Jump to content

Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed


Recommended Posts

18 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.

 

If I put together a quiz where I have two buckets on the right side, and a bunch of sentences on the left side.  You have to put the sentences into the two different buckets.  The buckets are 1-racism or 2-not racism.    You have all kinds of practices on the left side ranging from corporate, governmental, religious, individual, all kinds of examples, and you have to put them into the buckets on the right, which of these fit the definition of racism and which ones don't.  Where do you put the priesthood ban?  

Why do you wait for the church to connect the dots for you?  Connect them yourself.  Answer the question on the quiz.  Its clear as can be.  Is banning a race of people from attending temples, from participating in religious rituals, from the highest ordinances of the church's practices constitute racism?  

Do you really wait for the church to define everything for you?  Do you want the church to tell you what counts as immorality too?  What about honesty, do you want the church to tell you explicitly what counts as honest behavior and what doesn't? 

Sorry if I'm sounding frustrated here, but I get frustrated with the how our culture conditions people to not think for themselves.  Of course I'd love it if the church openly admitted that its priesthood ban was racist, which it clearly was.  But its very very very hard to get institutions to ever admit to something so explicitly.  

Thats why I'm trying to introduce thought experiments.  Lets try this another way.  Lets say that the Catholic church comes out tomorrow with a new policy that the Pope declare is revelation from God.  This new policy staring tomorrow bars all women from partaking of the Eucharist.  The concept is founded in the scriptural story of the last supper, and in the story only the disciples were partakers of the last supper.  The Pope declares that its God will that only men can receive the Eucharist going forward, and that this is God's will.

As an outside to the Catholic tradition, you have to decide whether or not you define this new practice as sexist or not.  Since you're not Catholic, you don't have the same dynamics contributing to your views about their new policy.  Would you define this new practice as sexist or not, and why?  Does it fit the definition of sexism?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I asked [my black housemate] once his opinion of white people who feel the need to twist themselves up in knots on his presumed behalf. I don't think the moderators would allow me to quote his response.

Your comment here reminded me of this video I watched yesterday:

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your comment here reminded me of this video I watched yesterday:

Thanks,

-Smac

Why did Hanna's comment remind you of that video?

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why did Hanna's comment remind you of that video?

"White Privilege" = "white people who feel the need to twist themselves up in knots on {black folks'} presumed behalf."

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
1 hour 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.

From the Gospel Topics essay on Race and the Priesthood:
"The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion."  

Saying this tends to indirectly infer that Church of Jesus Christ was also influenced by it, which I believe it was to some degree. But then there I go answering it for myself and not the church. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

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

It would seem like it, but it doesn't really work for this topic.  Racism is defined as unjust prejudice or discrimination.  Those who believe that the priesthood ban was not unjust (who believe that it was instituted by God, for example, though not for the reasons the church used to teach) also don't usually believe that it was racist.  Those who believe that it was unjust would come to a different conclusion.  

Even when attempting to use something objective like a definition, it still comes down to personal belief and opinion.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

From the Gospel Topics essay on Race and the Priesthood:
"The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion."  

Saying this tends to indirectly infer that Church of Jesus Christ was also influenced by it, which I believe it was to some degree. But then there I go answering it for myself and not the church. 

No I think it's clear that the church has directly admitted to being influenced by those trends. Otherwise, the racist teachings it has had to disavow never would have been taught over the pulpit.

  • Like 2
Link to post
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"White Privilege" = "white people who feel the need to twist themselves up in knots on {black folks'} presumed behalf."

-Smac

That's not what white privilege is to me at all, this idea you put forth is definitely changing the original meaning. Why do we not understand these things? Can I share a video that I find astounding? 

 

Link to post
46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If I put together a quiz where I have two buckets on the right side, and a bunch of sentences on the left side.  You have to put the sentences into the two different buckets.  The buckets are 1-racism or 2-not racism.    You have all kinds of practices on the left side ranging from corporate, governmental, religious, individual, all kinds of examples, and you have to put them into the buckets on the right, which of these fit the definition of racism and which ones don't.  Where do you put the priesthood ban?  

Why do you wait for the church to connect the dots for you?  Connect them yourself.  Answer the question on the quiz.  Its clear as can be.  Is banning a race of people from attending temples, from participating in religious rituals, from the highest ordinances of the church's practices constitute racism?  

Do you really wait for the church to define everything for you?  Do you want the church to tell you what counts as immorality too?  What about honesty, do you want the church to tell you explicitly what counts as honest behavior and what doesn't? 

Sorry if I'm sounding frustrated here, but I get frustrated with the how our culture conditions people to not think for themselves.  Of course I'd love it if the church openly admitted that its priesthood ban was racist, which it clearly was.  But its very very very hard to get institutions to ever admit to something so explicitly.  

