Exiled Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I was dusting off the old scripture case getting ready to head back as a sign of approval and solidarity. Too bad it was a fake. Ah well...we can hope, I suppose. Oaks would never allow an apology like that. Nevertheless, it is still good the church is trying to move beyond the mistakes of the past.
bluebell Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 1 hour ago, rongo said: I am relieved that an apology or condemnation wasn't issued, and I hope it is a harbinger of the broadcast to come. I think it will be: be one, be unified, be nice to each other, etc. That makes sense, given that an apology or condemnation would have gone against your personal beliefs on the matter. 1
CMZ Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 I was kind of hoping that the announcement would be about Elder Sitati being chosen as an additional counselor in the First Presidency. He's one of the few people that actually understands the blacks and the priesthood issue.
Marginal Gains Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 (edited) Quote Today, as Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I offer a full unqualified apology for the error of racism which was taught from this office and in the tabernacle and over the pulpits of our churches the world over. If only Edited May 17, 2018 by Marginal Gains
Stargazer Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 2 hours ago, bluebell said: If you click on the sentence at the very bottom of their page it takes you to a 'fair use' wiki article, specifically the part about parody. Parody is obvious. This uses logos and copyrighted trade dress in an effort to deceive the reader as to who originated it. If you did the same thing with a commercial company their lawyers would be the next thing you heard from. The deceit is very cleverly carried out, I will grant, but that doesn't help them in a legal sense. Makes it worse, in fact. IMHO, as IANAL. 3
rongo Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Parody is obvious. This uses logos and copyrighted trade dress in an effort to deceive the reader as to who originated it. If you did the same thing with a commercial company their lawyers would be the next thing you heard from. The deceit is very cleverly carried out, I will grant, but that doesn't help them in a legal sense. Makes it worse, in fact. IMHO, as IANAL. Does anyone think there were malicious motives (trying to put out what they think should have been said, with everything looking as official as possible)? Or, was someone with pretty good computer skills just trying to have fun? Either way, it's all fun and games until you get contacted by the attorneys. I do think it's safe to say that whoever it was does not like the Church's not apologizing for or condemning the ban, and this act was at least subconsciously intended to push things along to an eventual hoped-for change.
Stargazer Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, rongo said: Does anyone think there were malicious motives (trying to put out what they think should have been said, with everything looking as official as possible)? Or, was someone with pretty good computer skills just trying to have fun? Either way, it's all fun and games until you get contacted by the attorneys. I do think it's safe to say that whoever it was does not like the Church's not apologizing for or condemning the ban, and this act was at least subconsciously intended to push things along to an eventual hoped-for change. They definitely had malicious motives, not just having fun. And given that the domain was registered so recently, and they had prepared this so quickly -- my guess is that the author works in the Church Office Building in the IT shop, and was in a position to be aware of the NAACP visit well in advance. The readable text is very well thought out and written, and clearly took a lot of time to compose. I've examined the page source and it is very clear that the originator is extremely well-informed about the technology in use at church headquarters. Among the evidence for this is identical style sheets -- not that any software guy couldn't do the same if they were motivated enough, but still... I'm pretty convinced that it is a wolf in sheep's clothing at church HQ. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 On 5/16/2018 at 12:56 PM, The Nehor said: To paraphrase Elton John: ”You may say I’m a dreamer and in fact the only one....” C'mon, yo! Git yer artists straight, there, Son! Your ... Um ... paraphrase ... is of John Lennon!
