hope_for_things Posted June 13, 2018 Author Posted June 13, 2018 8 minutes ago, pogi said: 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: You've got it exactly backwards. Those who believe God is the author of racist practices are projecting human flawed prejudice onto God. You are certain that the ban was instigated by humans outside of the will of God? Based on what evidence? Again, you are trying to use empirical evidence to decipher God's will, which we have agreed is impossible. The ban was instigated by humans, this is a fact, it wasn't instigated by giraffes or monkeys. The "will of God" is a faith proposition, so can't be evaluated empirically. It sounds like you want to use empirical evidence to support one side of this equation, but are failing to recognize that any claims of God's will, either for or against, cannot be evaluated using empirical evidence. 12 minutes ago, pogi said: But you definitely are doing that to others by condemning black member's faith as being in "primary error", and condemning black member's God as being racist, even when they don't view the ban that way - as if a black person needs a white person to explain racism to them. The error I'm condemning is with respect to historical events. The people I'm condemning are the leaders who perpetuated and exacerbated the narrative, (church leaders), not those who out of loyalty to the religion believed in the erroneous narrative. This narrative calls for a racist God, I'm just pointing that out. If God was the author of the ban, then God is by definition a racist. I didn't create the word racism or define what it means. Oh, and BTW, I don't appreciate you trying to accuse me of trying to be the white person that explains this black people. I frequently admit my white privilege and I don't and never would claim to be the right person to explain these things. There are plenty of much more qualified and capable people of color who would do a much better job explaining the accurate history than I can. 21 minutes ago, pogi said: You honestly don't view this as an attack on a person's intelligence - "I don't blame you for being a blind follower of manipulative church leaders. You obviously don't have the intellectual capacity to think for yourself and are being brain-washed through religious conditioning to accept whatever is being fed to you without thinking for yourself and without questioning anything." No, that is not belittling at all! You are diminishing the person to a brainless lemming. This is crossing the line and against the board rules. By using the quotation marks you are making a false attribution, and completely misrepresenting me in a way that portrays me as a horrible bigot. Please correct the record or I will reports this to the admins as a violation.
Ahab Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The ban was instigated by humans, this is a fact, it wasn't instigated by giraffes or monkeys. The "will of God" is a faith proposition, so can't be evaluated empirically. It sounds like you want to use empirical evidence to support one side of this equation, but are failing to recognize that any claims of God's will, either for or against, cannot be evaluated using empirical evidence. The error I'm condemning is with respect to historical events. The people I'm condemning are the leaders who perpetuated and exacerbated the narrative, (church leaders), not those who out of loyalty to the religion believed in the erroneous narrative. This narrative calls for a racist God, I'm just pointing that out. If God was the author of the ban, then God is by definition a racist. I didn't create the word racism or define what it means. Oh, and BTW, I don't appreciate you trying to accuse me of trying to be the white person that explains this black people. I frequently admit my white privilege and I don't and never would claim to be the right person to explain these things. There are plenty of much more qualified and capable people of color who would do a much better job explaining the accurate history than I can. This is crossing the line and against the board rules. By using the quotation marks you are making a false attribution, and completely misrepresenting me in a way that portrays me as a horrible bigot. Please correct the record or I will reports this to the admins as a violation. I'd just like to point out something which it seems you are failing to consider. And I offer this only for your consideration. I'm not trying to prove it is true -- Way back in 1830, and even before then, God was aware that many people felt "racist" thoughts, thoughts which caused them to believe particular people, particularly many from Africa with black skin, were inferior to them. Not everybody felt that way, but a lot of people did. Thoughts like "black people are inferior to white people", for example. And because God was aware of this, even amongst members of the true church of Jesus Christ, God knew that some people would have a cow, metaphorically, if black people were given ALL of the same blessings as white people, with some people letting those bad thoughts carry over into bad actions against many black people. Perhaps you've read some historical records about how badly black people were treated back then. So, considering all of that, and God's concern for black as well as white people, God decided that the time was not right to inspire his Church leaders to offer black people ALL of the same blessings they were then offering to white people. At least not generally. Some Church leaders did feel it was okay and good to give many higher blessings to some particular black people without offering them to all worthy black people, generally, but it wasn't until 1978 that God felt that it was the right time to give ALL of the same blessings to worthy black members as well as all worthy white members. Even then he knew some people would have a cow about it, but he still felt it was the right time, and so he inspired his Church leaders to do it.
