hope_for_things Posted June 7, 2018 Author Posted June 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, Gray said: There was an ancient bathing ritual for ritual purification, but not quite the same thing as what became the Christian baptism. The purpose was different. I've read about some ancient purification rituals that some scholars think go back a couple centuries prior to the C.E. Purification seems to have been an important religious ritual idea for sure. But from what I've read there is quite a bit of debate as to whether or not this could be considered baptism, especially the further back you go. Gray, are you aware of evidence from scholars that argue that baptisms were happening as far back as 1 Kings, because that was probably written in the 7th - 6th centuries B.C.E. I'd be interested in reading more about it, and I'm open to correction on this idea if compelling evidence can be presented.
Ahab Posted June 7, 2018 Posted June 7, 2018 12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I don't want to rehash what I thought about Oaks talk because that's the entire thread, so you can re-read my OP and my points about the problematic elements of the talk itself. The idea that we're just going to move forward and ignore the past is a tactic that has been used frequently in politics to deflect criticism for many various scandals. From Nixon to Clinton to Trump, this is a drum beat tactic to try and deflect criticism of actual problems that need correction and attention. As for Lot's wife, I think that while looking back in some circumstances could be detrimental, its absolutely essential in others in order to learn from the past. Its naive and simplistic to say that looking back is a de facto unwise orientation, as if that's some kind of universal principle. If this is how you interpret scripture that would be a terrible lesson to take and apply in the real world. There are times when it is good to look back, and then there are times when it's not good, as Lot's wife illustrated. As far as the priesthood restriction is concerned, there is no need to look back to those days anymore because there are no "actual problems that need correction and attention" concerning that. It's over. It's history. Today is a new day and now all of us can be one, now. Rejoice!
Ahab Posted June 7, 2018 Posted June 7, 2018 14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, so you are agreeing that you have no evidence from the OT (BTW, as I understand it there are other non-Greek sources texts of portions of the Hebrew bible that could be referenced as evidence.) No, I never agreed to that. 14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: As for going back to Adam and Eve, what ancient evidence do you have to support that claim? Why rely upon "ancient" evidence when "modern" revelation is fresher and more complete? We have a restoration of all gospel principles and ordinances now. Well, all that we need to understand baptism, at least. 14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You haven't given me any evidence to show that baptism didn't begin in the NT that I can recall, perhaps I missed those posts? If so, could you please share that evidence again or point me toward the posts where you provided that evidence. If I didn't reference I inferred that I was talking about scriptural evidence that we now have through revelation, today. All that has been revealed up to our present day that is needful for us to understand issues like this. Read more Ensign articles, and search the church website for more info about this.
hope_for_things Posted June 7, 2018 Author Posted June 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: There are times when it is good to look back, and then there are times when it's not good, as Lot's wife illustrated. As far as the priesthood restriction is concerned, there is no need to look back to those days anymore because there are no "actual problems that need correction and attention" concerning that. It's over. It's history. Today is a new day and now all of us can be one, now. Rejoice! Yes there are times its good to look back and this is one of those times. This is also exactly what the church was doing (looking backward) with the Be One event(I hope they don't turn to salt ) and talking about our history and celebrating the change 40 years ago, but also sharing the stories of important early black members of the church and showing the cultural importance of black members in our history. So I think the church institutionally disagrees with your assessment. I think your position is out of touch with recent Mormon scholarship and I think Oaks talk shows he's behind the times as well. Racism is still a problem today. Paul Reeve was just interviewed by the SLTrib and its an excellent podcast and really a must listen on this topic. https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/ Also a couple interesting articles on the topic of race today in the church. We have a lot of work to do. I suggest listening to actual people of color in the church to better understand what they are saying about what needs to happen. I'm just a privileged white guy, so I'm not a very good person to represent them. http://shouldertothewheel.org/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2018/01/put-shoulder-wheel-ending-lds-racism.html https://www.reviewjournal.com/life/religion/mormons-struggle-with-racism-40-years-after-ban-was-lifted/ 1
Ahab Posted June 7, 2018 Posted June 7, 2018 9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Yes there are times its good to look back and this is one of those times. This is also exactly what the church was doing (looking backward) with the Be One event(I hope they don't turn to salt ) and talking about our history and celebrating the change 40 years ago, but also sharing the stories of important early black members of the church and showing the cultural importance of black members in our history. So I think the church institutionally disagrees with your assessment. I think your position is out of touch with recent Mormon scholarship and I think Oaks talk shows he's behind the times as well. Racism is still a problem today. Paul Reeve was just interviewed by the SLTrib and its an excellent podcast and really a must listen on this topic. https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/ Also a couple interesting articles on the topic of race today in the church. We have a lot of work to do. I suggest listening to actual people of color in the church to better understand what they are saying about what needs to happen. I'm just a privileged white guy, so I'm not a very good person to represent them. http://shouldertothewheel.org/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2018/01/put-shoulder-wheel-ending-lds-racism.html https://www.reviewjournal.com/life/religion/mormons-struggle-with-racism-40-years-after-ban-was-lifted/ Okay. You win. I'm going to agree with everything you say fro now on. And with no coercion necessary. Rejoice! Well, no, not really, but disagreeing with you is getting old real fast and I'd rather just not tell you when or if I agree with you anymore. Debating is hard work! I need a break, again!
