1st Pres. and NAACP

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

What does less valiant in the war in heaven look like?  Were their weapons?  Was it a war of words and some were not as good at persuading others?  Maybe if we could understand what kind of war it was we could understand how some were more valiant and because of how valiant they were, they were born as all the white leaders of the church.   Clearly they are tied together in Mormon doctrine. 

No physical weapons but more of a war of conflicting ideas and principles involving spirits who followed either God's or Satan's plan. And they were not all born as white church leaders. It involves anyone of any color who was born on this earth and became leaders of righteousness, regardless of what religion they belong to. 

[rongo]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

What would the Church have had to say in “Race And The Priesthood” and susbsequent statements on white supremacists and now the statement with the NAACP, for you to consider that the Church was repudiating/condemning the ban rather than just condemning the explanations for the ban?

Exactly what the Streeter hoax had them say. Which was, after all, the whole point to Streeter's hoax.

[Duncan]

Apparently that Streeter fella apologized for his prank

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/05/23/creator-of-fake-lds-apology-does-his-own-apologizing-acknowledges-causing-tremendous-pain-for-black-mormons/

 

 

[rongo]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Personally I think Joseph toyed around with race and never seemed to come out explicitly one way or the other.

It seems clear to me that he swung to the ban "setting" (cf. Coltrin and Smoot), and didn't believe that the whole time. In other words, that he changed in favor of the ban. There is disagreement on that, and others see it differently.

I don’t see how God can have had anything to do with it, either in terms of its instigation, nor its removal.

Where would you put your current belief in God? Believer? Full-out atheist? Agnostic? Somewhere between?

Coltrin and Smoot - what’s their relevance?

They report Joseph Smith receiving a revelation and declaring the principles behind the ban. Coltrin places his belief in the ban from that point. He reported going to Joseph with that specific question because it came up during his mission to the South. Both the Coltrin and the Smoot statements were made during John Taylor's investigation of the ban in 1880 (due to Jane Manning James' plea to receive temple ordinances). The result of this inquiry was continuance of the ban.  

[rongo]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

What do you think black people were cursed for?

Progress in the pre-existence, and growth needs in mortality. Ergo, not necessarily "lack of valiance," and definitely not "fence-sitting." Can also be super-valiance, leading to an assignment with a higher degree of difficulty.  

And do you believe (as per the Book of Mormon) that black skin was the sign of the curse?

Yes, I do. Don't forget the Pearl of Great Price, too.   That's the graveyard that believing Mormons have to tiptoe past when they want to just blow the whole thing up, whole cloth. 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Apparently that Streeter fella apologized for his prank

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/05/23/creator-of-fake-lds-apology-does-his-own-apologizing-acknowledges-causing-tremendous-pain-for-black-mormons/

I think this is exhibit A that the modern fad of "full-throated apologies" don't actually bring "closure" and "healing." They just prolong and twist the knife. They are intended to be a public torture for the apologizer. 

Doesn't his "apology" smack and ooze of the modern "self-flagellation" and writhing one is supposed to do (politically, ecclesiastically, socially, etc.) when giving a fashionable "mea culpa?" In other words, they are what one is supposed to say, but they don't convey things like "deeply sorry" and "tremendous pain" and "being humbled further by my own ignorance." 

Gag. He doesn't mean it. He's just sorry that there was blowback from those he thought would hail him as a conquering hero. 

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Apparently that Streeter fella apologized for his prank

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/05/23/creator-of-fake-lds-apology-does-his-own-apologizing-acknowledges-causing-tremendous-pain-for-black-mormons/

 

 

Thanks for posting this.  I'm glad that he apologized for the hoax, this was the right thing to do.  Now we can only hope that the church recognizes from this entire incident just how necessary it is for them to give a heartfelt apology for racism of the past and to clearly articulate and put in place policies and practices to turn the tide on the racism that still exists today in the church.  

LDS church, its now your move.  If an ex-Mormon critic can humble himself enough to apologize, then so can you.  Do the right thing LDS church hierarchy!  

[Marginal Gains]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

And do you believe (as per the Book of Mormon) that black skin was the sign of the curse?

 

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, I do.

I’m a little lost for words at this point. 

Quote

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse...

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Edited May 23, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[california boy]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

No physical weapons but more of a war of conflicting ideas and principles involving spirits who followed either God's or Satan's plan. And they were not all born as white church leaders. It involves anyone of any color who was born on this earth and became leaders of righteousness, regardless of what religion they belong to. 

