1st Pres. and NAACP

[hope_for_things]

16 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. 

I agree that the essay is clear and I've had multiple threads where I've made that point.  Yet, there are many who read it differently and justify their positions.  This is why I fault church leaders.  They publish an essay and then never discuss it over the pulpit.  Its entirely ineffective. 

Church leaders could correct this problem every 6 months during a general conference, but they refuse to address this and other important problems we have with racism in the church.   

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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.

I have no reason to doubt the guy, I don't know him personally.  I think the fact that he was defending his hoax and now is apologizing is what we see with many others who are called out in a public way for their misbehavior.  Sincerity is very difficult to discern, and he's saying the right things in the statement itself and that's all that matters to me.  

I don't see why this fiasco makes it harder for the church to apologize.  Why?  The right time to apologize was in the past.  Every day that moves forward without correcting these past wrongs is another day wasted and another day of letting the cancer continue to grow and fester.  

[hope_for_things]

13 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 for one, completely agree with Gray on this.  (Not just him) 

[rongo]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I for one, completely agree with Gray on this.  (Not just him) 

I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! 

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

I never claimed you said it was a single monolithic issue that the apostles never managed to clear up. That was a broad summary of the paragraph you wrote. 

You claimed that THE issue in Acts was about non-Jewish converts and the law. I said that it appeared that there were multiple issues discussed at various times. In Acts 11, Peter's vision and explanation are reported to have put the members completely at ease with that issue. Then another was brought up in Acts 15. I disputed that there was one issue (the article "the" communicating singular). If as you wrote the issue in Acts was non-Jewish converts and the law, it seems that it surfaced several times despite Peter addressing it in chapter 11. 

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Every day that moves forward without correcting these past wrongs is another day wasted and another day of letting the cancer continue to grow and fester.  

But they are correcting the past wrongs by what they are doing now. To me that is the same as an apology.
In his book "Nobody Knows" Pastor Murray of the First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Los Angeles talks about his meeting with President Hinckley in 2012 where President Hinckley actually did offer an apology to him. He said the following:
"It is certainly true that the Mormon Church has been a factor in discrimination." He then adds the words he said to President Hinckley after the apology: "But you've done so much good—and now, to hear these words would certainly say that your hearts are right." 
He also said:
"President Hinckley is a true messenger of our Lord. Two years ago, I was invited to Salt Lake City by the LDS Church, and President Hinckley took his personal time to sit with our small group that was touring the many ministries and apologized to me in front of the group. That was amazing! Now the [LDS] Church pushes Blacks to learn their lineage via the Church. That will open eyes and doors that will open new avenues of life."

Pastor to Pastor: President Hinckley's Apology for Racism in the Church

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

It doesn't matter what kind of "thing" it was, it was discrimination and it was an 'ism of some sort (socio-religiousism).  Why do you criticize one 'ism and not the other?  I suspect it is because race-ism is so much more taboo in today's age.  I don't see one as better or worse than another though.

This is how the early church operated - Unless you are a Jew, you are not worthy of hearing the gospel.   You don't think that is discrimination (even if they accepted Jewish converts)? 

Even being in the presence of a non-Jew could make a person ceremonially unclean: 

Quote

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas to the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. (John 18:28)

"But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs (Matt15:26)."  If President Nelson said that today to any group of people, I don't think you would be so tolerant of it.   There really is no difference.  Discrimination existed in the primitive church, and it existed in the modern church.  Why?  I don't know.  But you can't deny that it existed in both churches.  If you want to call that an 'ism...ok.  It doesn't change anything for me.  It doesn't make Christ any less perfect for discriminating. 

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But they are correcting the past wrongs by what they are doing now. To me that is the same as an apology.
In his book "Nobody Knows" Pastor Murray of the First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Los Angeles talks about his meeting with President Hinckley in 2012 where President Hinckley actually did offer an apology to him. He said the following:
"It is certainly true that the Mormon Church has been a factor in discrimination." He then adds the words he said to President Hinckley after the apology: "But you've done so much good—and now, to hear these words would certainly say that your hearts are right." 
He also said:
"President Hinckley is a true messenger of our Lord. Two years ago, I was invited to Salt Lake City by the LDS Church, and President Hinckley took his personal time to sit with our small group that was touring the many ministries and apologized to me in front of the group. That was amazing! Now the [LDS] Church pushes Blacks to learn their lineage via the Church. That will open eyes and doors that will open new avenues of life."

