1st Pres. and NAACP

[Gray]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

And yet this doesn't square with your earlier attempt to focus on the 3rd definition of racism.  It sounds like you want it both ways. 

How do you figure? Ancient people didn't understand race the same way we do.

If you could outline your reasoning step by step, that would be helpful.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Gray

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

My statement was actually a much broader summary of the gentile issue discussed in Acts.

So you assert that "the gentile issue" that is discussed throughout the book of Acts is actually a single, monolithic issue that Peter and the other apostles never managed to clear up?

[Gray]

Just now, kllindley said:

So you assert that "the gentile issue" that is discussed throughout the book of Acts is actually a single, monolithic issue that Peter and the other apostles never managed to clear up?

No, why would you say that?

[MorningStar]

I got an error when I posted the video, but Sistas in Zion posted a heartbreaking response on Facebook to the fake message that went out.  

[JAHS]

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I believe Pres. Hinckley and many prophets prior and after was aware of the issue..but there was never any clarification .

I don't think there can be any more explanation made besides what has already been said in the Gospel Topics post about this issue.
All we have are the past writings of President Young and other prophets that we already know about. Nothing else exists unless something new is found. 
Do you want God to provide a revelation to our current prophet explaining why the past prophets did what they did? I don't think that is going to happen.

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I suspect the Church may reach the point in the next few weeks where they realize it might have been better to not shine a spotlight on Official Declaration 2.

I wonder how hastily the June 1 broadcast was planned and scheduled? There was the famous letter in January 2017 stating that there wouldn't be any church-wide commemorations of significant church anniversaries, and as late as August 2017, the broadcast wasn't in the list of 2018 broadcasts which is sent out annually. So, it appears that the decision was made to do a "Be One" broadcast sometime after August. Probably the Nelson administration (after January 2018), since both letters were issued under the Monson administration. 

What do you suppose the reaction from the Brethren is, internally, to the whole fake transcript/website mimic and the aftermath? I wonder what their personal reaction is to that, and what they have discussed in relation to it?

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, I guess it would be better to not showcase any black members at all.  Because everyone suspects that there is a nefarious reason for it.  We should notify the Church Propaganda Office that their machinations aren't bearing the fruit they expect.  Hope_for-_things, after all, has seen through their slyness.

I think the church's PR strategy is clear and obvious, and I also think its smart strategically.  But its a construction of a picture that isn't an accurate reflection of reality. 

It's advertising like all other corporations participate in.  Its similar to the difference between what that juicy hamburger on a TV advertisement looks like and what you get when you order one at the local fast food joint.  

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

How do you figure? Ancient people didn't understand race the same way we do.

If you could outline your reasoning step by step, that would be helpful.

How do we understand race?  Because I'm not at all sure you and I understand it in the same way. And I'm highly doubtful you understand it in the same way non-Americans understand race.

But, if you'd like to clarify how "we understand race," I'd be happy to try to explain. 

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

I got an error when I posted the video, but Sistas in Zion posted a heartbreaking response on Facebook to the fake message that went out.  

If anyone goes to their Facebook page, the original response video was posted on Thursday 5/17.  

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Proto-racism sounds closer to nationalism. For instance, Aristotle thought that people from non-Greek nations were more suited to slavery. That would have included people of similar ethnicity who didn't happen to be Greek. Compare that to more modern notions about racism that are more concerned with appearance (skin color, facial features, hair types), less with nationality.

 

 

It's still racism.  Proto schmoto.  It's like calling what the Sumerians did when they fought other nations "proto-war".  Because we're so much better at it -- when we fight we kill millions, not like hose pikers the ancient Sumerians.  Aristotle was a racist.  

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, why would you say that?

Because you said:

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

My statement was actually a much broader summary of the gentile issue discussed in Acts.

I was pointing out that there were different gentile issues described throughout the book and trying to lump them together to dismiss any notions of group-based discrimination is disingenuous.

