagree with you

Splendid!  What about?

[Darren10]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then why, when given the opportunity to denounce white supremacy at a press conference after this tragedy, did Donald Trump choose instead to walk away? White supremacists were rejoicing at the lack of condemnation. The link is there. Later he gave a half-baked condemnation after intense pressure. He is either even more clueless then even I think he is or he does not want to denounce them.

He did denounce white supremacy; just not as explicitly as did Pence, Rubio, Cruz, Hatch, and many others on the Right. Trump missed a grand opportunity. He's extremely clueless on many things. 

For the record, his followup condemnation was not "half baked"  in the least. 

Edited to ad: Even in his lame first speech Trump clearly did denounce violence and racism. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Darren10

[longview]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then why, when given the opportunity to denounce white supremacy at a press conference after this tragedy, did Donald Trump choose instead to walk away? White supremacists were rejoicing at the lack of condemnation. The link is there. Later he gave a half-baked condemnation after intense pressure. He is either even more clueless then even I think he is or he does not want to denounce them.

What is this?  The Inquisition?  Trump's original statement was fine and sufficient by itself.   You are only perpetuating the partisan press' histrionic screed against a president that has been smeared as being politically incorrect.  Such utter amazement at the left's (and yours) overboard hyperventilation.

[Darren10]

2 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

If we can't conclude there is a connection between being a Neo-nazi and driving your car into a crowd of people protesting against Neo-nazis then we would have to throw hour hands in the air and admit we do not know anything about anyone's motives ever. 

In a courr of law you *must* make at least a circumstantial connection. I think that is there. But "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Not even close to it. Not even the police are claiming any such thing in any official capacity regarding the suspect's motives. Strange how many in the public seem to know. 

[Dexter Eli]

5 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

Splendid!  What about?

I asked you questions in my previous post, please answer them. 

[Dexter Eli]

Just now, Darren10 said:

In a courr of law you *must* make at least a circumstantial connection. I think that is there. But "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Not even close to it. Not even the police are claiming any such thing in any official capacity regarding the suspect's motives. Strange how many in the public seem to know. 

We are not in a court of law. Since when were we discussing what we need to convict him? I don't understand what you are trying to argue. 

[Helmuth]

4 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

admit we do not know anything about anyone's motives ever. 

Indeed that is very true.  We don't.  We don't know about things that, well, we don't know about.  First-hand experience maybe we know a little more, but even then!  Remember Socrates!

Have you seen the video(s) /pol dug up?

I haven't. 

And on the other hand, neither have I seen any MSM media coverage of the event.  So, who knows less, me or you?  Hmm....

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

I don't think you're quite keeping track of what you're saying.  I assume you believe everything you have written in this thread is right and correct (as indeed you have explicitly stated), as of course is typical of us all.  You have written:

1. I am a white supremacist.

2. I am a predatory sinner.

3. You vilify me, and, not content with that, demand that all others do likewise.

4. You call on all under your influence to take away my job.

5. You (and Dr. Peterson) want to take away my LDS membership.

This accurate synopsis of your actual words and what you are actually calling for probably does not easily comport with your self-image of who you think you are and what kind of beliefs and opinions you think you hold, and, indeed what kind of a person you think you are and how you think you treat other people.

You've made this very personal, The Nehor.  Which is OK -- that makes it interesting!  And, hopefully, enlightening for you and me and all of us on the thread.

But, again, I would love to pull this mostly away from your very strong emotions about my worthlessness (as exciting as that does make the conversation!) and back into the realm of rationality.  You haven't answered my question as to what you think white / Euro Supremacy actually is.  How then can we talk about it rationally?  I have to fill in too many holes, and doubtless with stereotypes which are surely inaccurate -- doubly sure with you, who hardly fit into any ready-made box such as "typical liberal."

So let's answer that question.  What is White Supremacy?  And, if you feel up to it (though then you risk having massive super-posts like mine) what exactly is so wrong and sinful about it that its adherents should live worthless, destitute lives in pig pens, alone, sub-human, and universally shunned by all?

You want a rational explanation for why White Supremacy is bad. Fair enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That cover it?

 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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.

Here is an example that I can link to: 

Quote

 

 

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?"

and here...again this is common knowledge...but I guess you missed the memo: http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5371962&itype=CMSID

 

Seriously Why is it so difficult for the church to admit past mistakes and just apologize for them...why all the corporate positioning...just apologize and move on...  do you remember when the state of Illinois apologized to the Mormon's a few years ago?  Do you remember the healing that took place due to this?  It was as if a breeze of fresh air blew through a stail room... it was a healing gesture...I believe that that is all black members are asking for as well...acknowledgement and an apology.

This most recent press release take s a baby step in that direction but they refuse to just get it over with.  I find their reluctance to acknowledge and apologize for their past racist mistakes is holding them back.  At least that's my take on it...which no one here shares...I'm talking to the wall

Edited August 14, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Dexter Eli]

You use a lot of words without saying much. I am not antagonistic towards you or your views, I am simply asking you to explain yourself. 