Pastor to Pastor: President Hinckley's Apology for Racism in the Church

Its not even close to enough, and those statements are so obscure hardly anyone knows about them.  Regular members aren't getting the message and we still have a lot of racism in the church today.  Thanks to the racist President Trump, we have many of these people even more emboldened in our society here in the USA. 

The church has a very effective mechanism for communicating (general conference) and they could easily update the curriculum to include teachings on this issue and correct polices and doctrines of the past through Sunday School.  The church isn't doing diddly squat on this issue, and its a travesty from my perspective.  

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not even close to enough, and those statements are so obscure hardly anyone knows about them.  Regular members aren't getting the message and we still have a lot of racism in the church today.  Thanks to the racist President Trump, we have many of these people even more emboldened in our society here in the USA. 

The church has a very effective mechanism for communicating (general conference) and they could easily update the curriculum to include teachings on this issue and correct polices and doctrines of the past through Sunday School.  The church isn't doing diddly squat on this issue, and its a travesty from my perspective.  

I wouldn't call it diddly squat. There have been General conference talks regarding this issue.

President Hinckley said:

"Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?"  (The Need for Greater Kindness April Conference 2006)

There are other talks on this issue and an entire LDS.org website page devoted to the subject. And I am not just talking about the Gospel Topics article. 
See  Race and the Priesthood 
The Church can only do so much from the pulpit. The members have to decide to make a change in their attitude.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wouldn't call it diddly squat. There have been General conference talks regarding this issue.

President Hinckley said:

"Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?"  (The Need for Greater Kindness April Conference 2006)

There are other talks on this issue and an entire LDS.org website page devoted to the subject. And I am not just talking about the Gospel Topics article. 
See  Race and the Priesthood 
The Church can only do so much from the pulpit. The members have to decide to make a change in their attitude.

I'm calling it diddly squat (and I'm thinking of Chris Farley using the phrase Jack Squat as I do this ) because of its impact on the regular members.  The church essay that most members haven't read and many don't even know about doesn't really talk about how racism exists in the church today.   Its just so little and so ineffective.  

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wouldn't call it diddly squat. There have been General conference talks regarding this issue.

President Hinckley said:

"Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?"  (The Need for Greater Kindness April Conference 2006)

There are other talks on this issue and an entire LDS.org website page devoted to the subject. And I am not just talking about the Gospel Topics article. 
See  Race and the Priesthood 
The Church can only do so much from the pulpit. The members have to decide to make a change in their attitude.

People sometimes quote this from President Hinckley as demonstrating a full condemnation of the ban itself. What he taught here is the default setting in the Church: there is no place for racial slurs and denigrating remarks. Maybe I'm just sheltered (but probably not, given my five years in Chicago and the diversity of where I live. Whites are the minority in my high school), but I've never heard racial slurs or denigrating remarks in a church setting. It would be jarring and shocking if it happened. I think the Church is in full accord on that. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm calling it diddly squat (and I'm thinking of Chris Farley using the phrase Jack Squat as I do this ) because of its impact on the regular members.  The church essay that most members haven't read and many don't even know about doesn't really talk about how racism exists in the church today.   Its just so little and so ineffective.  

How does racism exist in the church today? Serious question. 

I've heard people say, "Because there are people like you who don't think the ban was a mistake," but that does not de facto make me a racist. Racist is as racist does. From a works and words standpoint, how does racism exist in the church today?

Edited May 23, 2018 by rongo

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

How does racism exist in the church today? Serious question. 

I've heard people say, "Because there are people like you who don't think the ban was a mistake," but that does not de facto make me a racist. Racist is as racist does. From a works and words standpoint, how does racism exist in the church today?