hope_for_things Posted June 7, 2018 Author Posted June 7, 2018 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: 25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, so you are agreeing that you have no evidence from the OT (BTW, as I understand it there are other non-Greek sources texts of portions of the Hebrew bible that could be referenced as evidence.) No, I never agreed to that. Then please share your evidence from the OT to support the claim of baptism. 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: Quote As for going back to Adam and Eve, what ancient evidence do you have to support that claim? Why rely upon "ancient" evidence when "modern" revelation is fresher and more complete? We have a restoration of all gospel principles and ordinances now. Well, all that we need to understand baptism, at least. Wrong category again, no way to validate or evaluate that evidence for accuracy. This is a faith claim, not something testable we can discuss critically. I can claim aliens abducted me, but unless I have some kind of evidence to substantiate that claim its just my personal subjective experience without any empirical evidence to verify it. 9 minutes ago, Ahab said: Quote You haven't given me any evidence to show that baptism didn't begin in the NT that I can recall, perhaps I missed those posts? If so, could you please share that evidence again or point me toward the posts where you provided that evidence. If I didn't reference I inferred that I was talking about scriptural evidence that we now have through revelation, today. All that has been revealed up to our present day that is needful for us to understand issues like this. Read more Ensign articles, and search the church website for more info about this. I'm tired of this word game. I'm going to issue two formal CFRs here as I've been plenty patient with you and CMZ on this topic. 1. CFR, please provide evidence from the OT or other ancient evidence to support the claim that Baptisms were happening at the time that 1 Kings was written in the 7th or 6th century B.C.E. 2. CFR, please provide evidence from the NT that connects this concept of baptisms for the dead with a temple ritual. I should have extended this CFR to CMZ earlier since he originally made this claim, but I'm extending the formal CFR to you and if CMZ ends up wanting to contribute then that is welcome as well. I'm sure you know the CFR rules, you need to either provide the evidence or correct the record.
hope_for_things Posted June 7, 2018 Author Posted June 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, Ahab said: Okay. You win. I'm going to agree with everything you say fro now on. And with no coercion necessary. Rejoice! Well, no, not really, but disagreeing with you is getting old real fast and I'd rather just not tell you when or if I agree with you anymore. Debating is hard work! I need a break, again! Oh man, I wasn't trying to wear you out. I understand the feeling. Unfortunately, I just issued a couple CFRs before I saw this post. If you need a some time before addressing them, thats totally fine. No rush on my end here. I need regular breaks from the message board. It can definitely wear me out sometimes.
blueglass Posted June 7, 2018 Posted June 7, 2018 6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Racism is still a problem today. Paul Reeve was just interviewed by the SLTrib and its an excellent podcast and really a must listen on this topic. https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/ Also a couple interesting articles on the topic of race today in the church. We have a lot of work to do. I suggest listening to actual people of color in the church to better understand what they are saying about what needs to happen. I'm just a privileged white guy, so I'm not a very good person to represent them. Thanks for citing the interview as he (Reeve) wrote the majority of the Race and Priesthood essay. It's great to hear him rip apart the "we don't know" excuses. 1
hope_for_things Posted June 7, 2018 Author Posted June 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, blueglass said: Thanks for citing the interview as he (Reeve) wrote the majority of the Race and Priesthood essay. It's great to hear him rip apart the "we don't know" excuses. Yes, I loved that part of his interview. He's been so great on this topic, and is so amazing to have such a strong advocate and scholar out there advocating and not being afraid to call attention to points like this. As opposed to little me, making my armchair observations. Go Dr. Reeve!!