What is this spiritual supremacy you spoke of regarding the wonders of European culture? I am happy to engage and discuss, but please clearly put forth what you are trying to say. You act like European culture is clearly the most wonderful thing ever in the history of the world? Why. What makes it so great? 

[longview]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

At the Judgement Bar I will be too busy trying to explain my own idiocy to worry about yours.

You claim to abhor racial prejudice but defend literal Nazis. Not sure how you square those two but I sure hope at the Judgement Bar you have a good explanation for that deeply principled stance.

CFR where I "defend literal Nazis" . . . God will require accounting for my every thought . . . so will you.

[Helmuth]

14 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

Hey, I agree with Nehor! First time ever!  

All kidding aside, I also agree with Nehor on most issues discussed throughout this thread.

Helmuth, I don't see how thinking it through more will somehow move people to your side of this issue. I also disagree with you. I am open to hearing more of an explanation. Please explain with more clarity and less anecdotes about staring at the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel. And many of your heroes would argue that their success stemmed from reason, not spirituality. So what do you mean? 

Here is your whole post.  The question directed at me seems to be: "What do you mean?"

Bit broad, eh!  This is what happens when people go willy-nilly here and there in Neverland before first even defining what they are talking about (me included, in this case, though I'm trying, painfully trying, to make the discussion more concrete and thus at least potentially rational(whereas right now that possibility does not even exist)).  But I'm a good sport.  Just don't Call For References, OK?  What do I mean?

What do I mean?

Here's the core of what I mean: Our civilization is collapsing.

Motive of bringing it up: Realization is the first step to solution.

Goal of conversation: How do we save it?

[Dexter Eli]

1 minute ago, Dexter Eli said:

You use a lot of words without saying much. I am not antagonistic towards you or your views, I am simply asking you to explain yourself. 

What is this spiritual supremacy you spoke of regarding the wonders of European culture? I am happy to engage and discuss, but please clearly put forth what you are trying to say. You act like European culture is clearly the most wonderful thing ever in the history of the world? Why. What makes it so great? 

This was in response to Helmuth. 

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

Our civilization is collapsing.  The Left is trying to push it.  The establishment "Right" is content to lose forever and rake in donor dollars.  The alt-Right is trying to save it.  We should have their backs.  They are our allies in the fight for Western Civilization.

The Church is, in our current mileu, unquestionably an extremely traditionalist organization, and that means it is a fundamentally Rightist organization.  Perhaps even so far Right it could be considered a Reactionary one. 

 

The alt-right is one of the biggest threats (not protectors) of Western Civilization - you know that mixing pot of peoples, cultures, religions, and ideas. 

I wonder if the church and the alt-right agree on the issue of immigration.  Here is what western civilization says: 

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Is the alt-right really "protecting" these principles of western civilization?

While I love our country and our constitution, I don't find any culture of superiority worthy of protection.  Jesus was a brown Jew from the East, by the way, who would have scorned much of western culture and civilization.  But I think he would have especially condemned the hate, pride, and privileged mentality of the alt-right.  Let's not confuse Western civilization with Zion - there is no "one true" civilization.  Some of our culture is worth protecting, some of it is not.  It will be just as flammable as any other civilization when the Lord returns. 

[Dexter Eli]

3 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

Here is your whole post.  The question directed at me seems to be: "What do you mean?"

Bit broad, eh!  This is what happens when people go willy-nilly here and there in Neverland before first even defining what they are talking about (me included, in this case, though I'm trying, painfully trying, to make the discussion more concrete and thus at least potentially rational(whereas right now that possibility does not even exist)).  But I'm a good sport.  Just don't Call For References, OK?  What do I mean?

What do I mean?

Here's the core of what I mean: Our civilization is collapsing.

Motive of bringing it up: Realization is the first step to solution.

Goal of conversation: How do we save it?

What is the cause of the collapse, in your opinion? Be specific. 

[Darren10]

10 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

We are not in a court of law. Since when were we discussing what we need to convict him? I don't understand what you are trying to argue. 

I used the court of law as a representation of dignity and avoiding spreading unfounded rumors which damage another's character. Surely you see the morality behind this. 

[mapman]

Here are some reasons why I think white nationalism is nonsense (not directed to anyone in particular): Trying to define what whiteness is or what western civilization is with any kind of clarity is a hopeless and meaningless task. What an American white nationalist thinks is their European heritage probably has nothing to do with what an Italian or a Finnish man view as their heritage. All the western cultures and ethnicities have distinct histories and heritages, including Americans.

Europe, at least since late antiquity has never been completely white. There have always been people of Jewish descent, Roma, Arabs, Turks, etc. that have played their part in building up the nations they lived in.

America especially was built up from the very beginning by a multicultural civilization. America was built by contributions of the indigenous people, and the slaves and free blacks, just as much as white people.

People of many races have fought and died to build and preserve this country in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and WWII. Lots of traditional and conservative white Americans went to fight in WWII to protect non-white people from being murdered by fascists, and now we have neo-Nazis who believe that they have to "save" white people from destruction claiming that they are true conservatives! I totally agreed with Orrin Hatch (and I don't agree with him often) when he expressed his disbelief that he remembered his brother dying fighting the Nazis, and now we have them killing people on American soil.