So what would less valiant look like in such a war?   

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

I’m a little lost for words at this point. 

This is just another example for why I said that rongo's position is at odds with the most recent position that the church has been articulating, and why I think the Randy Bott comparison is appropriate.  I think the official church position has moved away from these ideas, yet many members are behind the church on this issue. 

This is why church leaders need to do a better job of effectively communicating and condemning all forms of racism and racist doctrine that is lingering among the ranks.  

[Gray]

On 5/21/2018 at 1:51 PM, kllindley said:

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. 

I think this is a good summary of how race is usually understood, especially in bold.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

 

Quote

A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century the term race began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits. Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, that is, a symbolic identity created to establish some cultural meaning. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality.[1][2]

Quote

Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created, often by socially dominant groups, to establish meaning in a social context. This often involves the subjugation of groups defined as racially inferior, as in the one-drop rule used in the 19th-century United States to exclude those with any amount of African ancestry from the dominant racial grouping, defined as "white".[1] Such racial identities reflect the cultural attitudes of imperial powers dominant during the age of European colonial expansion.[2] This view rejects the notion that race is biologically defined.

 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’m a little lost for words at this point. 

Oh, I don't believe that for a second!  

Look: needle-threading PR spin of the essay notwithstanding, we still have what the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price --- and past prophets, including the 1949 First Presidency letter --- say on the matter. 

No, I don't consider the Paul Reeve essay as countermanding all of that. Not even close. 

[Gray]

On 5/21/2018 at 1:52 PM, Stargazer said:

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.   

It's closer to nationalism. Greek isn't considered a "race" by modern usage of the word.

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

I’m a little lost for words at this point. 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Probably because you're missing the entire point of a dialogue. It's not to try to prove a point or mock others. I'm sure it must be very confusing to see people sharing their beliefs and asking you to do the same. It's difficult to learn to actually engage in respectful dialogue, but you can learn if you want to. 

[Gray]

On 5/21/2018 at 1:56 PM, kllindley said:

Because you said:

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.

A broad summary isn't the same thing as a "a single, monolithic issue that Peter and the other apostles never managed to clear up" You seem to be reading quite a bit of content into my posts that just isn't there.

 

https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue-more-effectivel-1632402742

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

This is just another example for why I said that rongo's position is at odds with the most recent position that the church has been articulating, and why I think the Randy Bott comparison is appropriate.  I think the official church position has moved away from these ideas, yet many members are behind the church on this issue. 

This is why church leaders need to do a better job of effectively communicating and condemning all forms of racism and racist doctrine that is lingering among the ranks.  

I’m not sure the Church could have been any more explicit or clearer than it was in Race And The Priesthood. Rongo knows the Church has disavowed the claim that black skin is the sign of a curse, but he is choosing to wave that away, pretending it to be a disingenuous attempt by the Church to manage PR. The fact is, he is choosing to believe in racism rather than what his Church is now explicitly espousing. 

[Gray]

On 5/21/2018 at 3:51 PM, pogi said:

That is not the question I am addressing.  

I was addressing this by Cinepro:

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. 

The ban itself was racist by definition, regardless of what motivated it.

As I've already explained, Samaritans and gentiles could be Jewish simply by converting. It wasn't an ethnic thing, it was a socio-religious thing.

 

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for posting this.  I'm glad that he apologized for the hoax, this was the right thing to do.  Now we can only hope that the church recognizes from this entire incident just how necessary it is for them to give a heartfelt apology for racism of the past and to clearly articulate and put in place policies and practices to turn the tide on the racism that still exists today in the church.  

LDS church, its now your move.  If an ex-Mormon critic can humble himself enough to apologize, then so can you.  Do the right thing LDS church hierarchy!  

I doubt his sincerity in his apology, but that's just my opinion. He made it harder for the church to "apologize" now because if they did everyone will say they were forced to do it because of this disgusting hoax. 
The church already did do the right thing with their meeting with the NAACP and will continue to do the right thing by ignoring the effects of this hoax and moving forward in improving relations with all races of people.