bluebell Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 3 hours ago, rongo said: Does anyone think there were malicious motives (trying to put out what they think should have been said, with everything looking as official as possible)? Or, was someone with pretty good computer skills just trying to have fun? Either way, it's all fun and games until you get contacted by the attorneys. I do think it's safe to say that whoever it was does not like the Church's not apologizing for or condemning the ban, and this act was at least subconsciously intended to push things along to an eventual hoped-for change. If there were no malicious motives then the people who did this are incredibly dumb. They should have known how cruel this would be, especially to black members. One member who spoke up on Twitter said this- "Got the official word that this isn’t real. I normally don’t cuss on here but **** the person(s) who did this. They’re testing to see how they’ll respond. In terms of change in the LDS Church, one of the more effective strategies is to draw a big spotlight on it. So the LDS Church can a.) cancel the meeting b.) revise whatever they were going to say c.) respond to this and give a statement or d.) pretend like this didn’t happen and give a statement. What this person didn’t take into account is that real people are invested in this. And if the LDS Church doesn’t respond in the way they want, then what? There are black members who’ve been wanting them to say this for DECADES. So your brilliant plan was to throw black folks’ emotions under the bus to MAYBE get the Church to react? That is some white savior BS. So an announcement like that doesn’t just impact my methodology, it changes the way I think about this stuff on a spiritual level. I’ve spoken to black folks in tears because they thought it was real as well. Whoever made this site didn’t care about any of that."
hope_for_things Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 This article on the fake newsroom announcement is worth reading and they ask some good questions at the bottom of the article. https://wheatandtares.org/2018/05/17/apology-hoax-false-mormon-newsroom-statement-on-priesthood-ban-sweeps-social-media-thursday-morning/ Quote Did you see this link shared in your social media circles? Did you fall for it? (I did.) What did you think about the content of the statement? Why do you think members were willing to believe it? Did you listen to the real statements by President Nelson and Derrick Johnson (president and CEO of the NAACP) in the brief broadcast? Thoughts? I missed the announcement when it first came through, just heard about it now. My first reaction is I would love this kind of announcement to be true. Perhaps that is hoping for too much from the church, but I think it would be amazing to have that kind of an apology issued from leaders and would be a positive step for race relations moving forward. I really wish I had seen the post real time as I wonder what my response may have been. I'd love to think the church could be this progressive on the race topic, but from experience I haven't seen the church move forward so quickly, they typically take baby steps. I still haven't listened to the statements by President Nelson and Derrick Johnson, but I think I will now. Any other thoughts about the questions put forward in this article?
Avatar4321 Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: “We apologise for the Priesthood Ban. We’re sorry Leaders allowed cultural racism to influence Church policies and practices for 100 years. It was wrong. We exhort members to accept that the ban was not doctrinal and do all they can to ensure racism in any form does not have a place in our wards, families or hearts.” What are the odds? Zilch “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” D&C 1: 38 i don’t expect apologies from God 1
Avatar4321 Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: If they come out with that apology, they’ll be at least one critic who will change his tune on the subject. Right. And zeezrom was going to actually give Amulek money 1
Calm Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 51 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: C'mon, yo! Git yer artists straight, there, Son! Your ... Um ... paraphrase ... is of John Lennon! Elton John must have sang/said it sometime...even if only singing in the shower.
Avatar4321 Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 5 hours ago, Exiled said: Oaks would never allow an apology like that. Nevertheless, it is still good the church is trying to move beyond the mistakes of the past. We moved beyond the ban 40 years ago. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 8 hours ago, Duncan said: Maybe they'll have a special appearance by Weird Al singing "White and Nerdy", that would be a gig to remember! And don't forget Donny! 2
Bernard Gui Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 On 5/16/2018 at 12:32 PM, clarkgoble said: Reality is that the economics before smart phones and tablets are never coming back. When online selling by sites like Craigs List or eBay killed the classifieds the writing was on the wall. Particularly in a relatively small market like Utah. You have two state papers, several major city/county papers that also cover state/national news, and then four main television news stations. That's way too much supply for the demand. Further the people that continued to pay for newspapers are dying off. If the Trib is still around in ten years I'd be shocked. Ditto for the Ogden and Provo papers. Heck, I'd be surprised if they were still in business in four years. Kinda like the town crier, ticker tape, the telegraph, and smoke signals. Oyez, oyez, oyez.