Edited August 14, 2017 by mapman

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, mapman said:

Here are some reasons why I think white nationalism is nonsense (not directed to anyone in particular): Trying to define what whiteness is or what western civilization is with any kind of clarity is a hopeless and meaningless task. What an American white nationalist thinks is their European heritage probably has nothing to do with what an Italian or a Finnish man view as their heritage. All the western cultures and ethnicities have distinct histories and heritages, including Americans. Europe, at least since late antiquity has never been completely white. There have always been people of Jewish descent, Roma, Arabs, Turks, etc. that have played their part in building up the nations they lived in. America especially was built up from the very beginning by a multicultural civilization. America was built by contributions of the indigenous people, and the slaves and free blacks, just as much as white people. People of many races have fought and died to build and preserve this country in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and WWII. Lots of traditional and conservative white Americans went to fight in WWII to protect non-white people from being murdered by fascists, and now we have neo-Nazis who believe that they have to "save" white people from destruction claiming that they are true conservatives! I totally agreed with Orrin Hatch (and I don't agree with him often) when he expressed his disbelief that he remembered his brother dying fighting the Nazis, and now we have them killing people on American soil.

One of the things that made me laugh a while back was when Britain's far right/fascist party was trying to coopt  a celebration of the end of the Second World War as support for their nationalist agenda. A bunch of very aged veterans came out and denounced them. I like to think that they enjoyed out going out to fight Nazis one last time.  

Edited August 14, 2017 by The Nehor

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Dexter Eli said:

You say there's no need to post them and that everyone already knows them and then you say you are not aware of any disparaging remarks. HUH?

Sure. I'm aware of the talks/comments/statements you have in mind. I'm not saying it's due to my ignorance. I'm saying that, knowing the same things you (and others would refer to), I don't find any disparaging remarks in them.

If you want to become aware, disparaging remarks are super easy to find. Try a few of Mark E. Petersen's quotes, and many others.

Can you give me an example or two that you think are disparaging to people? If they're super easy to find, why not give an example or two that you think demonstrates this? I'm the one saying that I don't find any, and you (and others) say that they are legion and easy to find. So, it's not on me to post things that I think aren't disparaging.

Does that make sense?

 

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

Here is your whole post.  The question directed at me seems to be: "What do you mean?"

Bit broad, eh!  This is what happens when people go willy-nilly here and there in Neverland before first even defining what they are talking about (me included, in this case, though I'm trying, painfully trying, to make the discussion more concrete and thus at least potentially rational(whereas right now that possibility does not even exist)).  But I'm a good sport.  Just don't Call For References, OK?  What do I mean?

What do I mean?

Here's the core of what I mean: Our civilization is collapsing.

Motive of bringing it up: Realization is the first step to solution.

Goal of conversation: How do we save it?

Let's find a chubby orange guy with really stupid hair and ask him to restore our former glory. You know, make America great again. I know traditionally we should go with a guy with crazy eyes and a Charlie Chaplin mustache but I think we should change it up this time.

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Here is an example that I can link to: 

 

Thanks, Johnnie! I have to leave now, but I'll comment on this later when I have time.

But, I acknowledge that you have linked to an example.

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, longview said:

What is this?  The Inquisition?  Trump's original statement was fine and sufficient by itself.   You are only perpetuating the partisan press' histrionic screed against a president that has been smeared as being politically incorrect.  Such utter amazement at the left's (and yours) overboard hyperventilation.

No, it wasn't. He was drawing a false equivalency between white supremacists and those who oppose white supremacy. Then he felt the need to point out that the whole thing was not his fault as these kinds of things predate his presidency. Got to make sure no one blames him after.

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, longview said:

CFR where I "defend literal Nazis" . . . God will require accounting for my every thought . . . so will you.

You defended the people at this rally who walked around with the Nazi flag. Yeah, literal Nazis.

[Dexter Eli]

2 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I used the court of law as a representation of dignity and avoiding spreading unfounded rumors which damage another's character. Surely you see the morality behind this. 

What unfounded rumors am I spreading? I don't like the guy who drove his car into a crowd of people. If he was openly a neo-nazi I am sorry but I will conclude a likely correlation. You're concerned about the potential damage to the character of a man who drove his car into a crowd of people? Surely you jest.  The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is to avoid sending innocent people to prison. It is not required for me to make a moral judgment about racists or white supremacists. If this man is mentally ill, no one will be more sympathetic than I will be. I am for humane treatment and against punishment for the sake of punishment, even if he is found to have not been suffering from a mental illness. 

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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 

Okay. I agree with that. The Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi's et al should be called out by everyone. The thing is not to brand anyone an alt-right or an alt-left just because he or she may disagree with an opposite point of view. And I may making this post too political. Hateful actions and mindless violence needs to be decried no matter who does it or what their ideology is. I stand with you on that.

Glenn