Robert F. Smith Posted June 7, 2018 Posted June 7, 2018 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'm evaluating his statements from the Be One talk specifically, and what he said in that talk. I don't see anything in the talk that would indicate that his views align with the 2013 gospel topics essay, and I see evidence he views things differently. As for him weeping when the ban was lifted, I have no doubt that he did. I'm sure he was very grateful for the change. His perspective was that God had commanded the ban, In his Be One talk, Oaks never said or implied that he believed that God had commanded the ban. You are inventing that. He should be judged by what he actually said, and by the time sequence he in fact gave (diachronically). You are injudiciously combining everything in a single melange, as though yesterday and today are indistinguishable. Time is not synchronic. 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: and that he had determined he would support the church and its leaders, even though he didn't understand why the ban was in place and he wasn't comfortable with the "reasons" given for the ban. So of course he was happy when it was lifted. It would be a fatal flaw in the talk if Oaks has a different view of things today and failed to express this in his talk. Its not a flaw in my analysis though. Its also a flaw in your responses because you still haven't produced any evidence showing that Oaks' views today differ from those expressed in this talk. I think that we should take what people say at face value until proven otherwise. He gave us a sequence in time which seems valid to me, and I don't understand why you ignore that. 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I think its very important to try and prepare ourselves for taking actions against those things we find morally problematic and be willing to go against the grain to support principles. At the same time, I try to listen to multiple different perspectives to make sure I'm understanding as much as I can on any issue as possible. Another reason why I interact on this message board with many different perspectives that tend to be divergent from my own. Very commendable. 1
blueglass Posted June 7, 2018 Posted June 7, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, I loved that part of his interview. He's been so great on this topic, and is so amazing to have such a strong advocate and scholar out there advocating and not being afraid to call attention to points like this. As opposed to little me, making my armchair observations. Go Dr. Reeve!! It's like there is this war between correlation and scholarship within the church itself. Leadership pushes a fake irresponsible rationale of "we don't know" through correlation and CES and throws the essays into footnotes. The phrase "we don't know" is not found anywhere in the race and priesthood essay. Yet it was added to the new OD2 introduction which is really bad - which is one reason it keeps getting perpetuated like in the June 2018 Ensign. The ensign/liahona circulates all over the globe so we're perpetuating the problem another generation. Then we have the OD2 lesson for our seminary kids updated which again includes more of these "we don't know" lies. A few citations from lesson 157 [Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual (2013)] "Point out that students may be asked why the Church did not ordain men of African descent to the priesthood for a time. Invite them to consider how they might answer this question. Affirm that it is appropriate to explain to others that we do not know why the priesthood restriction began." When responding to difficult questions the lesson even praises the we don't know answer as a sign of righteous humility. "[A teacher] should have the humility to say, ‘I don’t know.’ Often that will be the only true answer” (Teach Ye Diligently [1975], 65)" At the end it quotes Oaks again on the Lord's unknowable mysteries and lack of reasons from a talk he gave way back in 1988 which he repeated nearly verbatim at the June1 2018 celebration. He's been giving these talks for awhile so he doesn't have to read Reeve or Harris, or any new historical scholarship. He just has to pull up words from his old 10th anniversary talk in 1988 and there you go! "Official Declaration 2. Avoid attaching man-made reasons to God’s revelations “In a 1988 interview on the tenth anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood, [Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] explained [his] attitude toward attempts to supply mortal reasons for divine revelation: “‘If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. " Edited June 7, 2018 by blueglass 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 7, 2018 Posted June 7, 2018 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: This seems to me just a misunderstanding of my perspective completely, misreading my attitude and outlook on life and an overt sensitivity that you seem to have about criticism of church leaders. I don't expect perfection of leaders, quite the opposite, I expect flawed leaders. And I also think we should hold these leaders accountable, we should have a certain amount of transparency and that if current leaders are making significant mistakes they should be replaced. I think where much is given much is required especially for leaders of large institutions. That all sounds reasonable enough to me. Yet you seem unwilling to apply standard rules of fairness to highly placed leaders. I think we see the reason in your statement that "where much is given much is required." A very good rule, but who is applying that requirement? And on what basis? Oaks may be something of a martinet and maybe too legalistic at times, but that is understandable in a professional jurist. Even if not to my taste, still a personal characteristic which has value in the mix of personalities which lead the LDS Church here and now. It is wise to allow a certain leeway or spectrum of thought in boards of directors, and that may serve the Lord best.