provoman Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, Rivers said: It is kind of sad that the church has to come out tell us that racism is bad. People alive during racism de jour are still alive today and are members of the Church and many different Churches. This board has many posts discussion about "racism". 1
bluebell Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 24 minutes ago, Calm said: I suspect that most will simply say their ideas don't qualify as "white supremacy". They will find other ways of talking about it without the current language associated with it. Humans are very adaptable in sinning. I agree we are good at justifying sin. 1
Popular Post MiserereNobis Posted August 16, 2017 Popular Post Posted August 16, 2017 Storm Rider, I can't wrap my head around the fact that on one side there were Nazis. NAZIS. Say it with me. NAZIS. Look at the helmets, look at the symbols: Heck, look at the swastikas: Add in the Ku Klux Klan (who also hate Catholics and burned crosses in the yards of Catholics in the South) and various other terrible groups. And then on the other side you have people protesting against, yes, say it again, NAZIS. And there is some sort of equivalency here? People protesting against Nazis are on the same equal ground as Nazis? That's the whole problem -- thinking that there is some sort equivalency. There is absolutely not. Yes, I am in favor of the ACLU and I do agree that the racists have the legal right to rally and express their hateful views. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't say how terrible they are. The Nazis have their right to rally. And they are horrible disgusting people. Why can't the President of the United States, of all people, clearly denounce them?!? Thank God for Sen. Hatch and other sane Republicans who have a moral compass. It is unbelievable. I am so grateful that the LDS church is making the statements it is making. 12
Danzo Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 16 minutes ago, Duncan said: They are Nazi's, what more do you need to understand? We don't want their ideas, we know them , fought a war about them and we don't want even a whiff of Naziism anymore. Eve God cast 1/3 of his children out so i'd say casting out started there They are human beings and children of our heavenly father. As far as we know, being racist isn't committing the unpardonable sin. We should preach the gospel to them and encourage their repentance. Defining someone as "other" is at the root racism.
Popular Post Calm Posted August 16, 2017 Popular Post Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) "the problem is the mere fact that we so easily demean them rather than trying to understand where their need to believe such a fallacy comes from. I don't understand these people's minds and I don't know them." I can condemn behaviours needing to be condemned before understanding why they were done. Condemnation does not prevent me or anyone else from seeking greater understanding. Someone murdering someone else is wrong even if the murderer is delusional and not aware of the consequences of his actions. Adultery is wrong even if the individual is in a troubled marriage. Understanding may bring pity, compassion, and a desire to help, but in most cases of sin, sin remains sin even once understanding why it occurred is found. Condemnation is not inherently demeaning someone. Nor is labeling them neoNazis if that is what they are. Edited August 16, 2017 by Calm 7
Danzo Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 12 minutes ago, bluebell said: Racism is condemnable. Condemning the condemnable is a part of the gospel of Christ. It does not make anyone less than human to do so. Sin of every type is, or should be condemnable. Sinners, not so much.
Duncan Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Danzo said: They are human beings and children of our heavenly father. As far as we know, being racist isn't committing the unpardonable sin. We should preach the gospel to them and encourage their repentance. Defining someone as "other" is at the root racism. which is why I said "ideas" and according to this recent statement is a sin and when asked about where does the idea that we should belittle, condemn and less than human come from, I responded it came from God who didn't even give them a body which to me is less than human.They are welcome to come to church, their ideas can forget it
MiserereNobis Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 3 hours ago, Darren10 said: How does the book end? Nehor gave you a typically Nehor response, ha. However, this is a great film to watch if you'd like to see the last 10 days of Hitler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downfall_(2004_film) I highly highly recommend it. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: We have one on the boards here right now. One with an online presence was pointed out a while back. There is one guy I know at church who is a big enough loser to have such beliefs and it would kind of fit with things he has said. Fortunately he only shows up every couple of months to try to get money from the bishop or to try to convince his ex-wife he is spiritual so she will take him back. Oh, and a large part of my sister-in-laws family is racist. They would deny it but actions speak louder then words. I could see some of them being white supremacists. Most are probably just boring old racists. Do they like the white LDS temple robes?
MiserereNobis Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said: Do they like the white LDS temple robes? Do you mind elaborating on what you mean by this? What point are you trying to make by asking if Mormon racists like white temple robes? (this is not a rhetorical question -- I really don't know what you are getting at).
