Jump to content

Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Note what word you had to add before 'priesthood ban' in your claim. And of course you cannot quote Elder Stevenson or anyone else saying, 'Including the priesthood ban'.

I.e., everyone else needs to think the way you do. I get it.

I'm not sure you and I share an understanding of what it means to be an 'ally'. You seem to think it involves telling the people you think you're allied with that they don't understand their own situation as well as you do.

This isn't an answer to my questions and doesn't give me any insight about your perspective.  Instead you've chosen to try and point the finger at me.  Clearly we don't agree, so explain how you understand racism and why you think the priesthood ban wasn't racist.  You could also explain how you understand the church's statements.  That's what I'm interested in understanding.  You also keep beating a drum about your one black friend who's opinion you are trying to say invalidates anyone who has a different opinion.  

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Rivers said:

Of course not.  But is that really a thing?  How exactly does one go about erasing somebody’s identity and history?  
Anyhow,  being a child of God is the most important identity.

Well you just tried some erasing right? In response to this:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/issues/fall-2019/?fbclid=IwAR1XA7h_E9OtpV4zFrS9q-8X5nmkjiOTm5z6qXsjx8J1PcFRDYGKYzxwWDc

Excerpt from "Listening for a Change", by Deborah Alexis:

"I am not a follower of Christ first, or black first, or woman first; these are all things that I am simultaneously. I cannot be in alliance with people who do not acknowledge all of me."

You said this:

"I have a better idea. How about we just acknowledge people by the content of their character as Dr. King would want us to do? " 

She was specifically saying that she needs to be acknowledged as a black female follower of Christ, because she is all three simultaneously, and you said you had "a better idea..." and dismissed all three.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment

Recent statements by LDS people I admire.

"Life is messy; this is our life; so prepare to work with messy.'

'No one can understand racism and Mormonism without reading and comprehending the thoughts in Religion of a Different Color.'

'The Gospel is always true, whereas the Church is not always true, so always be vigilant in your wards to bring the Church where you live into alignment with the Gospel.'

At the very least, living life by these considerations will make your Ward and Church life much for fulfilling and fun.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, tkv said:

Does someone have a screenshot of the racist manual paragraph?

I see the versions are laid out on page 2. Thanks @provoman

Could someone explain how 2 Nephi 5 is racist since whatever happened was within a close family relationship, not between distant races?

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think this is about my personal perspective though. It's specifically about whether or not Church leaders' statements require members to disavow past policies. They don't. Rather, these statements have been crafted in such a way as to allow a plurality of perspectives by faithful Church members, including the possibility that past policies were either inspired or allowed by God to suit His eternal purposes.

I find it interesting that those who quite openly advocate for the Church to be more 'broad tent' on other matters that are more constrained by doctrine are bothered by the fact that current Church leaders have intentionally created a 'broad tent' space in relation to this topic.

No-one is "required" to believe anything.  Heavens knows I have many things that I disagree with church leaders on.  But in this case, I don't think the statements have been crafted in a way to allow a plurality of perspectives, that intuits some kind of intention on the part of leaders for double speak, and although we have some history of this kind of double speak in Mormonism (thinking specifically about post manifesto polygamy as a case in point), I don't think the current position of the church is intended to mean two different things to different audiences.  I honestly think that the statements are a clear condemnation of past racism.  If you feel differently, you still haven't expressed what specifically in the statements allows for a different interpretation.  Maybe you're just keeping it to yourself because you don't want to get into a discussion about your interpretation?  

I'll ignore the last comment where you're throwing shade again, poor form...

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No-one is "required" to believe anything.  Heavens knows I have many things that I disagree with church leaders on.  But in this case, I don't think the statements have been crafted in a way to allow a plurality of perspectives, that intuits some kind of intention on the part of leaders for double speak, and although we have some history of this kind of double speak in Mormonism (thinking specifically about post manifesto polygamy as a case in point), I don't think the current position of the church is intended to mean two different things to different audiences.  I honestly think that the statements are a clear condemnation of past racism.  If you feel differently, you still haven't expressed what specifically in the statements allows for a different interpretation.  Maybe you're just keeping it to yourself because you don't want to get into a discussion about your interpretation?  

I'll ignore the last comment where you're throwing shade again, poor form...

 

They are a clear condemnation of past racism, but not the priesthood ban.  There is room in the statement for people to still believe it came from God.  I think that's what Hamba is talking about.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They are a clear condemnation of past racism, but not the priesthood ban.  There is room in the statement for people to still believe it came from God.  I think that's what Hamba is talking about.

The PH ban is racist, I believe that the essays speak of it that way, didn't they? I guess I need to go back and read through more thoroughly. 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They are a clear condemnation of past racism, but not the priesthood ban.  There is room in the statement for people to still believe it came from God.  I think that's what Hamba is talking about.

If the priesthood ban was racist, and I argue that it clearly was racist and clearly fits that definition, then their statements of condemnation include the priesthood ban.  How are you exempting the priesthood ban from fitting the definition of racism?  

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The PH ban is racist, I believe that the essays speak of it that way, didn't they? I guess I need to go back and read through more thoroughly. 

I suspect that the original version of the Topics essay more explicitly called out the priesthood ban as racist.  I listened to an interview with Dr. Reeve and he said the original version of the essay was like 54 pages if I remember the number correctly.   The final edited version after going through the rounds with correlation, doesn't directly say the ban itself was racist, it just calls all the theories about the reasoning racist.  The key statement is the paragraph I quoted, where after explaining all the historical background on this topic, they summarize and end with the church's current policy stance, a disavowal of past teachings, and a condemnation of past racism. 