Thats why I'm trying to introduce thought experiments.  Lets try this another way.  Lets say that the Catholic church comes out tomorrow with a new policy that the Pope declare is revelation from God.  This new policy staring tomorrow bars all women from partaking of the Eucharist.  The concept is founded in the scriptural story of the last supper, and in the story only the disciples were partakers of the last supper.  The Pope declares that its God will that only men can receive the Eucharist going forward, and that this is God's will.

As an outside to the Catholic tradition, you have to decide whether or not you define this new practice as sexist or not.  Since you're not Catholic, you don't have the same dynamics contributing to your views about their new policy.  Would you define this new practice as sexist or not, and why?  Does it fit the definition of sexism?  

I can define things for myself.  I cannot define them for others.  Some say, for example, that the church not ordaining women is clearly sexist.  Others, myself included, say that it's not sexist at all.   

  • Like 3
Link to post
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can define things for myself.  I cannot define them for others.  Some say, for example, that the church not ordaining women is clearly sexist.  Others, myself included, say that it's not sexist at all.   

I don’t think equality can be defined as a feeling. What anyone thinks about a situation does not change the situation. In situations where opportunity and privilege is determined only by sex, that is sexism. There is no way to change that no matter how wonderful anyone might think it is. 
 

That is why I always say we should be using the same definitions everyone else uses. Then we can explain what we think or feel about it. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
7 minutes ago, juliann said:

I don’t think equality can be defined as a feeling. What anyone thinks about a situation does not change the situation. In situations where opportunity and privilege is determined only by sex, that is sexism. There is no way to change that no matter how wonderful anyone might think it is. 
 

That is why I always say we should be using the same definitions everyone else uses. Then we can explain what we think or feel about it. 

Equity is a judgement though, and people judge what is equitable and what isn't differently.  For example, some people believe that it is inequitable for the church not to ordain women.  Others, such as myself, don't believe it is inequitable.  So it's not about using different definitions, it's about how those definitions are applied by individuals.  

In terms of racism and the ban, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if the church would just state whether it believes the priesthood ban was of God or not.  But the church, so far, has refused to do that.  (I think that's because there is no concensus on that among our leadership, with some believing it was and some believing it wasn't, but that's just my opinion and has no bearing on anything).  A person has to ask themselves, when the church ise being so forceful and specific about disavowing everything else, why has it been silent on that one huge issue?  

If it the church has disavowed the priesthood ban, then why is there no statement saying that?  Why do we have to read between the lines and use our powers of deduction, as Hope would say?

I agree with Hamba, I think it's because the church has chosen, for whatever reason, to create a broad tent on this issue.  I think the essays were crafted specifically to allow ambiguity for those of different beliefs to be able to still support them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That's not what white privilege is to me at all, this idea you put forth is definitely changing the original meaning. Why do we not understand these things? Can I share a video that I find astounding? 

 

This is very compelling. The results of the experiment she performs are not surprising, given the data: black women in the US have higher rates of maternal death in childbirth, and their babies also have worse rates. Black women coming from other countries with better rates, once in the US, tend to have worse rates and rates worse than white immigrants. 

This is just one example of the disparities discovered by data.

  • Like 1
Link to post
43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That's not what white privilege is to me at all,

Well, that's sort of the problem with neologisms.  It's not like there is some dictionary definition of the term.

It appears to have gained popularity because of a 1989 essay by Peggy McIntoshWhite Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.  

Here's a copy of the essay, in which McIntosh defines the term as

Quote

an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was "meant" to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools , and blank checks.

That sounds quite a bit like what is discussed in the Prager U video I posted.

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

this idea you put forth is definitely changing the original meaning.

Well, point me to the "original meaning," then.

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why do we not understand these things?

I understand the term.  I just do not accept its validity.

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Can I share a video that I find astounding? 

Sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Your comment here reminded me of this video I watched yesterday:

Thanks,

-Smac

Take-away quote: “White privilege is an attempt by the left to divide America by race.” 
 

Truer words were never spoken. 

Link to post

definitely need some white privilege. and if the "privilege-granting" entity could throw in some male privilege to go along with it, that'd be cool.  It's arguable, at least, that I haven't really benefitted from many of the things I've tried to earn, let alone from any of the "unearned privileges" I supposedly possess.  So ... where do I go to redeem these privileges?  Anyone, anyone?  Bueller, Bueller?

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, juliann said:

I don’t think equality can be defined as a feeling. What anyone thinks about a situation does not change the situation. In situations where opportunity and privilege is determined only by sex, that is sexism. There is no way to change that no matter how wonderful anyone might think it is. 
 