Darren10 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 48 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Darren, it is the social pressure that before someone can be considered being a human being they must parrot a specific kind of talk and exclude any criticism of all things deemed "moral" as judged by the media and racial activists. For example, President Trump condemned the actions of all those who committed violence, etc. However, this has been deemed insufficient that he had, was required, to specifically condemn the white supremacists and ignore the violence and actions of those who apparently showed up to .... do exactly what they did. Why is it necessary to draw a distinction? As I have said before, when I am committed to allowing all citizens of the US have an opportunity to bring their concerns to the public square. Their message is irrelevant to me. I don't think that I, or anyone else, is capable of judging what should and what should not be allowed to be spoken in public. If we don't like the message we don't have to listen! We don't have to go to the public square. In fact, no one does; not the media and certainly not those who sole purpose to to "shut people up". I listened to the head of the ACLU in Washington D.C. who spoke on this issue on NPR. He was sensible, logical, and without emotion. He did not care about the message of these people in VA, but he was committed to their right to be there and protest. He was not overwhelmed by the knee-jerk emotional response that our society has when it comes to racial issues. Sometimes we have to take a belt and suspenders approach to things and maybe that was what the Church was doing in this instance. However, I strongly resist this pressure to cave into a position that is not in sync with reality or the need to completely condemn one side without addressing the same behavior by the other. A pox on all those who seek violence in the public square where peaceable protest is a right of every citizen. Would that every person who attended with the sole purpose of shouting down the other side, who did violence, could be put in jail until such time as they understood that they are not the judge of what is and what is not acceptable free speech in this country. If I understand you correctly, you do not like the Church's updated statement because you see it as caving to pressure to isolate white supremacy groups for condemnation. That the Church should condemn hate and violence committed upon those unjustifiably. In this case, violence was initiated for mere political differences and hate was spoken based on differences of ethnicity (Jews being an ethnic group in this case). I completely agree with your moral position and that is precisely the position the LDS church took in their original statement condemning the violence; but here's how I see the Church's updated statement. I previously quoted the update portion and placed in bold why I am glad they updated their original statement. The full sentence with the bold portion reads, "It has been called to our attention that there are some among the various pro-white and white supremacy communities who assert that the Church is neutral toward or in support of their views." The way I read it, LDS leaders heard that there were people who invoked the very name of the Church and used the church's original statement to declare the LDS Church neutral towards white supremacy. Obviously they did so because the LDS Church originally did not explicitly call that hateful view out by name. Since the church's name was called into question, the LDS leaders updated their original statement to answer this erroneous declarative that it is neutral towards the belief of racial superiority one over the other. I may have gotten wordy on you but I hope this helps. I don't think you or I disagree on anything except perhaps on why the Church updated its original statement.
Darren10 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Storm Rider, I can't wrap my head around the fact that on one side there were Nazis. NAZIS. Say it with me. NAZIS. Look at the helmets, look at the symbols: Heck, look at the swastikas: Add in the Ku Klux Klan (who also hate Catholics and burned crosses in the yards of Catholics in the South) and various other terrible groups. And then on the other side you have people protesting against, yes, say it again, NAZIS. And there is some sort of equivalency here? People protesting against Nazis are on the same equal ground as Nazis? That's the whole problem -- thinking that there is some sort equivalency. There is absolutely not. Yes, I am in favor of the ACLU and I do agree that the racists have the legal right to rally and express their hateful views. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't say how terrible they are. The Nazis have their right to rally. And they are horrible disgusting people. Why can't the President of the United States, of all people, clearly denounce them?!? Thank God for Sen. Hatch and other sane Republicans who have a moral compass. It is unbelievable. I am so grateful that the LDS church is making the statements it is making. WARNING: f-bomb and b-word used.
Duncan Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) deleted Edited August 16, 2017 by Duncan
Robert F. Smith Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 19 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Do you mind elaborating on what you mean by this? What point are you trying to make by asking if Mormon racists like white temple robes? (this is not a rhetorical question -- I really don't know what you are getting at). I was thinking that the Klukkers like white robes so much that maybe they would like wearing LDS temple robes.
MiserereNobis Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 13 minutes ago, Darren10 said: WARNING: f-bomb and b-word used. A great film. 1
The Nehor Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Do they like the white LDS temple robes? I don't have a close enough friendship to ask nor do I want to imagine them entering a temple. Based on observation of others with similar views I suspect they prefer conical hats and ridiculous ghost costumes.