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the church's PR strategy is clear and obvious, and I also think its smart strategically.  But its a construction of a picture that isn't an accurate reflection of reality. 

It's advertising like all other corporations participate in.  Its similar to the difference between what that juicy hamburger on a TV advertisement looks like and what you get when you order one at the local fast food joint.  

See my post here on this topic: Pres. Nelson and alcoholic lawyer lady  

 

[Tacenda]

On 5/19/2018 at 12:05 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know what you're trying to convey with this sarcasm, but the Church of Jesus Christ has never done anything close to instructing its members to commit mass killings. The blame for Mountain Meadows rests squarely with those who perpetrated it.

Your analogy would be valid if the order to do the massacre had come from the Church as an institution. But it didn't, so your analogy and reasoning fail.

I believe you are wrong that it didn't come from the church. There is the Oath of Vengence and I could quote and link to many sites that prove this was what occurred. Does it not instruct to the nth degree?  Diary of Heber C. Kimball (21 December 1845),^{[full citation needed]} saying that in the temple he had "covenanted, and will never rest … until those men who killed Joseph and Hyrum have been wiped out of the earth".

http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/6328718

Edited May 21, 2018 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I believe you are wrong that it didn't come from the church. There is the Oath of Vengence and I could quote and link to many sites that prove this was what occurred. Does it not instruct to the nth degree?  Diary of Heber C. Kimball (21 December 1845),^{[full citation needed]} saying that in the temple he had "covenanted, and will never rest … until those men who killed Joseph and Hyrum have been wiped out of the earth".

http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/6328718

I agree Tacenda.  There are families I know that were affected by those who lived in Payson....where a widow and son was killed because of the law of polygamy. 

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the church's PR strategy is clear and obvious, and I also think its smart strategically.  But its a construction of a picture that isn't an accurate reflection of reality. 

It's advertising like all other corporations participate in.  Its similar to the difference between what that juicy hamburger on a TV advertisement looks like and what you get when you order one at the local fast food joint.  

Hmmmmm, interesting that you assume the media message the Church is sending is directed towards others, like trying to make it look good to outsiders. 

You tend to write in a way that says anyone who doesn't see things the same was as you is blind, or stupid, so I'm sure I can't say anything worthy of your consideration. But in the interest of contributing to the larger dialogue, I personally see those diversity efforts as an attempt to help members better understand the value of diversity, both to help members in the inter mountain West actually feel familiar with diversity that they don't have exposure to in their communities, and to help minorities feel comfortable as part of the Church. 

Oddly, this is exactly the type of change that many racial activists promote, but you're not accusing Hollywood of using diversity as a PR stunt. 

[california boy]

37 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I suspect the Church may reach the point in the next few weeks where they realize it might have been better to not shine a spotlight on Official Declaration 2.

Because in the end, if the Church is going to try and officially sell the idea that we have no idea where the policy came from (beyond Brigham Young's repeated explanations that it was for the Curse of Cain which we now don't believe in), then focusing on the fact that the ban remained in place until 1978 isn't necessarily a good thing.

It would be like the state of Missouri having a big celebration to commemorate their lifting of the "Extermination Order" in 1976.  Such a celebration could only be done by emphasizing the fact that the order existed in the first place, and it took until 1976 for them to finally get rid of it.  So what, exactly, would we be celebrating? 

I'm not trying to create a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation.  It just seems that the satirical press release cut through the confetti to point out some of the deeper issues that weren't being discussed, and now more people are having that discussion, which might not have been what the Church was going for.

 

On another note, I think there is a larger issue with the satirical press release.  When I finally sat down and read it, I was shocked by the tone.  But if it was accepted (with enthusiasm) by some in the Church, then I think the satire reveals a desire some members have for leadership that is bold and brave.  We've gotten so used to wishy-washy, PR-led leadership that to see something that looked like real leadership was a shocking but refreshing change.  If the press release had been real, I think I wouldn't have been alone in reading it and thinking "Now that's a leader, and even a Prophet." 