hope_for_things Posted June 13, 2018 Author Posted June 13, 2018 13 minutes ago, Ahab said: I'd just like to point out something which it seems you are failing to consider. And I offer this only for your consideration. I'm not trying to prove it is true -- Way back in 1830, and even before then, God was aware that many people felt "racist" thoughts, thoughts which caused them to believe particular people, particularly many from Africa with black skin, were inferior to them. Not everybody felt that way, but a lot of people did. Thoughts like "black people are inferior to white people", for example. And because God was aware of this, even amongst members of the true church of Jesus Christ, God knew that some people would have a cow, metaphorically, if black people were given ALL of the same blessings as white people, with some people letting those bad thoughts carry over into bad actions against many black people. Perhaps you've read some historical records about how badly black people were treated back then. So, considering all of that, and God's concern for black as well as white people, God decided that the time was not right to inspire his Church leaders to offer black people ALL of the same blessings they were then offering to white people. At least not generally. Some Church leaders did feel it was okay and good to give many higher blessings to some particular black people without offering them to all worthy black people, generally, but it wasn't until 1978 that God felt that it was the right time to give ALL of the same blessings to worthy black members as well as all worthy white members. Even then he knew some people would have a cow about it, but he still felt it was the right time, and so he inspired his Church leaders to do it. I've heard this reasoning before, and the best response I've seen, and I haven't heard a good counter response, is to compare this to the practice of polygamy. If God is so concerned with the prejudices of others and the impacts of that prejudice on people, polygamy which caused incredible persecution towards church members was still promoted as God commanded. Why? 1
Ahab Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 (edited) 56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I've heard this reasoning before, and the best response I've seen, and I haven't heard a good counter response, is to compare this to the practice of polygamy. If God is so concerned with the prejudices of others and the impacts of that prejudice on people, polygamy which caused incredible persecution towards church members was still promoted as God commanded. Why? It is my understanding that polygamy wasn't a cause of persecution for those who persecuted the Church back then. I know that not everybody liked it or agreed with the practice of polygamy, but few people were persecuted for that sole reason, and the opposition expressed was not nearly to the same degree that black people were persecuted for the sole reason that they had black skin. Edited June 13, 2018 by Ahab
pogi Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The ban was instigated by humans, this is a fact, it wasn't instigated by giraffes or monkeys. The "will of God" is a faith proposition, so can't be evaluated empirically. It sounds like you want to use empirical evidence to support one side of this equation, but are failing to recognize that any claims of God's will, either for or against, cannot be evaluated using empirical evidence. Instigated/influenced/prompted/initiated/commanded by God's will - carried out by humans. Lets not argue over semantics, I think you know what I meant. Communication is clearly breaking down here. I stated clearly that I take no solid stance on the matter one way or the other, how could you possibly accuse me of using empirical evidence to support one side of the equation? 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The error I'm condemning is with respect to historical events. The people I'm condemning are the leaders who perpetuated and exacerbated the narrative, (church leaders), not those who out of loyalty to the religion believed in the erroneous narrative. You stated that the the "primary error of faith (not history) is faith in a racist God (not leaders)". 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: This narrative calls for a racist God, I'm just pointing that out. If God was the author of the ban, then God is by definition a racist. That is your interpretation of racism, others (including black members) do not agree with you. 