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 7, 2018 Posted June 7, 2018 9 hours ago, rockpond said: If it was a public disavowal of the teachings, not just the timing, why did the teachings continue to be believed and repeated by members for decades afterwards? Why did we have a BYU religion professor in 2012 explaining the origins of the ban to the Washington Post as being the curse of Cain? Why did my Bishop in 2013 tell me that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence and that the Brethren are just needing to stay quiet about that now because of political correctness in the world? Why did the gospel topics essay on the subject get so much attention if that disavowal had happened 35 years earlier? And why did some think it was anti-Mormon material? If there was a clear public disavowal in 1978, than why did last week’s fake apology cause members to weep with joy? The reality is that Elder McConkie disavowed the timing (not the reasoning) to a group of BYU students. The teachings continued to be widely believed by members. Since the reasons for the ban had been articulated in First Presidency letters, they ought to have been clearly disavowed by the FP in a similar manner. There was ample time prior to the gospel topics essay to correct the record on this and they chose not to. To now claim that the reasons for the ban were publicly disavowed in 1978 is laughable. All good points, and it is quite true that some Mormons still voice those old, outmoded views. Racism is alive and well to some extent within some LDS groups, and that probably varies according to geography. We even read some of those same old stories on this board from time to time, from people who actually believe that claptrap. However, the Be One celebration was not a "fake apology," but a very open and nice presentation by Black members of the actual history of their people within Mormonism. A presentation of faith in the face of maltreatment and racism which showed deep faith in God and that things would eventually be set right. Should anyone be condemned for not having patience with the slow and slothful righting of those wrongs? No. Not at all. Those like yourself who are condemnatory have a valid point to make. However, the leaders of the Church cannot actually bring the members into the real world by force. Convincing everyone takes time and has to be done rather carefully. Does it take too long, and is it not trenchant enough? Not for my blood, but it is what it is, and I have tried to learn patience. The flawed men who lead the Church are humans like ourselves. We need to be longsuffering and kind to them. I'm just glad not to have that immense responsibility. I believe that what I say here sustains their efforts to preach the Gospel (in some sense). 1
hope_for_things Posted June 7, 2018 Author Posted June 7, 2018 37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: In his Be One talk, Oaks never said or implied that he believed that God had commanded the ban. You are inventing that. He should be judged by what he actually said, and by the time sequence he in fact gave (diachronically). You are injudiciously combining everything in a single melange, as though yesterday and today are indistinguishable. Time is not synchronic. I’ve shared the Oaks quote with you a few times now, it seems quite clear and straightforward to me. “the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants.” He’s talking about the ban and he uses the word commandment to discribe it. What else could he possibly be calling a commandment if not the ban? Please explain.
Ahab Posted June 7, 2018 Posted June 7, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: 1. CFR, please provide evidence from the OT or other ancient evidence to support the claim that Baptisms were happening at the time that 1 Kings was written in the 7th or 6th century B.C.E. I've never made the claim that evidence must come from the OT or other ancient evidence, so you're barking up the wrong tree. We have other evidence, not in the NT, that supports the fact that baptisms were happening, back then, though. 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: 2. CFR, please provide evidence from the NT that connects this concept of baptisms for the dead with a temple ritual. I should have extended this CFR to CMZ earlier since he originally made this claim, but I'm extending the formal CFR to you and if CMZ ends up wanting to contribute then that is welcome as well. The evidence from the NT is that there were people who did baptisms for the dead. 1 Corinthians 15:29, as I told you before. That's what the NT contributes to show that fact. And then from other revelation, not in the NT, we have evidence that baptism for the dead is a temple ordinance, which I suppose you could also call a ritual.