If there are any tears, it's because some members got to live in a world where LDS leadership was really that bold, brave and honest.  And then they had to go back to the world where non-apologies are read off of teleprompters after being sifted through countless levels of lawyers and correlation.  It may have been a cruel joke to put someone through that, but it wasn't the author's fault that that's the world LDS now live in.

I think what came out of this whole event is that some people really want and need an apology from the Church

And from the Church point of view, they do not want or need to apologize   People are just going to have to live with both points of view.

[Marginal Gains]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think what came out of this whole event is that some people really want and need an apology from the Church

And from the Church point of view, they do not want or need to apologize   People are just going to have to live with both points of view.

The Church feels no need to repent of past behaviour. How might Church leaders react if members decided to take the same stance?

[smac97]

Just now, Marginal Gains said:

The Church feels no need to repent of past behaviour. How might Church leaders react if members decided to take the same stance?

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  AoF 1:2.

I've never been very keen on the concept of "collective guilt."  I will be punished for my own sins, not those of my forebears.

My wife's great-great-grandfather was John D. Lee.  I am curious if you fault her for not having apologized for Mountain Meadows.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  AoF 1:2.

I've never been very keen on the concept of "collective guilt."  I will be punished for my own sins, not those of my forebears.

My wife's great-great-grandfather was John D. Lee.  I am curious if you fault her for not having apologized for Mountain Meadows.

Thanks,

-Smac

You’re suggesting that the Apostles who operated the ban for 100 years were doing so of their own volition as a personal action, rather than as a unanimous group operating an entity under divine guidance. You might wish to consider the wider implications of such a stance.

Have you ever apologised to someone for the behaviour of your child? If you have, why did you?

Edited May 21, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

You’re suggesting that the Apostles who operated the ban for 100 years

"Operated the ban?"  I'm not sure what that means.

Quote

were doing so of their own volition as a personal action,

No, I'm not suggesting that.  Some of them proffered (faulty) explanations for the Ban, which the Church has specifically rejected.

Quote

rather than as a unanimous group operating an entity under divine guidance.

In the main, I don't know what "divine guidance" they received or did not receive relative to the Ban.  The historical record is relatively scarce.

Quote

You might wish to consider the wider implications of such a stance.

Such as?

Quote

Have you ever apologised to someone for the behaviour of your child?  If you have, why did you?

Nope.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 21, 2018 by smac97

[Tacenda]

35 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church feels no need to repent of past behaviour. How might Church leaders react if members decided to take the same stance?

Hum, never thought of it like that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church feels no need to repent of past behaviour. How might Church leaders react if members decided to take the same stance?

 

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  AoF 1:2.

I've never been very keen on the concept of "collective guilt."  I will be punished for my own sins, not those of my forebears.

My wife's great-great-grandfather was John D. Lee.  I am curious if you fault her for not having apologized for Mountain Meadows.

Thanks,

-Smac

Whenever I read or hear about the Hawn's* Mill Massacre, I am incensed. My sense of justice is offended to think that none of the perpetrators were ever called to account for the atrocities they committed.

But am I inclined to demand an apology from the descendants of the perpetrators (there must be many by now) for those who were killed and harmed so long ago? Not in the least, even if I thought they were disposed to excuse or justify the actions of their ancestors, which I highly doubt.

Furthermore, to make the analogy a a bit more comparable, suppose there existed a society or association of descendants of western Missouri residents of the late 1830s. Would I be demanding an apology from that association for the Hawn's* Mill Massacre? No. You see, like Smac97, I'm not a believer in collective or institutional guilt. It is silly to say the least.

And no, I would not apologize for the behavior of my child unless I were in some way responsible for it. I don't hold the parents of Mark Hofmann responsible for the murders and forgeries he committed.

(*Late research by Professor Alex Baugh has confirmed that the correct spelling of Jacob Hawn's name is H-a-w-n, not H-a-u-n.)