[Gray]

21 hours ago, rongo said:

I've been thinking about this over the last several days. The incident with the fake website and fake transcript and falsified letters on letterhead, links, articles, etc. has illustrated the difficulty and pitfalls in discerning inspiration and the Holy Ghost from our own wants and inclinations. I think what he did was a jerk move, and the pain and anger he caused people makes me angry. Par for the course with activist ex-members. But I also found it interesting that several members (some on this board, some in our wards, some who have commented online) were moved to tears and felt that they felt the Spirit as they read it and before they knew it was a fake. And it was a fake. Thus, what they felt to be inspiration and confirmation through the Holy Ghost was really their hopes and wants, given expression through the hoax. This reminds me of something President George Q. Cannon said: 

 

I would suggest that the Holy Ghost is a metaphor for feelings of religious awe, and not an actual being, but that's just me.

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

So what would less valiant look like in such a war?   

I have no idea. My memory is a little hazy about the whole event right now. 

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’m not sure the Church could have been any more explicit or clearer than it was in Race And The Priesthood. Rongo knows the Church has disavowed the claim that black skin is the sign of a curse, but he is choosing to wave that away, pretending it to be a disingenuous attempt by the Church to manage PR. The fact is, he is choosing to believe in racism rather than what his Church is now explicitly espousing. 

What good does it do to publish a shortened Paul Reeve essay to disavow that black skin is the sign of a curse, while leaving the very scriptures in place that are the foundation of that? And especially without explaining how they are then to be understood. That's the big elephant in the roomThe Church would have to remove those sections to move my needle. And even then, you can't unring a bell. We don't live in Winston Smith's Oceania. Removing whole sections of scripture makes the problem worse, I think, and for that and other reasons, isn't going to happen. 

Another huge gap in the essay is that it disavows all past explanations (all), but offers zero authoritative or even alternative explanations. Less than unhelpful, except as a PR piece. 

For its intended purposes, the disavowals works. It allows some to simply erase any past doctrine or teaching, and it also allows others to continue to believe what the Church has traditionally taught. 

If you want to talk about "fence-sitting," it's probably the best possible way to do that . . .  

Edited May 23, 2018 by rongo

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would suggest that the Holy Ghost is a metaphor for feelings of religious awe, and not an actual being, but that's just me.

Yes, that is just you.   I believe that the Holy Ghost is actually a personage of spirit, and the third member of the Godhead. Really and truly.  

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

A broad summary isn't the same thing as a "a single, monolithic issue that Peter and the other apostles never managed to clear up" You seem to be reading quite a bit of content into my posts that just isn't there.

 

https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue-more-effectivel-1632402742

So the broad summary you provided was: (with emphasis as I read it)

On 5/21/2018 at 8:58 AM, Gray said:

The controversy in early Christianity was whether or not gentile converts had to be circumcised and keep Jewish law. There actually were a surprising number of Roman converts to Judaism when Paul was active. He may have converted a number of them to Christianity. The issue wasn't about ethnicity - any ethnicity could be Jewish or Christian. The issue was religious practice. Would Christianity continue to be a Jewish sect and require adherence to Jewish laws? Or would they fundamentally change? One of the early solutions (which you find in one of the synoptic gospels) was to require Jewish Christians to continue to keep the law, while gentile Christians didn't have to. Eventually adherence to the law was abandoned for all Christians. Paul was, of course, one of the principal opponents to keeping the law.

I'm only reading what you've written. If you'd now like to claim that you meant something other than what you wrote, that's fine. Or if you want to explain that you intended emphasis on a different place than what I read, just say so. If you mean that your opinion is that socio-religious differences were what early Christians were actually worried about rather than race, ethnicity, nationality, or ancestry, cool. I'd love to see support of that interpretation of the text. 

Don't accuse me of reading more than is there. 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, that is just you.   I believe that the Holy Ghost is actually a personage of spirit, and the third member of the Godhead. Really and truly.  

I have no problem with that

[Gray]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

So the broad summary you provided was: (with emphasis as I read it)

I'm only reading what you've written. If you'd now like to claim that you meant something other than what you wrote, that's fine. Or if you want to explain that you intended emphasis on a different place than what I read, just say so. If you mean that your opinion is that socio-religious differences were what early Christians were actually worried about rather than race, ethnicity, nationality, or ancestry, cool. I'd love to see support of that interpretation of the text. 

Don't accuse me of reading more than is there. 

Can you highlight exactly where I said it was a single monolithic issue and that they never managed to clear it up? I'm not seeing it, and I wrote it.