I don't see it at all myself in the church, but of course we can't read the minds of every church member who might pretend it is not an issue for them.
The church today certainly has not done anything to promote racism.  And I think it has spoken out against it sufficiently and has reached out to others to promote good relations, such as the recent meeting with the NAACP.
Like I said before the members themselves have to make changes; the church cannot force them to. 

[JAHS]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm calling it diddly squat (and I'm thinking of Chris Farley using the phrase Jack Squat as I do this ) because of its impact on the regular members.  The church essay that most members haven't read and many don't even know about doesn't really talk about how racism exists in the church today.   Its just so little and so ineffective. 

In what way is it "ineffective"? I know it has been discussed and addressed by the church. How do you force members to agree with it? 

[rongo]

Just now, JAHS said:

In what way is it "ineffective"? I know it has been discussed and addressed by the church. How do you force members to agree with it? 

"You have to mean it, Potter!" ---- Belatrix Lestrange

I don't see it at all myself in the church, but of course we can't read the minds of every church member who might pretend it is not an issue for them.

That's the thing. Is there a racism problem still if people don't say or do racist things, but believe that the ban was God's will? It seems like there is a Thought Police faction, who don't care that no racist things are said or done, because they don't have the right thinking about the ban. Not having the right thinking is de facto and prima faciea racist, even if one is Christlike in all outward ways. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It doesn't matter what kind of "thing" it was, it was discrimination and it was an 'ism of some sort (socio-religiousism).  Why do you criticize one 'ism and not the other?  I suspect it is because race-ism is so much more taboo in today's age.  I don't see one as better or worse than another though.

This is how the early church operated - Unless you are a Jew, you are not worthy of hearing the gospel.   You don't think that is discrimination (even if they accepted Jewish converts)? 

Even being in the presence of a non-Jew could make a person ceremonially unclean: 

"But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs (Matt15:26)."  If President Nelson said that today to any group of people, I don't think you would be so tolerant of it.   There really is no difference.  Discrimination existed in the primitive church, and it existed in the modern church.  Why?  I don't know.  But you can't deny that it existed in both churches.  If you want to call that an 'ism...ok.  It doesn't change anything for me.  It doesn't make Christ any less perfect for discriminating. 

It's not the same thing at all. Jesus' message was, "Israel, get ready. It's time to partner with God to bring about the eschaton. We can do that by making some changes to the way we approach Judaism." You have to have a foundation of Jewishness for that message to make any sense. This would be like a member of the LDS church starting a movement within Mormonism related to altering understanding of certain Mormon doctrines and practices. It was a reform movement within an existing religion, not an attempt to create a new religion from scratch. As such it would not have made any sense to anyone who wasn't already Jewish. It would be like trying to teach a new system of English grammar to someone who didn't speak any English to begin with. Not that non-English speakers couldn't learn, but they would have to start with the basics first.

It was only when Christianity started to become its own religion that proselytizing to those not already Jewish became a practical consideration - an issue that came about after Jesus' time.

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I never claimed you said it was a single monolithic issue that the apostles never managed to clear up. That was a broad summary of the paragraph you wrote. 

You claimed that THE issue in Acts was about non-Jewish converts and the law. I said that it appeared that there were multiple issues discussed at various times. In Acts 11, Peter's vision and explanation are reported to have put the members completely at ease with that issue. Then another was brought up in Acts 15. I disputed that there was one issue (the article "the" communicating singular). If as you wrote the issue in Acts was non-Jewish converts and the law, it seems that it surfaced several times despite Peter addressing it in chapter 11. 

So all of this nonsense is based on my use of the word "the"?

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

So all of this nonsense is based on my use of the word "the"?

So daring to disagree with your enlightened views is nonsense?

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So daring to disagree with your enlightened views is nonsense?

No, not formulating a coherent disagreement (or reading) is nonsense.

 

[pogi]

 

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not the same thing at all.

 

Discrimination is discrimination.  It is absolutely the same.  It was just directed at a different socio-religious group, instead of a race. 

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

As such it would not have made any sense to anyone who wasn't already Jewish. 