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Whenever I read or hear about the Hawn's* Mill Massacre, I am incensed. My sense of justice is offended to think that none of the perpetrators were ever called to account for the atrocities they committed.

But am I inclined to demand an apology from the descendants of the perpetrators (there must be many by now) for those who were killed and harmed so long ago? Not in the least, even if I thought they were disposed to excuse or justify the actions of their ancestors, which I highly doubt.

Furthermore, to make the analogy a a bit more comparable, suppose there existed a society or association of descendants of western Missouri residents of the late 1830s. Would I be demanding an apology from that association for the Hawn's* Mill Massacre? No. You see, like Smac97, I'm not a believer in collective or institutional guilt. It is silly to say the least.

And no, I would not apologize for the behavior of my child unless I were in some way responsible for it. I don't hold the parents of Mark Hofmann responsible for the murders and forgeries he committed.

(*Late research by Professor Alex Baugh has confirmed that the correct spelling of Jacob Hawn's name is H-a-w-n, not H-a-u-n.)

The Church has a convenient policy of only disavowing a prophets actions after that prophet is dead, up o that point you can always trust them. Once dead, they were speaking as a man, influenced by the culture of the day etc

The Church won’t apologise, and that’s to its detriment in my eyes. But I will.

I apologise unreservedly for being a member of an organisation that operated a racist policy. It wasn’t my decision to put the policy in place, but I didn’t challenge it at the time. I’m embarrassed I didn’t. I won’t make that mistake again. Unlike the Church, which is repeating the same mistakes all over again, with sexuality replacing skin colour as the rationale for discrimination.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The question is whether racism is approved of God based on ancient scriptures.

That is not the question I am addressing.  

I was addressing this by Cinepro:

Quote

As I've pointed out before, that's another aspect of the ban that doesn't make sense (at least from a "God did it" perspective).  Why would the black people on Earth in 1977 not be worthy of the Temple and Priesthood blessings, but those same people in 1979 were?  Were there some people who died in early 1978 that God was waiting for to rescind the ban, and instead of just telling President Kimball who those specific people were, He left the ban in place until they died?  What other explanation could there be?

To assume that it must be racism because "what other explanation could there be?", just doesn't do it for me.  Like I said, one could use the same argument for the early church.  The early church discriminated (like it or not) on ethnic and religious grounds (Samaritan, gentiles).  Before Acts 10, certain groups were unworthy to be baptized, after acts 10, they were.  It is a parallel, and there is not really a good explanation in either case.  When there is not a good explanation, people start throwing out 'isms as the only possible explanation. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Hmmmmm, interesting that you assume the media message the Church is sending is directed towards others, like trying to make it look good to outsiders. 

You tend to write in a way that says anyone who doesn't see things the same was as you is blind, or stupid, so I'm sure I can't say anything worthy of your consideration. But in the interest of contributing to the larger dialogue, I personally see those diversity efforts as an attempt to help members better understand the value of diversity, both to help members in the inter mountain West actually feel familiar with diversity that they don't have exposure to in their communities, and to help minorities feel comfortable as part of the Church. 

Oddly, this is exactly the type of change that many racial activists promote, but you're not accusing Hollywood of using diversity as a PR stunt. 

I am fairly confident in my opinion here, but I'm open to other ideas too.  I think you make a good point that there could be other motivating factors involved in the PR messages.  I don't think the church ignores their own base (active members) in their PR efforts.  I think they are likely producing the content for multiple audiences at the same time. 

Whether its the Meet the Mormons movie or the I'm a Mormon ad campaigns, its clear that the church is investing a significant amount into its PR image.  Its also clear to me that the diversity that is portrayed in these messages is not a representative sample of the diversity of the church, especially in the USA.  But like I said earlier, the church is strategically crafting a message that they believe will appeal to their audience, and I'm sure they consider active members as part of that audience.