Updated church statement - White culture

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

She's clueless, but no more so than others who won't accept official statements of Church policy unless they are signed by the First Presidency. There's a lot of that going around, regarding gay "marriage" and other issues.  How often we hear complaints about the Gospel Topics essays being written anonymously. I see that often on this very board. 

Furthermore, you are calling the kettle black when you say she is clueless but in the same breath say she raises a good point. 

Church Public Affairs acts at the pleasure and behest of the Church leadership. How many times must the point be made that it does not free-lance?

Edited August 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Ann Coulter uses all the white supremacist dog whistles - in my books she is one of them.

Antifa is extreme, and sometimes violent, but there is no equivalency between them and the Nazis/KKK. The Nazis exist to wipe out those they consider racially inferior, Antifa exists to resist Nazis, often outside the bounds of the law.

If you can't see the difference between Nazis and those who resist Nazis, you need to do some serious soul searching and re-calibrate your moral compass.

 

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

There is no such thing as the alt left. It's a term made up by the "alt right" to pretend there is some kind of equivalency between Nazis and those who oppose Nazis.

[Gray]

The "alt left" prepares to take on the "alt right", 1944

 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

She's clueless, but no more so than others who won't accept official statements of Church policy unless they are signed by the First Presidency. There's a lot of that going around, regarding gay "marriage" and other issues.  How often we hear complaints about the Gospel Topics essays being written anonymously. I see that often on this very board. 

Furthermore, you are calling the kettle black when you say she is clueless but in the same breath say she raises a good point. 

Church Public Affairs acts at the pleasure and behest of the Church leadership. How many times must the point be made that it does not free-lance?

Your usage of this cliché is odd. You know what it means, right?

Yes, she is clueless about her white supremacy.

Yes, I think she raises a valid (or at least interesting) point about what entity officially speaks for the church regarding doctrine. When there are 15 prophets and apostles, it seems reasonable that they would address the issue instead of a PR news release. We have many layers of people/departments speaking to us. It goes something like this. We must always assume that one person/group is speaking on behalf of the one higher and that chain eventually leads to God. Why not at least try to shorten that chain?

God - Prophet - First Presidency - Apostles - PR Department - Church News & other publications - me

Or one could simply cut that chain to God - me. After all, the great lesson from the First Vision narrative is that we all have access to God and that we should go to the source instead of intermediaries.

[hope_for_things]

55 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

I loved that tweet Romney sent last night.  I didn't love Romney when he was running for president, for multiple different reasons, but I've really loved his early, clearly articulated and ardent criticism of Trump.  Unfortunately my extended family members and some friends who all voted for Romney, and who loved Romney much more than I did as a candidate, its funny how they all seem to dismiss his criticism of Trump.  Its odd how this is happening, but its been the case every time I bring up the comments Romney is making about Trump, they completely dismiss it. 

[Duncan]

7 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.

My dad was in Hitler Youth, if you want to make him mad, ask him about Hitler and Naziism and then sit back and watch the verbal fireworks! Germany was a mess after during and after WW1 and it didn't end until decades later, they had their moments but my dad's dad was the only person in 3 city blocks who had a job in the 1930's

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Church Public Affairs acts at the pleasure and behest of the Church leadership. How many times must the point be made that it does not free-lance?

Perhaps one more time...

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Perhaps one more time...

 

I've said before I disagree with that comment by Isom. 

But there is a fundamental difference between an off-the-cuff response to an interviewer on a live radio show and a prepared statement released under the Church's official imprimatur on an official venue such as "Newsroom" intended to articulate the official policy of the Church. To say that such a thing is not authoritative because it doesn't carry the signature of the First Presidency is absurd. 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

There's a great article I was reading this morning describing the false equivalence problem in the Atlantic about this very concern here. 

They are simply in no means on the same level of concern or culpability as the Alt-right IMHO. And this weekend, of all weekends, was not the one to start insisting they basically are. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

There is no such thing as the alt left. 