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: This is crossing the line and against the board rules. By using the quotation marks you are making a false attribution, and completely misrepresenting me in a way that portrays me as a horrible bigot. Please correct the record or I will reports this to the admins as a violation. The quoted portion is clearly my interpretation of what you said. That is how I read your words. I am offering you a chance to clarify. How else am I supposed to understand your comment? Here is the direct quote: Quote I certainly haven't belittled their intelligence, I've done the precise opposite by placing the blame on the church leaders for their ability to condition people to think a certain way and support the leaders teachings. Are you suggesting these black members are not capable of thinking for themselves and are not culpable or accountable for what they choose to believe? Are they so intellectually incompetent that it is entirely out of their control? They are simply blind puppets and lemmings? The racist white church leaders are so powerfully manipulative and skilled at brain-washing that the members have no responsibility for what they choose to believe? That is an insult on their intelligence and their ability to operate and think for themselves. It is an insult on every believing member of the church to insinuate that we are not responsible for what we believe because the "conditioning" of the leaders is so overpowering of our own intelligence and agency. Don't alter quotes by other posters. It's against the rules. ~Mods 2
hope_for_things Posted June 13, 2018 Author Posted June 13, 2018 35 minutes ago, Ahab said: It is my understanding that polygamy wasn't a cause of persecution for those who persecuted the Church back then. I know that not everybody liked it or agreed with the practice of polygamy, but few people were persecuted for that sole reason, and the opposition expressed was not nearly to the same degree that black people were persecuted for the sole reason that they had black skin. You haven't read the same things I've read about early church history. This was a considerable factor in getting the church kicked out of Nauvoo, and arguably directly contributed to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum, and then continued to be a major source of persecution in the Utah period all the way through to imprisonment of church members and leaders, the confiscation of church property, and a myriad of other persecutions that we can tie directly to the practice of polygamy. 1
hope_for_things Posted June 13, 2018 Author Posted June 13, 2018 19 minutes ago, pogi said: Communication is clearly breaking down here. I stated clearly that I take no solid stance on the matter one way or the other, how could you possibly accuse me of using empirical evidence to support one side of the equation? Then we should both agree there is no empirical evidence to support a claim of God's will. So why did you ask me for evidence again? 21 minutes ago, pogi said: You stated that the the "primary error of faith (not history) is faith in a racist God (not leaders)". I meant faith in the sense of faith built upon a foundation of an inaccurate historical narrative. There is also an element of faith manifest as perceived loyalty to church authority figures. 22 minutes ago, pogi said: 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: This narrative calls for a racist God, I'm just pointing that out. If God was the author of the ban, then God is by definition a racist. That is your interpretation of racism, others (including black members) do not agree with you. Some agree, some disagree, what's new. People don't like the label of racism, even when that label is an accurate usage of the word. Words have meaning and we can't just ignore that meaning when it is uncomfortable. 27 minutes ago, pogi said: 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: This is crossing the line and against the board rules. By using the quotation marks you are making a false attribution, and completely misrepresenting me in a way that portrays me as a horrible bigot. Please correct the record or I will reports this to the admins as a violation. The quoted portion is clearly my interpretation of what you said. That is how I read your words. I am offering you a chance to clarify. How else am I supposed to understand your comment? Here is the direct quote: Quote I certainly haven't belittled their intelligence, I've done the precise opposite by placing the blame on the church leaders for their ability to condition people to think a certain way and support the leaders teachings. Are you suggesting these black members are not capable of thinking for themselves and are not culpable or accountable for what they choose to believe? Are they so intellectually incompetent that it is entirely out of their control? They are simply blind puppets and lemmings? The racist white church leaders are so powerfully manipulative and skilled at brain-washing that the members have no responsibility for what they choose to believe? That is an insult on their intelligence and their ability to operate and think for themselves. It is an insult on every believing member of the church to insinuate that we are not responsible for what we believe because the "conditioning" of the leaders is so overpowering of our own intelligence and agency. I'm not going to dignify these comments with a response. This is clearly trollish behavior on your part. And I am reporting these posts to the admins.