hope_for_things Posted June 7, 2018 Author Posted June 7, 2018 1 hour ago, blueglass said: It's like there is this war between correlation and scholarship within the church itself. Leadership pushes a fake irresponsible rationale of "we don't know" through correlation and CES and throws the essays into footnotes. The phrase "we don't know" is not found anywhere in the race and priesthood essay. Yet it was added to the new OD2 introduction which is really bad - which is one reason it keeps getting perpetuated like in the June 2018 Ensign. The ensign/liahona circulates all over the globe so we're perpetuating the problem another generation. Then we have the OD2 lesson for our seminary kids updated which again includes more of these "we don't know" lies. A few citations from lesson 157 [Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual (2013)] "Point out that students may be asked why the Church did not ordain men of African descent to the priesthood for a time. Invite them to consider how they might answer this question. Affirm that it is appropriate to explain to others that we do not know why the priesthood restriction began." When responding to difficult questions the lesson even praises the we don't know answer as a sign of righteous humility. "[A teacher] should have the humility to say, ‘I don’t know.’ Often that will be the only true answer” (Teach Ye Diligently [1975], 65)" At the end it quotes Oaks again on the Lord's unknowable mysteries and lack of reasons from a talk he gave way back in 1988 which he repeated nearly verbatim at the June1 2018 celebration. He's been giving these talks for awhile so he doesn't have to read Reeve or Harris, or any new historical scholarship. He just has to pull up words from his old 10th anniversary talk in 1988 and there you go! "Official Declaration 2. Avoid attaching man-made reasons to God’s revelations “In a 1988 interview on the tenth anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood, [Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] explained [his] attitude toward attempts to supply mortal reasons for divine revelation: “‘If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. " Your reading that there seems to be a battle going on inside the church sounds very plausible to me. I wonder if the actors on the side promoting the we don’t know line of thinking are acting with intentional knowledge that their arguments are contradicted by the very scholarship that the church endorsed with the gospel topics essay? I’m suspecting some of statements might be due to ignorance, but there is really no excuse. If they are intentionally sending a confusing message because they have a personal bias against the scholarship, then that is very unfortunate. I suspect that Oaks is trying to retrench very intentionally as I’m fairly confident he’s aware of the scholarship and is very aware of what he’s doing. Thanks for sharing that 1988 talk of Oaks, I hadn’t made that connection and the similarities from that talk are clear. Oaks is being consistent with what he’s saying. There has been a lot of excellent scholarship that has made the historical picture much clearer, which causes me to suspect that Oaks has a very strongly entrenched bias on this subject that evidence cannot penetrate. I hope reason and openness and forward thinking will win the battle on this issue, but I’m not very confident that we’ll see much change in the short term considering the players in the power positions right now. 1
hope_for_things Posted June 7, 2018 Author Posted June 7, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: That all sounds reasonable enough to me. Yet you seem unwilling to apply standard rules of fairness to highly placed leaders. I think we see the reason in your statement that "where much is given much is required." A very good rule, but who is applying that requirement? And on what basis? Oaks may be something of a martinet and maybe too legalistic at times, but that is understandable in a professional jurist. Even if not to my taste, still a personal characteristic which has value in the mix of personalities which lead the LDS Church here and now. It is wise to allow a certain leeway or spectrum of thought in boards of directors, and that may serve the Lord best. What standard rules of fairness are you referring to? Is it outside these rules of fairness for an individual like myself to critique the public address of a church leader on an obscure message board? I agree that its good to have diversity in the leadership, and I think the leadership needs much more diversity than it has today. Women and people of color from diverse backgrounds and nationalities would be ideal.
Stargazer Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 On 6/5/2018 at 12:41 AM, hope_for_things said: Thanks for this. I think there were many of the Apostles after 1978 that we’re still against interracial marriage publicly. They had racist views still lingering and I think many of these views are still present in the church today and have not been clearly and promptly disavowed as was claimed. A former stake president of mine, who served approximately 1995-2005, also expressed a view to me that people should largely marry within their own race. Interestingly, he was not a white supremacist, or anything like that. He was Nisei, an American of Japanese descent, married to a woman of Japanese descent, neither of whom could speak Japanese, both natural born US citizens, and both of whom had spent time in their childhoods in the camps that FDR set up for people of their ethnicity during WW2. Note that one of their sons served a mission in Japan and married there, but the rest of their children married caucasians. I think one of his daughters had serious problems with her "inter-racial" marriage, the details of which might have informed his opinion, but I could not be sure. Was he being a racist? 1
hope_for_things Posted June 8, 2018 Author Posted June 8, 2018 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: 2 hours ago, Ahab said: 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, so you are agreeing that you have no evidence from the OT (BTW, as I understand it there are other non-Greek sources texts of portions of the Hebrew bible that could be referenced as evidence.) No, I never agreed to that. Then please share your evidence from the OT to support the claim of baptism. Ahab, I asked if you agreed that you had no evidence from the OT to support baptism and you said No. You’ll need to correct this statement then, because this statement is telling me that you have evidence from the OT to support you claim of baptisms during that time period. I was willing to accept broader evidence from ancient sources outside the OT as well, but you’re now saying you never made this claim. You need to either correct this earlier statement or provide the evidence to satisfy this CFR. As for the CFR with respect to a temple connection between baptism for the dead and a temple ritual, reading through your responses I can’t find a clear statements from you claiming this evidence exists. The statements that are more clear making that claim are from CMZ, so I’ll retract that CFR and if CMZ decides to join back in and continues to assert this claim, I’ll address at the point. The frustrating thing with respect to your replies, is I’m asking for very specific evidence on very specific claims. At the same time, I’m totally understanding of people having faith claims about modern statements by church leaders, that’s fine. But when people start making the claim that those modern revelations have a specific historical antecedent, then I’d like to see evidence to support that.