Oh, there's an alt left.  We don't need to look too far back in history to see that.  Just read the comments. 

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/14/its-a-shame-more-republicans-werent-shot-ugliness-on-twitter-after-baseball-shooting/

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure why the last thread was closed, but I'm going to risk it and post this, since the church made an update to their earlier statement, and this is really blowing up on social media, so I think its relevant for our message board as well.  Jana Riess posted this really well written blog post on the back and forth and the reactions from this somewhat infamous "Wife With A Purpose" and her tweets.  She's going right back at the church, and personally I hope she does self select out of the church over this issue.

http://religionnews.com/2017/08/15/lds-church-rebukes-mormon-white-supremacists-who-rebuke-the-church-right-back/

Any thoughts on the drama happening, or the church's statement.  I'm really pleased with the statement, I think its the best and most clear statement we've seen on racism from the church to date.  Yahoo, I agree with an official church statement on something!!  It feels good.  :-)  

 

I'm very very pleased with the statement. Several of my FB friends, from what I can tell, are even more pleased. They describe it as a prayer being answered. 

I hope Ayla either wakes up, leaves, or faces church discipline. I feel so bad for her children who are likely being indoctrinated in this and will be stunted in our diverse growingly pluralistic society if they continue to believe her brand of crazy. 

 

I'll leave politics out at large. I will just briefly say that personally, the statements by trump is the last of the last straws for me with him. I didn't realize he hadn't reached that with me until last night. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Oh, there's an alt left.  We don't need to look too far back in history to see that.  Just read the comments. 

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/14/its-a-shame-more-republicans-werent-shot-ugliness-on-twitter-after-baseball-shooting/

There is no group called the alt left. There are of course extremists on the left.

Nazis/KKK are trying to rebrand themselves as alt right, and have been somewhat successful in that. They call themselves that, and have been very successful in installing their agents in the executive branch.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/alt-left-alt-right-glossary.html

Quote

Alt-Left

Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no such thing as the “alt-left.” Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, said the word had been made up to create a false equivalence between the far right and “anything vaguely left-seeming that they didn’t like.”

Some centrist liberals have taken to using this term.

“It did not arise organically, and it refers to no actual group or movement or network,” Mr. Pitcavage said in an email. “It’s just a made-up epithet, similar to certain people calling any news they don’t like ‘fake news.’”

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your usage of this cliché is odd. You know what it means, right?

Yes, she is clueless about her white supremacy.

Yes, I think she raises a valid (or at least interesting) point about what entity officially speaks for the church regarding doctrine. When there are 15 prophets and apostles, it seems reasonable that they would address the issue instead of a PR news release. We have many layers of people/departments speaking to us. It goes something like this. We must always assume that one person/group is speaking on behalf of the one higher and that chain eventually leads to God. Why not at least try to shorten that chain?

God - Prophet - First Presidency - Apostles - PR Department - Church News & other publications - me

Or one could simply cut that chain to God - me. After all, the great lesson from the First Vision narrative is that we all have access to God and that we should go to the source instead of intermediaries.

An even greater lesson to me is that mortals, through their own foolishness, pride and wickedness, depart from God and that He anoints prophets to communicate with and teach them because they lack the spiritual capacity to hear His word in other ways. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

26 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm very very pleased with the statement. Several of my FB friends, from what I can tell, are even more pleased. They describe it as a prayer being answered. 

I hope Ayla either wakes up, leaves, or faces church discipline. I feel so bad for her children who are likely being indoctrinated in this and will be stunted in our diverse growingly pluralistic society if they continue to believe her brand of crazy. 

 

I'll leave politics out at large. I will just briefly say that personally, the statements by trump is the last of the last straws for me with him. I didn't realize he hadn't reached that with me until last night. 

 

With luv,

BD

Last of the straws with you? I thought you had reached that point eight months ago. 

You're sounding like CNN. They're rhetoric since early on has been so intemperate they have had a hard time topping themselves each time they want to express yet more outrage. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is no group called the alt left. There are of course extremists on the left.