Ahab Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You haven't read the same things I've read about early church history. This was a considerable factor in getting the church kicked out of Nauvoo, and arguably directly contributed to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum, and then continued to be a major source of persecution in the Utah period all the way through to imprisonment of church members and leaders, the confiscation of church property, and a myriad of other persecutions that we can tie directly to the practice of polygamy. I think I've probably read about as much as you have about it. I think I just disagree that conclusion is a correct one to draw to explain the persecution they experienced. To kill men just because they have more than one wife? Or to take their property for that reason? Or because they taught that God approved of men having more than one wife? No, I don't believe that. Edited June 13, 2018 by Ahab
hope_for_things Posted June 13, 2018 Author Posted June 13, 2018 12 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think I've probably read about as much as you have about it. I think I just disagree that conclusion is a correct one to draw to explain the persecution they experienced. To kill men just because they have more than one wife? Or to take their property for that reason? Or because they taught that God approved of men having more than one wife? No, I don't believe that. Even conservative and orthodox members who I've talked with and read, recognize the severe persecution that was a result of polygamy in the early church. I found this quote from the polygamy gospel topics summary essay in the conclusion section. Quote Plural marriage was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration. For many who practiced it, plural marriage was a trial of faith. It violated both cultural and legal norms, leading to persecution and revilement. There is also an entire chapter on this topic in the church history student manual, the chapter is titled : A Decade of Persecution 1877 - 1887 and its entirely centered around the persecution experienced as a direct result of practicing polygamy. https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-thirty-three?lang=eng&_r=1 I'm sure I could find more officially sanctioned church sources to support my point. You're entitled to a different opinion of course, I'm just a little surprised since you seem to normally align with orthodox church sentiments.
Ahab Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Even conservative and orthodox members who I've talked with and read, recognize the severe persecution that was a result of polygamy in the early church. I found this quote from the polygamy gospel topics summary essay in the conclusion section. There is also an entire chapter on this topic in the church history student manual, the chapter is titled : A Decade of Persecution 1877 - 1887 and its entirely centered around the persecution experienced as a direct result of practicing polygamy. https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-thirty-three?lang=eng&_r=1 I'm sure I could find more officially sanctioned church sources to support my point. You're entitled to a different opinion of course, I'm just a little surprised since you seem to normally align with orthodox church sentiments. I think the world, generally, used polygamy as an excuse to persecute rather than polygamy being the actual reason for them persecuting the saints. They wanted their property and they didn't want the Church to even exist so they were trying to do whatever they could to get rid of them and take what they had from them. I'm not saying the Church wasn't persecuted, or that the world didn't use polygamy as an excuse, as they saw it, for their behavior.
pogi Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 (edited) 48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I meant faith in the sense of faith built upon a foundation of an inaccurate historical narrative. There is also an element of faith manifest as perceived loyalty to church authority figures. What makes you think that members who think the ban was commanded by God don't have an accurate historical narrative? 48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Some agree, some disagree, what's new. People don't like the label of racism, even when that label is an accurate usage of the word. Words have meaning and we can't just ignore that meaning when it is uncomfortable. Words can be interpreted in many different ways - just look at all the different interpretations of the Bible. What may appear as racist to you, may not be interpreted as such to someone else, there is no objective measure - it is all a matter of interpretation. 48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm not going to dignify these comments with a response. This is clearly trollish behavior on your part. And I am reporting these posts to the admins. I have never been accused of being a troll before. This just goes to show that words can be interpreted in many different ways by different people. "Trollish behavior", "racism"- if you ask different people what is, and what is not trollish or racist, you will get several different interpretations. What you call trollish behavior, I call effective communication - You make a statement, I reflect that statement back to you through paraphrasing as I perceive your statement. I then give you a chance to clarify your statement, defend your claim, or retract. I honestly see your comment as demeaning and insulting. To me, you are clearly stating that black members are not culpable for their beliefs because of the conditioning power of their leaders. What are they, children? The fact that you are not going to "dignify" me with a response is simply another layer of demeaning behavior. I should be the one reporting you. Feel free to report me, I would be very surprised if judgment was in your favor. Which would go to show that you may think that you have the only authoritative interpretation of words such as "trolling" or "racism", but in fact, you may be mistaken. Edited June 13, 2018 by pogi 1