hope_for_things Posted June 8, 2018 Author Posted June 8, 2018 21 minutes ago, Stargazer said: A former stake president of mine, who served approximately 1995-2005, also expressed a view to me that people should largely marry within their own race. Interestingly, he was not a white supremacist, or anything like that. He was Nisei, an American of Japanese descent, married to a woman of Japanese descent, neither of whom could speak Japanese, both natural born US citizens, and both of whom had spent time in their childhoods in the camps that FDR set up for people of their ethnicity during WW2. Note that one of their sons served a mission in Japan and married there, but the rest of their children married caucasians. I think one of his daughters had serious problems with her "inter-racial" marriage, the details of which might have informed his opinion, but I could not be sure. Was he being a racist? Interesting for sure, thanks for sharing. I think the views espoused sound racist to me, yes.
Stargazer Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Interesting for sure, thanks for sharing. I think the views espoused sound racist to me, yes. Back in the day, the sentiments weren't as racist sounding as they are now. We've come a long way, baby, as it were. I doubt he would express such views now, if indeed he still holds them. If you move to Japan you will find it populated by apparent racists. Mixed race people, especially mixed race with Caucasians and Africans, sometimes have a hard time there, though this has been improving. I was watching a video showing scenes in a Japanese city, and the video focussed briefly on a sign on the door of a particular shop, which read (in English) "Only Japanese People". I don't know if they were targetting only English speakers, or not. I guess they're not as enlightened as we are. The Japanese have a word for mixed race folks: Hafu. From the Englis word "half". I found this article interesting: Hāfu
hope_for_things Posted June 8, 2018 Author Posted June 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: Back in the day, the sentiments weren't as racist sounding as they are now. We've come a long way, baby, as it were. I doubt he would express such views now, if indeed he still holds them. If you move to Japan you will find it populated by apparent racists. Mixed race people, especially mixed race with Caucasians and Africans, sometimes have a hard time there, though this has been improving. I was watching a video showing scenes in a Japanese city, and the video focussed briefly on a sign on the door of a particular shop, which read (in English) "Only Japanese People". I don't know if they were targetting only English speakers, or not. I guess they're not as enlightened as we are. The Japanese have a word for mixed race folks: Hafu. From the Englis word "half". I found this article interesting: Hāfu Racism knows no borders. Great societal progress is being made and that is a good thing. Even if racism is something we can understand in its historical context that doesn’t mean we can’t do better and can’t acknowledge the problems of the past. From my perspective this is what repentance is all about.
Calm Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 (edited) Is it racism to recognize based on scientific studies that most types of interracial marriages have higher divorce rates than most noninterracial marriages? Edited June 8, 2018 by Calm 1
Stargazer Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, Calm said: Is it racism to recognize based on scientific studies that most types of interracial marriages have higher divorce rates than most noninterracial marriages? Of course! It is also apparently racism to force certain tribes in the Brazilian outback to stop killing their own kids. http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/09/the-right-to-kill-brazil-infanticide/ "But what may seem an overdue safeguard has drawn widespread condemnation from academics and indigenous rights groups in the country. The Brazilian Association of Anthropology, in an open letter published on its website, has called the bill an attempt to put indigenous peoples “in the permanent condition of defendants before a tribunal tasked with determining their degree of savagery.” Well, maybe not racism, but something like it. Cultural relativism knows no bounds.
Tacenda Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: In his Be One talk, Oaks never said or implied that he believed that God had commanded the ban. You are inventing that. He should be judged by what he actually said, and by the time sequence he in fact gave (diachronically). You are injudiciously combining everything in a single melange, as though yesterday and today are indistinguishable. Time is not synchronic. I think that we should take what people say at face value until proven otherwise. He gave us a sequence in time which seems valid to me, and I don't understand why you ignore that. Very commendable. Oh yes he did.https://www.ldschurchnews.com/latest/2018-06-01/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration-47280 . As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. But maybe you will put a spin on it and say he meant other commandments. Hope not.
Recommended Posts