It doesn't take an English major to figure this out.  Think about the definition of racism, what is racism and what fits that definition?  Does discriminating on the basis of racial attributes like skin color and ethnic background fit the definition of racism?  If the answer is yes, then the priesthood ban fits the definition of racism.  How else can a person define it? 

Edited by hope_for_things
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If the priesthood ban was racist, and I argue that it clearly was racist and clearly fits that definition, then their statements of condemnation include the priesthood ban.  How are you exempting the priesthood ban from fitting the definition of racism?  

Ok, but it doesn't really matter what you believe or argue.  What matters is whether or not the church considers the ban to have been racist, and they are quiet on that.  They disavow past racism but not the ban.  That is the 'broad tent' that Hamba is talking about.  There is room for people to continue to believe that the ban was of God while disavowing the racist explanations that leaders put forth for the reason of the ban.  

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The PH ban is racist, I believe that the essays speak of it that way, didn't they? I guess I need to go back and read through more thoroughly. 

No, they don't.  We talked a lot about it when they first came out.  The essays are silent on the ban itself.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ok, but it doesn't really matter what you believe or argue.  What matters is whether or not the church considers the ban to have been racist, and they are quiet on that.  They disavow past racism but not the ban.  That is the 'broad tent' that Hamba is talking about.  There is room for people to continue to believe that the ban was of God while disavowing the racist explanations that leaders put forth for the reason of the ban.  

Lets think about this.  The church is being very clear in its condemnation of racism today.  It is partnering with the NAACP.  An apostle is apologizing for mistakes in manuals and expressing regret.  The church disavows racism.  Now, does the priesthood ban fit the definition of being racist?  If the answer is yes, then the priesthood ban is being condemned by the current church policy.  Do people have to wait for church leaders to explicitly connect the dots?  Can't members see that it clearly fits the definition of racism themselves?  

If there is room to believe the ban authored by God, then thats fine for them.  The implications of this belief is a that God commanded a racist policy in the church.  But that isn't necessarily in conflict.  Perhaps God has reasons for this that are justifiable.  I personally don't believe in a God that would institute a racist practice, that isn't a satisfactory concept for God from my vantage point, as I believe all are alike unto God.  Of course I also don't believe in exclusivity claims of the church, so its easy for me to find these two beliefs in harmony.  I think the challenge is for more traditional believers.  How do they reconcile these things.  

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

I think the BoM is racist, I think the Priesthood Ban is racist, the Gospel Essays don't address that issue, and the recent statements and Elder Stevenson's comments are not clear cut condemnations of the PH ban.

I think they are condemnations of both the BoM and of the priesthood ban.  Its really quite simple.  I'm sure most primary kids could understand it.  Define racism, what is racism and do those two things, the BoM statements and the priesthood ban, fit the definition of racism?  The answer is yes, and the church condemns racism in "all its forms" that includes scriptural forms as far as I understand the word "all".  

Why have members been so programmed that they seemingly can't think for themselves.  If its walks and quacks like a duck, then its a duck people.  Like I said, a primary kid could understand this.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Lets think about this.  The church is being very clear in its condemnation of racism today.  It is partnering with the NAACP.  An apostle is apologizing for mistakes in manuals and expressing regret.  The church disavows racism.  Now, does the priesthood ban fit the definition of being racist?  If the answer is yes, then the priesthood ban is being condemned by the current church policy.  Do people have to wait for church leaders to explicitly connect the dots?  Can't members see that it clearly fits the definition of racism themselves?  

And yet, no where does the church actually disavow the priesthood ban.  Right?  The church is silent on that.  The bolded part is the million dollar question, but no one can answer it for the church.  They can answer it for themselves, but not on behalf of the church.  

Does the church believe that the priesthood ban was racist?  I don't know.  I can't find any recent statements that answer that question.

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Define racism, what is racism and do those two things, the BoM statements and the priesthood ban, fit the definition of racism?

The Book of Mormon statements relate to close family members. How is that racist?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think they are condemnations of both the BoM and of the priesthood ban.  Its really quite simple.  I'm sure most primary kids could understand it.  Define racism, what is racism and do those two things, the BoM statements and the priesthood ban, fit the definition of racism?  The answer is yes, and the church condemns racism in "all its forms" that includes scriptural forms as far as I understand the word "all".  

Why have members been so programmed that they seemingly can't think for themselves.  If its walks and quacks like a duck, then its a duck people.  Like I said, a primary kid could understand this.  

We can think for ourselves, but we can't think for the church.  

I know people who don't believe that the ban was racist but fully support everything in the essays.  If i asked you what those people believe about the ban, and you applied your deductive reasoning skills that you say a primary kid could understand, you would come up with the wrong answer for them.  They don't see it the same way you do so your interpretation can't be applied to them.  

This doesn't have anything to do with being programmed; it has to do with understanding that your thoughts and beliefs on the topic are not the standard that other people go by.  You can't just apply them to others and think you know what those people believe.

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, tkv said:

The Book of Mormon statements relate to close family members. How is that racist?

Some people believe that the BOM teaches that those close family members were turned into two different races by God.  The righteous remained white while the wicked became cursed with a dark skin, thus becoming a different race than their white family members.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And yet, no where does the church actually disavow the priesthood ban.  Right?  The church is silent on that.  The bolded part is the million dollar question, but no one can answer it for the church.  They can answer it for themselves, but not on behalf of the church.  

Does the church believe that the priesthood ban was racist?  I don't know.  I can't find any recent statements that answer that question.

 

There is an objective answer to the question, by the definition of racism. 

Link to comment
Quote

Some people believe that the BOM teaches that those close family members were turned into two different races by God.  The righteous remained white while the wicked became cursed with a dark skin, thus becoming a different race than their white family members.

So first there's a stipulation, then we can get a racist interpretation.

Edited by tkv
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...