kllindley Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm not going to dignify these comments with a response. This is clearly trollish behavior on your part. And I am reporting these posts to the admins. Have you considered the possibility that even if you in no way meant for your comments to be interpreted the way they have been, the fact that three separate posters who have (in my admittedly biased opinion) a good track record of non-troll-like commenting have understood them in that way, just might indicate that something in you comments might be contributing to the miscommunication? 2
hope_for_things Posted June 13, 2018 Author Posted June 13, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ahab said: I think the world, generally, used polygamy as an excuse to persecute rather than polygamy being the actual reason for them persecuting the saints. They wanted their property and they didn't want the Church to even exist so they were trying to do whatever they could to get rid of them and take what they had from them. I'm not saying the Church wasn't persecuted, or that the world didn't use polygamy as an excuse, as they saw it, for their behavior. Are you aware of any prominent historians or church apologists or even correlated church materials that would support your thesis? I honestly haven't heard anyone propose such an idea anywhere across the wide Mormon spectrum of thought. It sounds like an extremely unique Ahab interpretation. Edited June 13, 2018 by hope_for_things
hope_for_things Posted June 13, 2018 Author Posted June 13, 2018 2 hours ago, kllindley said: Have you considered the possibility that even if you in no way meant for your comments to be interpreted the way they have been, the fact that three separate posters who have (in my admittedly biased opinion) a good track record of non-troll-like commenting have understood them in that way, just might indicate that something in you comments might be contributing to the miscommunication? I expect on a message board that tilts to the conservative/orthodox side of the isle that I'm often in the minority. I'm not going to try and take poll on whether Pogi's messages constitute trollish behavior. I believe this is the first time I've ever accused someone of that in my whole experience on this board, with almost 5000 posts. Are there elements in my post that could be more clearly communicated? I'm certain of that. Could Pogi have asked respectful questions looking for clarification from me? Yes, certainly. There are respectful ways of having a back and forth exchange.
Ahab Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Are you aware of any prominent historians or church apologists or even correlated church materials that would support your thesis? I honestly haven't heard anyone propose such an idea anywhere across the wide Mormon spectrum of belief. It sounds like an extremely unique Ahab interpretation. Yes. Sounds like you haven't read as much Church history records as I have. I'm aware of Church history records I've read which described how the saints built many nice homes and buildings where they lived, making the Kirkland area better than it was before they moved there and transforming the swamp land of Nauvoo into a thriving and physically attractive area of Industry. Those who had already been settled where the saints moved to looked at them and all that they had with envy and covetous feelings as the saints developed their homes and other properties. By killing or threatening members of the Church into moving out of their communities they knew they would be able to take whatever they left behind, or buy it for very little compensation. The other citizens did destroy some of the saint's property in their zeal to try to get the saints to move but the saints still left a lot of good property in good condition behind, feeling that they had no good alternatives otherwise they would be killed. You seriously don't remember reading anything about that before?
hope_for_things Posted June 13, 2018 Author Posted June 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Yes. Sounds like you haven't read as much Church history records as I have. I'm aware of Church history records I've read which described how the saints built many nice homes and buildings where they lived, making the Kirkland area better than it was before they moved there and transforming the swamp land of Nauvoo into a thriving and physically attractive area of Industry. Those who had already been settled where the saints moved to looked at them and all that they had with envy and covetous feelings as the saints developed their homes and other properties. By killing or threatening members of the Church into moving out of their communities they knew they would be able to take whatever they left behind, or buy it for very little compensation. The other citizens did destroy some of the saint's property in their zeal to try to get the saints to move but the saints still left a lot of good property in good condition behind, feeling that they had no good alternatives otherwise they would be killed. You seriously don't remember reading anything about that before? For Kirtland, polygamy wasn't being practiced yet so wasn't really an issue. I'm not claiming polygamy was a contributing factor for persecution in Kirtland or in Missouri. For Nauvoo, of course I'm aware of what the members did to vastly improve that area. It was similar size to Chicago for a time period and a very influential population in early Illinois. Its your interpretation of these elements that I've never heard before. I'm not aware of any other people promoting this. I have read where historians and scholars have discussed how political power of the saints was a contributing factor that led to persecution, but that is different than what you're saying. Your interpretation of the reasoning behind the persecution I've honestly never heard before. Can you provide any supporting evidence in books or websites where others have interpreted the history in this same way? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying I've never heard of this before.