So, not only did they discriminate, but they did so in a very condescending way.  That doesn't make things better.

So before Peter's revelation they were incapable and spiritually incompetent to understand Christ's gospel, and after the revelation, suddenly they were able to understand? Nonsense!  Because it sure seems to have spread far beyond Judaism fairly easily after Peter's revelation.

There was discrimination.  It doesn't matter how you twist it, it was discrimination by definition (just as it was with the blacks).  You are only making it worse by giving it a very condescending justification and tone for discrimination.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

How does racism exist in the church today? Serious question. 

I've heard people say, "Because there are people like you who don't think the ban was a mistake," but that does not de facto make me a racist. Racist is as racist does. From a works and words standpoint, how does racism exist in the church today?

I feel somewhat inadequate to answer this question based on my position of privilege as a white male in the church.  I only started to educate myself on racism a few years ago, and I still feel woefully poorly informed.   There are different kinds of racism, in that its not just someone using degrading language or discriminating against an individual.  But there is institutional racism built into the structures of society and that kind of racism is much harder to see, but potentially more insidious as its impact is so vast. 

I'm going to link to a couple articles with people in the Mormon world talking about racism, and but I would suggest that it would be worth your time to consider the voices of those who are experiencing racism, over my voice, and to educate yourself as much as possible on this important topic.    

http://www.standard.net/Faith/2017/07/15/lds-church-temple-african-american-racism-end-priesthood-ban-some-black-Mormons-still-see-discrimination

https://www.the-exponent.com/facing-the-racism-in-mormonism/

https://www.lds.org/blog/healing-the-wounds-of-racism?cid=HP_WE-16-4-2018_dOCS_fBLOG_xLIDyL2_

https://www.uvu.edu/philhum/affiliated_programs/religiousstudies/docs/2017_msc/darron_smith1.pdf

 

[Marginal Gains]

I’ve been considering a point rongo made earlier in the thread, in defence of his holding on to the idea that black skin is the sign of a curse despite Race And The Priesthood.

Having thought on, I’m forced to agree with him. Not that black skin is the sign of a curse, but that the Church has deliberately left open a loop hole for members such as rongo.

2nd Nephi 5 is one such loophole. Rongo is correct in pointing out that if the Church really repudiated the idea that black skin was the sign of a curse from God, it would remove all such references from the canon. That the Church hasn’t taken that next step shows that, behind the PR attempt to show otherwise, racist doctrine is alive and well and supported by the Church.

Any public pronouncements by the Church, repudiating white supremacy etc are simply disingenuous smoke and mirrors, unless or until it removes and disavows those racist supporting references in the canon which members like rongo hide themselves behind.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

In what way is it "ineffective"? I know it has been discussed and addressed by the church. How do you force members to agree with it? 

Its not reaching the average active member in a way that they are changing hearts on this topic.  As evidenced by people on this thread.  

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’ve been considering a point rongo made earlier in the thread, in defence of his holding on to the idea that black skin is the sign of a curse despite Race And The Priesthood.

Having thought on, I’m forced to agree with him. Not that black skin is the sign of a curse, but that the Church has deliberately left open a loop hole for members such as rongo.

2nd Nephi 5 is one such loophole. Rongo is correct in pointing out that if the Church really repudiating the idea that black skin it would remove all such references from the canon. That the Church hasn’t taken that next step shows that, behind the PR attempt to show otherwise, racist doctrine is alive and well and supported by the Church.

Any public pronouncements by the Church, repudiating white supremacy etc are simply disingenuous smoke and mirrors, unless or until it removes and disavows those racist supporting references in the canon which members like rongo hide themselves behind.

By this same logic you could say that the church has opened a loop hole for Adam-God, Blood Atonement, Polygamy, mass genocide and every other evil perpetuated throughout the history of Mormonism and Christianity as a whole.  

I agree that the church needs to do a better job of communicating clearly, and frequently.  But some people are going to find loop holes on just about any topic if they are creative enough.  

[rodheadlee]

4 hours 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. 

You are confusing is with was. It was a sign of a curse but no longer is. See the difference.?