That is why I always say we should be using the same definitions everyone else uses. Then we can explain what we think or feel about it. 

100% agree!  Definitions matter on these issues.  If someone feels a particular policy or set of actions are justified for various reasons, then they can go ahead and make that argument and discuss the topic in terms of justification, ethical, moral, situational, whatever the reasoning they feel makes something justified.  But none of that changes how terms are defined, like sexism. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Take-away quote: “White privilege is an attempt by the left to divide America by race.” 
 

Truer words were never spoken. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, that's sort of the problem with neologisms.  It's not like there is some dictionary definition of the term.

It appears to have gained popularity because of a 1989 essay by Peggy McIntoshWhite Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.  

Here's a copy of the essay, in which McIntosh defines the term as

That sounds quite a bit like what is discussed in the Prager U video I posted.

Well, point me to the "original meaning," then.

I understand the term.  I just do not accept its validity.

Sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

What do you think about a totally different perspective such as this article: https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/fall-2018/what-is-white-privilege-really

 

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
38 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

definitely need some white privilege. and if the "privilege-granting" entity could throw in some male privilege to go along with it, that'd be cool.  It's arguable, at least, that I haven't really benefitted from many of the things I've tried to earn, let alone from any of the "unearned privileges" I supposedly possess.  So ... where do I go to redeem these privileges?  Anyone, anyone?  Bueller, Bueller?

Wherever you go, there you will be.  Your virtues and privileges and blessings don't need to be redeemed or exchanged for something else as if they are no good until they are redeemed.  True salvation is all about becoming as happy as you/we can be.

We do need a Savior to save us but he does that by helping us to become as happy as we can be by getting rid of things we do that hold us back in some way and adding to the good we already have and do and enjoy, so even if some other people never appreciate or value how happy  you/we are and can become with his help, you/we can still enjoy all of the good things  you/we have and are even if other people do not and may never know the blessings of salvation that are possible for those of us to choose to live the way that God does.

Edited by Ahab
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

That's a great article Tacenda.  Given all the evidence, it seems odd to believe that white privilege doesn't exist.  

If there is any privilege I have from being white, I want that privilege even if others do not.  And if there is any privilege I could have from being black or red or yellow or any other color, I want that privilege as well.  I want them all.  Every privilege that is good and worth having.

And if anyone doesn't want any or all of them, every privilege possible, then I feel sad for them.  

Link to post
8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's a great article Tacenda.  Given all the evidence, it seems odd to believe that white privilege doesn't exist.  

Thanks, I appreciate that you took some time to look at it. I about c/p'd most of it and then deleted it, especially since you at least looked through so hoping Smac and Scott will too, and give me their opinion as well. :)

Link to post
37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

What do you think about a totally different perspective such as this article: https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/fall-2018/what-is-white-privilege-really

 

Thank you, Tacenda! I hope they'll read it, too.

Link to post
34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What do you think about a totally different perspective such as this article: https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/fall-2018/what-is-white-privilege-really

Not much.  It's muddled.  It can't even bring itself to define the term.  Instead, it explains (or tries to explain) what it is not.  

The closest we get to a definition is this:

Quote

Francis E. Kendall, author of Diversity in the Classroom and Understanding White Privilege: Creating Pathways to Authentic Relationships Across Race, comes close to giving us an encompassing definition: “having greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] do.” But in order to grasp what this means, it’s also important to consider how the definition of white privilege has changed over time.

So we don't get a definition, just something that "comes close" to it.  And what we get is very, very vague.  And even then, the author has to proceed with a belabored explanation so that we can "grasp what this means."

The article is devoid of data or reasoned analysis.  Just broad, unsubstantiated claims.

I would be interested in learning whether "white privilege" has been used in legal proceedings (as a cause of action, or an affirmative defense, whatever).  Any information about this?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If I put together a quiz where I have two buckets on the right side, and a bunch of sentences on the left side.  You have to put the sentences into the two different buckets.  The buckets are 1-racism or 2-not racism.    You have all kinds of practices on the left side ranging from corporate, governmental, religious, individual, all kinds of examples, and you have to put them into the buckets on the right, which of these fit the definition of racism and which ones don't.  Where do you put the priesthood ban?  

That judgment would depend on the definition of racism each person used.  I believe all people are part of the same race... the human race, the race of men, the race of God, or any other term referring to the kind of being we are...  and that even though we are all part of the same race we still have some differences between us.  We are not all the same and some people when speaking in regard to matters of choice like some things about some of us more than they like some other things about some of us, or vice versa.  Meaning some people do not like some things about some of us that some other people do like.  So the issue is complex at the fundamental level even without talking about what we like or don't like or think is better than some other thing.

 

 

 

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...