Ahab Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: For Kirtland, polygamy wasn't being practiced yet so wasn't really an issue. I'm not claiming polygamy was a contributing factor for persecution in Kirtland or in Missouri. For Nauvoo, of course I'm aware of what the members did to vastly improve that area. It was similar size to Chicago for a time period and a very influential population in early Illinois. Its your interpretation of these elements that I've never heard before. I'm not aware of any other people promoting this. I have read where historians and scholars have discussed how political power of the saints was a contributing factor that led to persecution, but that is different than what you're saying. Your interpretation of the reasoning behind the persecution I've honestly never heard before. Can you provide any supporting evidence in books or websites where others have interpreted the history in this same way? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying I've never heard of this before. I don't remember where in the HC/DHC or what exactly was said but Joseph said something more than once about the former settlers of those areas looking at what the saints had with envy and covetous feelings. In both of those areas. And he wasn't talking about them looking at the saint's spiritual blessings. You do realize we're not talking about nice people, don't you? They killed and otherwise caused physical suffering to other people. Is it so hard for you to believe they did some of that because they wanted some of their property? I'm surprised that I'm the first person to clue you in about this. Edited June 13, 2018 by Ahab
hope_for_things Posted June 13, 2018 Author Posted June 13, 2018 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: I don't remember where in the HC/DHC or what exactly was said but Joseph said something more than once about the former settlers of those areas looking at what the saints had with envy and covetous feelings. In both of those areas. And he wasn't talking about them looking at the saint's spiritual blessings. You do realize we're not talking about nice people, don't you? They killed and otherwise caused physical suffering to other people. Is it so hard for you to believe they did some of that because they wanted some of their property? I'm surprised that I'm the first person to clue you in about this. If Joseph made such a statement, it might have been with respect to OH, or MO, and it would be interesting to read the full context because you might be misreading the statement. If you can provide a source that would be much more helpful. Alternatively I can produce more evidence that polygamy was a significant and driving factor for persecution from Nauvoo all the way through the early 20th century, by multiple historians and the church publications. Its interesting that the tone of your message is one of "surprise that you're the first person to clue" me in about this issue. Yet, you haven't been able to point to any actual support for your interpretation of the data.
Ahab Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: If Joseph made such a statement, it might have been with respect to OH, or MO, and it would be interesting to read the full context because you might be misreading the statement. If you can provide a source that would be much more helpful. Alternatively I can produce more evidence that polygamy was a significant and driving factor for persecution from Nauvoo all the way through the early 20th century, by multiple historians and the church publications. Its interesting that the tone of your message is one of "surprise that you're the first person to clue" me in about this issue. Yet, you haven't been able to point to any actual support for your interpretation of the data. You said I was the first person to mention this idea to you. I took that to mean nobody else had given you this idea before. I'm okay with leaving it as just introducing the idea to you rather than finding other people with the same idea that I have.
hope_for_things Posted June 13, 2018 Author Posted June 13, 2018 29 minutes ago, Ahab said: You said I was the first person to mention this idea to you. I took that to mean nobody else had given you this idea before. I'm okay with leaving it as just introducing the idea to you rather than finding other people with the same idea that I have. Hah! That’s a major dodge on your part. In that case this idea you’ve got is an extremely unique interpretation not shared by historians and scholars or even correlation as you’ve pointed to no supporting materials.