RevTestament Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 White skin is not a culture. Scottish is a culture, and I love my Scottish heritage. However, I am also French, English, German, Irish, and who knows what else. I don't love my French side so much....Making white a "culture" is I think at least a bit racist. There really is no such thing. However, I am racist. I am partial to the human race, and favor it over insect races(especially skeeters), and many other animal races. 4
RevTestament Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: A great film. I didn't realize Dan Akroyd co-wrote that movie.
Yirgacheffe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Darren10 said: (who also hate Catholics and burned crosses in the yards of Catholics in the South) And oddly in Indiana. We watched The Blues Brothers maybe a year or so ago, One of my kids quoted it yesterday with your same quote. I love that movie. Edited August 16, 2017 by Yirgacheffe submitted to fast 1
why me Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm reading it right now (Mein Kampf). It's a tough slog. Don't know if I'll finish it. Just trying to get an insight into what would have motivated such murderous intent. So far, I've just seen garden variety racism and nationalism. Don't know if I'd agree that it's badly written, though. He seems to express himself fairly well. I guess I've seen a lot of writing that is worse. One can never read a book like Hitler's in presentism. One must go back to the cultural norms of his day especially anti-semitism and the attitude of the people on the street and the religious history of Europe and the role of Lutheranism and Catholicism. Also, Hitler was influenced by quite a few American scholars on eugenics. He read those books as a young man. He also saw the rise of communism in his own country (he hated it)and he was deeply affected by the treaty that ended WW1. If the allies showed Germany mercy after WW1 and if capitalism did not crash in 1929, I don't think that there would have been an Adolf Hitler.
thesometimesaint Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Who didn't Hitler hate? SEEhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/dont-be-a-sucker/2017/08/14/f3988454-80bd-11e7-9e7a-20fa8d7a0db6_video.html?utm_term=.c98ac0f8abb8
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 4 hours ago, why me said: One can never read a book like Hitler's in presentism. One must go back to the cultural norms of his day especially anti-semitism and the attitude of the people on the street and the religious history of Europe and the role of Lutheranism and Catholicism. Also, Hitler was influenced by quite a few American scholars on eugenics. He read those books as a young man. He also saw the rise of communism in his own country (he hated it)and he was deeply affected by the treaty that ended WW1. If the allies showed Germany mercy after WW1 and if capitalism did not crash in 1929, I don't think that there would have been an Adolf Hitler. There's a lot of European history, seen through Hitler's eyes, which is what makes it (for me) such dry reading. His loathing of Jews and Communism is clear.
Gray Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 To those who still think there is some kind of equivalency between Nazis and those who protest Nazis: "No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes." - Mitt Romney 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Gray said: To those who still think there is some kind of equivalency between Nazis and those who protest Nazis: "No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes." - Mitt Romney If protesting Nazis were all they were doing this would be absolutely correct. It gets more complicated, however, when members of the same crowd try to shut down free speech on college campuses and elsewhere, not just for Nazis but for outspoken conservatives such as Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro. When they use violence and vandalism to force their way, they are little better than the white supremacists they detest. There's a myth that's becoming popular with the alt left to the effect that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech. This is not true, of course. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It does not except hate speech. If it did, anti-Mormonism would be illegal. So would much of the intemperate political dialogue going on today, including that emanating from the alt left itself. Edited August 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
HappyJackWagon Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 12 hours ago, bluebell said: I'm so glad the church came out with this statement. Not because i think it will change white supremacists minds but because now they can't claim that their beliefs are compatible with the church or the gospel, and everyone on the outside will know exactly where the church stands when members starting publishing such crap. Of course they can still claim anything they want. This mommy blogger is really something. It's hard to believe she didn't know the first statement was talking about white supremacists, but from her later tweets it really seems like she is clueless. I too am very happy with the newsroom statement. The blogger has said "she is done" whatever that means. She's also said that she doesn't take direction from PR. She wants the First Presidency to make a statement, and she's not going to listen to the newsroom. So she's still clueless and seems incapable of self-reflection, thinking that the First Presidency couldn't possible be behind the newsroom statement. So weird. But beyond the whole white supremacy crap this lady spews, she raises again an issue that many have raised in the past. Are we to take Newsroom statements as official church statements like we would a First Presidency message? Does she have a point that the First Presidency should make doctrinal pronouncements, and not leave it to PR?
Recommended Posts