Exiled Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: We moved beyond the ban 40 years ago. If that is so, then why the essay a few years back and why the meeting with the NAACP now or the odd 40 year anniversary celebration in a few weeks? 3
Avatar4321 Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, Exiled said: If that is so, then why the essay a few years back and why the meeting with the NAACP now or the odd 40 year anniversary celebration in a few weeks? Because you guys haven’t moved on
california boy Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 6 hours ago, JAHS said: Also misspelling the name of the Church at the very bottom of the page: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Instead of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Found it. MORMON-NEWSROOM.ORG. I think they needed the hyphen for the top of the web site.
Calm Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 (edited) Hoax by Jonathan Streeter: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/05/17/no-the-mormon-church-did-not-apologize-for-having-a-history-of-racism/ Quote The ruse was convincing enough to deceive many Mormons, including some black members of the faith who were left hurt, and in some cases, traumatized by it. “I’ve spoken to black folks in tears because they thought this was real as well,” wrote Janan Graham-Russell, a Mormon doctoral student at Harvard, studying Mormonism, black-Haitian identity and anthropology. “Whoever made this site,” she wrote on Twitter, “doesn’t care about any of that.” The hoax was the work of Jonathan Streeter, a former Mormon who lives in Texas and hosts the blog Thoughts on Things and Stuff under the pen name Thinker of Thoughts. Streeter said he had pondered what kind of statement the LDS Church might put out if it ever apologized for its past policies on race — and how he might write his own false apology as a thought-provoking parody. The guy, imo, is a jerk. His response to traumatizing many black members is "The emotion that they felt at that time [they read it] is their authentic position on this issue,” Streeter said. “If they felt gratitude and joy and pride in being a Latter-day Saint when they were reading an apology, then that is how they actually, honestly feel about this matter.”"....as if black members need to be told by someone else how they feel about the history. Edited May 17, 2018 by Calm 4
Exiled Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 26 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Because you guys haven’t moved on Really? You don't think that blaming God all those years for the man-made ban might have had something to do with it? Until the essay, I don"t think the church ever came out with an official statement denying the "less valiant theory" or other theories about the ban. Perhaps had the church done that earlier we wouldn't be where we are now?
Calm Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 1 hour ago, bluebell said: If there were no malicious motives then the people who did this are incredibly dumb. They should have known how cruel this would be, especially to black members. One member who spoke up on Twitter said this- "Got the official word that this isn’t real. I normally don’t cuss on here but **** the person(s) who did this. They’re testing to see how they’ll respond. In terms of change in the LDS Church, one of the more effective strategies is to draw a big spotlight on it. So the LDS Church can a.) cancel the meeting b.) revise whatever they were going to say c.) respond to this and give a statement or d.) pretend like this didn’t happen and give a statement. What this person didn’t take into account is that real people are invested in this. And if the LDS Church doesn’t respond in the way they want, then what? There are black members who’ve been wanting them to say this for DECADES. So your brilliant plan was to throw black folks’ emotions under the bus to MAYBE get the Church to react? That is some white savior BS. So an announcement like that doesn’t just impact my methodology, it changes the way I think about this stuff on a spiritual level. I’ve spoken to black folks in tears because they thought it was real as well. Whoever made this site didn’t care about any of that." Facebook: Quote This little stunt you pulled is beyond vile. You are trash. Straight garbage. A flaming piece of racism wrapped in male white fragility. The fact that you would go out of your way to purposely hurt, and use African-American members of the LDS church in order to mock the church is pathetic and downright racist. African-American members of the church are not here to be used like pawns for your amusement. They are human beings, and have done nothing to you, for you to use them in this way. You join a long list of white people who have used black bodies, black emotional, mental and physical health for their own sick and perverse pleasures. 4
webbles Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 The fake site links to a PDF that is a "transcript". That transcript includes signatures of the first presidency.
CMZ Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: We moved beyond the ban 40 years ago. Some will never let it go no matter what.
bluebell Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 57 minutes ago, CMZ said: Some will never let it go no matter what. Without knowing how to process it (was it a mistake, was it of God, why were righteous blacks denied blessings they were actively seeking while whites weren’t?) it’s hard to let it go.
Recommended Posts