Ahab Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Hah! That’s a major dodge on your part. In that case this idea you’ve got is an extremely unique interpretation not shared by historians and scholars or even correlation as you’ve pointed to no supporting materials. I pointed to the HC/DHC. I just don't remember exactly where I read it and I'm too lazy right now to do research for you. So if you want to just write it off as uniquely my position, as if I'm the only one in the world who thinks this, go right ahead, bro. You're going to believe whatever you want to believe anyway regardless of how many people tell you the same thing.
kllindley Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Hah! That’s a major dodge on your part. In that case this idea you’ve got is an extremely unique interpretation not shared by historians and scholars or even correlation as you’ve pointed to no supporting materials. In Nauvoo, Illinois, conflict was often based on the tendency of Mormons to "dominate community, economic, and political life wherever they landed." http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/religionculture.html "The rapid development of Nauvoo's economic and political power, along with rumors about strange Mormon religious rituals, greatly unsettled other Illinois residents. They particularly resented the Mormon practice of voting in elections as a bloc at the direction of Joseph Smith. Then in 1844, Smith decided to run for president of the United States. This combining of religion and politics further inflamed public opinion in Illinois. Nor did all Mormons in Nauvoo approve of Joseph Smith's political activities. A dissenting newspaper in Nauvoo accused Smith of crowning himself king. In response, he and members of the Council of Fifty destroyed the paper's printing press. State authorities jailed Smith and several others for inciting a riot. The governor sent a state militia to guard Smith against mob violence. But the militia itself became a lynch mob and shot Smith to death in his jail cell on June 27, 1844. After debating who should replace Joseph Smith as prophet and president of the Mormon Church, an emergency assembly of the Latter-Day Saints selected Brigham Young. But soon vigilantes began to burn the homes and farms of the Mormon settlers in a determined effort to drive them out of Illinois. Brigham Young and the other church leaders realized that they could not remain in Nauvoo under such dangerous conditions. They then led an epic migration of 16,000 Mormons to the Great Salt Lake Valley in the western wilderness." http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-17-1-b-the-persecution-of-the-mormons "By May 1844 the Latter-day Saints were once again embroiled in an apparently irreconcilable conflict with their neighbors. There were many reasons for this: politically the Saints were alienated from nearly everyone else in Illinois, other communities were jealous of Nauvoo’s economic growth and political autonomy, many people in Illinois feared the power of the Nauvoo Legion, the Masons were disturbed by alleged irregularities of the order in Nauvoo, and there was a general distaste among the people for peculiar Mormon doctrines and practices which had been misrepresented by John C. Bennett and others. Despite these factors, the Saints still might have been able to maintain peace if it had not been for the apostasy developing within the Church. Unhappily, all signs pointed toward eventual violence. On 29 May 1844, Thomas Sharp told his readers he “would not be surprised to hear of his [Joseph Smith’s] death by violent means in a short time.”14 https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-twenty-one?lang=eng Did you have any references that all scholars and correlation attribute all Illinois persecution to polygamy? 2
hope_for_things Posted June 14, 2018 Author Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Ahab said: I pointed to the HC/DHC. I just don't remember exactly where I read it and I'm too lazy right now to do research for you. So if you want to just write it off as uniquely my position, as if I'm the only one in the world who thinks this, go right ahead, bro. You're going to believe whatever you want to believe anyway regardless of how many people tell you the same thing. I shared actual church produced statements to support my point. And I can bring forward many more. Polygamy was a huge source of persecution for the church and arguably the most significant in the history of Mormonism. I can produce thoughtful scholarly perspectives all across the spectrum of belief from anti Mormon to orthodox that support this mainstream reading of the history of polygamy and the church. Yet you dismiss it and present an alternative interpretation that you have provided no evidence to support. Saying Joseph made some obscure reference in the HC that you haven’t produced for evaluation does not even approach a credible counter argument. Edited June 14, 2018 by hope_for_things