Nazis/KKK are trying to rebrand themselves as alt right, and have been somewhat successful in that. They call themselves that, and have been very successful in installing their agents in the executive branch.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/alt-left-alt-right-glossary.html

 

It doesn't really matter what they are called, the point is that there is a far left equivalent to the hate and extremism we see on the alt right.  They are just not as organized as the alt right.  I don't care what the far left call themselves, or don't call themselves.  I don't care if they are organized or not.  Just because they don't have a name, doesn't mean they don't exist.  They are real, and they deserve to be called out.  That is hard to do if we don't know what to call them.  I will call them "alt left" as it is a useful term to describe their extreme ideology of hate, and to distinguish them from the main stream left. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by pogi

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Last of the straws with you? I thought you had reached that point eight months ago. 

You're sounding like CNN. They're rhetoric since early on has been so intemperate they have had a hard time topping themselves each time they want to express yet more outrage. 

Oh, goodness...are you serious?  This is man may be the least qualified individual to ever sit down in the Oval Office.

BTW, it's "Their" not "They're"

[BlueDreams]

One last, last general thought. On a religious stance I think there is an end to toleration of ideas and behaviors that can be found in particularly the BoM and PoGP. This goes beyond excommunication, where one may still participate in the community though not the rites of said community. But moments where cutoff were necessary because the people were not only opposed to community/church values but were becoming a dangerous threat to basic security of the society and becoming wrapped in the rites described as satanic. If one studies these, you can see that these followed solid patterns of secrecy, a glorification of violence, growing gender disparity, divisiveness, and calls for war against others, particularly the people of God. It meant taking on emblems and signs of their evil association. In my opinion associating with these white extremist and terrorist groups is very much in parallel with that. I saw it as I watched varying livestreams of them brandishing AK's, holding up emblems and giving signs tied to nazis and the KKK. In their seemingly over-readiness and excitement to participate in violence (at one point, seeing a fight brake out, a WN shouted "here we go" in a way that was surprisingly excited). In their pre-calls and flyers that spoke of a race war. And in their chants in the darkness that at one point included the words "black lives splatter," Jewish hatred, and several hostile statements of this being their city and/or country now.   

 

At such a point, their rights/place in the social square becomes questionable at best to me. ON a religious square it is unequivocal that they can no longer have place among us. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

It doesn't really matter what they are called, the point is that there is a far left equivalent to the hate and extremism we see on the alt right.  

So we agree there is no such thing as the alt left? We both agree there are extremists on the left. However, they are not equivalent to the current rebirth of Nazism on the right.

 

Quote

They are just not as organized as the alt right.  I don't care what the far left call themselves, or don't call themselves.  I don't care if they are organized or not.  Just because they don't have a name, doesn't mean they don't exist.  They are real, and they deserve to be called out.  That is hard to do if we don't know what to call them.  I will call them "alt left" as it is a useful term to describe their extreme ideology of hate, and to distinguish them from the main stream left. 

Yes, that terms works as a way to provide cover for Nazis. That's why it was invented and why it is used by defenders of the "Alt Right"

Edited August 16, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The "alt left" prepares to take on the "alt right", 1944

 

Don't dishonor our brave World War II soldiers by lumping them with 21st century thugs who use violence and vandalism to shut off freedom of speech for those they disagree with. 

[halconero]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, goodness...are you serious?  This is man may be the least qualified individual to ever sit down in the Oval Office.

BTW, it's "Their" not "They're"

Yup, and I'm done with the Hindenburg's and the Ludendorff's willing to accommodate his Administration and the staff which populates it which includes members of the Hungarian Guard and several bigoted media publishers.

Don't give the Chancellery over just because you're (collective "you're," not you ttribe) afraid of your own Reichstag fire from the left. Those groups you're afraid of don't have governmental authority backing them, winking at them, or even putting them into positions of authority themselves. Don't be a Weimar Republic conservative.