Hamba Tuhan Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 11 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Bracketing the supernatural for the purposes of history and other scholarship is the status quo way of operating in the academy and the way that religious studies and Mormon studies scholars typically approach scholarship. I have a PhD in history. I'm not unfamiliar with the concept of bracketing the supernatural. Quote Its not circular logic at all. What you described above certainly isn't. But when you intentionally bracket divine influence and then use the resulting narrative to conclude that there was no divine influence -- that is circular logic. In essence, what you've said in earlier posts is that, because people can create narratives/explanations that don't include God's involvement, then you can know with certainty that God wasn't involved. No you can't. Having bracketed God's involvement, you don't then get to decide that your investigative framework is reality itself. You can't say that you're only going to consider variables A and B and then use the outcome to argue that variable C played no role. You're repeatedly committing a logical fallacy. Now, I'm happy for you to believe God wasn't involved. That's your prerogative. But it's a conclusion as subjective as believing that God was involved -- which, by the way, is what most Saints believe, including non-white Saints, according to the link that you provided earlier. Quote And yes, I have great confidence that people of color will change their views if they are introduced to accurately written history. I think accurate information is the antidote to misinformation and prejudiced dogma. I have no clue how to comment on the above without being dismissed by you as insulting and condescending, but I feel obliged to point out that it is statements such as this that are insulting and condescending, not just to me and others who post in this forum but to a great number of the 'people of colour' whom you seem to think that you are championing in your posts. 4
hope_for_things Posted June 14, 2018 Author Posted June 14, 2018 10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: What you described above certainly isn't. But when you intentionally bracket divine influence and then use the resulting narrative to conclude that there was no divine influence -- that is circular logic. In essence, what you've said in earlier posts is that, because people can create narratives/explanations that don't include God's involvement, then you can know with certainty that God wasn't involved. No you can't. Having bracketed God's involvement, you don't then get to decide that your investigative framework is reality itself. You can't say that you're only going to consider variables A and B and then use the outcome to argue that variable C played no role. You're repeatedly committing a logical fallacy. Now, I'm happy for you to believe God wasn't involved. That's your prerogative. But it's a conclusion as subjective as believing that God was involved -- which, by the way, is what most Saints believe, including non-white Saints, according to the link that you provided earlier. I agree with the way you've described circular logic here and I don't think that is what I was doing. By bracketing the supernatural, I'm looking at just the natural explanations for the priesthood ban. I don't recall making a statement that declared with certainty any particular reading of history. I'm confident that the data shows a quite reasonable reading of the historical circumstances that influenced the ban, and that includes the racist attitudes prevalent in the culture and in other conservative Christian movements, along with the traditional narratives about Cain's curse as scriptural support for God's disfavor. All of that was present at that time, and clearly used by BY as he articulated and implemented the ban. Because the natural evidence fits so nicely as an explanation, I don't see any reason to make a faith claim that God was really involved in the ban, which was racist by definition of the word. Can I prove to you or anyone else using empirical evidence that God was or wasn't somehow involved, pulling the strings behind the scene, orchestrating this ban? No, of course not. But I also don't understand why people would want to put faith in that kind of a God anyway. A racist God. All to support the idea that Church leaders can't make mistakes. I would much rather believe in a God that isn't racist, and that church leaders just messed up. But to each his own. 10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I have no clue how to comment on the above without being dismissed by you as insulting and condescending, but I feel obliged to point out that it is statements such as this that are insulting and condescending, not just to me and others who post in this forum but to a great number of the 'people of colour' whom you seem to think that you are championing in your posts. I'm trying very hard not to make this personal. Its very difficult on such a sensitive topic like race. I'm sorry if you're worried I'm going to dismiss you or condescend towards you, that is not my intent. I've been the target of that kind of behavior often enough and I know its not fun. I'm not sure how you read my statement about my belief that people of color will embrace well written history. I do believe that is true. I think its true for the majority of individuals, not just people of color. I believe the challenge we have with hagiographical narratives in our tradition, is that people don't like change, and we have a culture that orients towards conformity. If church leaders started sharing the more accurate history over the pulpit, I believe most members would quickly embrace the more complex narratives. Unfortunately, we haven't seen that kind of leadership to date.
Recommended Posts