Jump to content

Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:
Quote

It is, however, a pretty convenient, and politically partisan, and racially divisive, rhetorical gimmick.

That's a very shallow description of white privilege

Strange that you cut off a big piece of my comment:

Quote
Quote

"When we talk about racial inequality, it is important to understand that we’re often talking about structural or society-wide averages, not the status of all individuals at all times. It is true, for instance, that African Americans are disproportionately impacted by poverty. That means a higher percentage of African Americans live in poverty as compared to whites. But the largest number of individuals in the United States who live in poverty are white. We can’t, and we shouldn’t, assume anything about any individual’s life solely based on his or her race, or based on larger facts about racial inequality." 

https://quillette.com/2019/05/23/what-does-teaching-white-privilege-actually-accomplish-not-what-you-might-think-or-hope/

This rather eviscerates the notion of "white privilege."

There are all sorts of factors that play into "averages" pertaining to crime, education, housing, abortion, home ownership, and so on.  Unsubstantiated claims of systemic racism favoring whites and disfavoring blacks ("white privilege") comes nowhere near to providing a meaningful assessment of causality.  

It is, however, a pretty convenient, and politically partisan, and racially divisive, rhetorical gimmick.

Why did you you do that?

Quote

and a binary view of how the term is used.

Well, part of the problem is that "the term" isn't even clinically defined.  We don't know what it means.  It was coined/popularized by a leftist academic in the 80s.  It has no dictionary definition that I know of.  It has never been critiqued or utilized in any court case that I know of.  Instead, it remains a very polarizing, politicized, racially-divisive claim with no empirical evidence for causality.  AFAICS, it's a rhetorical gimmick.  An unsubstantiated, question-begging, conclusory potshot used to stoke racial animus against white people, and to impose race-based guilt on white people. 

Encouraging black folks to resent and blame, and even hate, white people.  Shaming and finding fault with people not because of anything they've done, but because of the color of their skin.  

What an invidious thing it is.

Quote

I see people of wide political views speaking about white privilege independent of partisan rhetoric.

I don't.  It's overwhelmingly a rhetorical gimmick of leftists.

Quote

I see them collaborating on how to be more empathetic and kind.

Which is fine, but not relevant to the issue of whether "white privilege" is a thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Strange that you cut off a big chuch of my comment:

Why did you you do that?

Well, part of the problem is that "the term" isn't even clinically defined.  We don't know what it means.  It was coined/popularized by a leftist academic in the 80s.  It has no dictionary definition that I know of.  It has never been critiqued or utilized in any court case that I know of.  Instead, it remains a very polarizing, politicized, racially-divisive claim with no empirical evidence for causality. 

I don't.  It's overwhelmingly a rhetorical gimmick of leftists.

Which is fine, but not relevant to the issue of whether "white privilege" is a thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's not a rhetorical gimmick. I've provided a meaningful definition, a way that it is used in nonpartisan conversations, and I have given imperical examples of it. 

 

 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think anecdotal perceptions and opinions are sufficient to establish and validate the concept of "white privilege."  Tatum and Owens are rejecting the concept.  Those who are advocating it have the burden of proof to establish it in the first instance.  Tatum and Owens (and Shapiro, and others) are arguing that they (advocates of "white privilege") haven't met that burden.  And at present I find those arguments pretty persuasive.

To be sure, I don't dispute that racism exists.  But "white privelege," a claim of systemic preferential treatment of white people at the expense of black people (that is, somehow, "baked into our cultural DNA"), is a pretty serious thing.  It should be substantiated before being taken seriously.  I don't think it has been.  

Again, if "white privilege" is a thing, then why isn't it being used as a litigation tool in courts throughout the land?  There are huge incentives to do so.  Huge amounts of money to be made by lawyers who would drool at the prospect of fleecing government and private entities.  Employment discrimination.  Housing discrimination.  Statutory penalties.  Attorney's fees galore.  

If "white privilege" is a thing, why isn't it defined in dictionaries?

If "white privilege" is a thing, why is it that it is only (or overwhelmingly) used in hyper-partisan and politicized contexts?

Thanks,

-Smac

That the majority of black Americans still favor Democratic/leftist politics is not news. That has been the status quo for generations. The remarkable thing is the fact and rate at which that has begun to change. A decade ago, I never would have conceived of a thing like the Blexit movement or the popularity of a figure like Candace Owens. The left has begun to lose its hold on the heart and soul of black America. I think there is room for cautious optimism that this will continue. 
 

To hijack.the words of John Lennon:

You may say I’m a dreamer, 

But I’m not the only one. 
I hope someday you’ll join us 

And the world will be as one. 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not a rhetorical gimmick. I've provided a meaningful definition, a way that it is used in nonpartisan conversations, and I have given imperical examples of it. 

 

 

I think one would be hard pressed to see it used in non-partisan or non-ideological discourse. 
 

And what empirical examples?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not a rhetorical gimmick.

I think it is.

Quote

I've provided a meaningful definition, a way that it is used in nonpartisan conversations,

This?  "{T}he cumulative statistical advantage of being white, especially in factors beyond an individual's control."

That seems quite conclusory.  Question-begging.  

Moreover, where did you get this definition?  Did you just make it up yourself?  Do others agree with you that this is what "white privilege" means?  If so, who are these persons?  

Quote

and I have given imperical examples of it. 

No, I don't think you have.

Are you referencing this post?  The one where you attribute "smaller, premature babies" to "white privilege"?

The one where you quote an article by NPR (about as politically partisan an outfit as you can hope to find)?

The article entitled "How Racism May Cause Black Mothers To Suffer The Death Of Their Infants"?

The one that speculates that "racial discrimination experienced by black mothers during their lifetime makes them less likely to carry their babies to full term"?

Where is the evidence of causality?  The article references a 2004 study published in the American Journal of Public Health.  From the article:

Quote

They asked women about their housing, income, health habits and discrimination. "It turned out that as a predictor of a very low birth weight outcome, these racial discrimination questions were more powerful than asking a woman whether or not she smoked cigarettes," David says.

Other studies have shown the same results.

This seems like evidence of potential adverse effects of racism ("white privilege" isn't mentioned in it).

But evidence of "white privilege"?  How so?

I asked previously: "How about other racial groups that have better maternal and infant mortality rates as compared to black US women?  Do they have 'white privilege' too?"

I'm curious as to your response.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Yes, of course.  What they intended to do is very relevant to what they actually did.  Whether an act "discriminates on the basis of race" is determined by whether that act affects a particular group of people.  And yes it did have an affect on the people it was intended to affect.

I think I'm getting further confused as to how this relates to racism, if you acknowledge that the priesthood ban had a discriminatory effect on people, how does this not meet the general definition of racism?  

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Yes, of course.  And yes, their intent could justify their policy from a moral perspective?  It may not have been good to give a group of people something that others would not want them to receive, that others would persecute them for if they had received it.  You are aware of the struggle and persecution some people had to go through before getting equal rights in America, I presume.  Imagine if what happened in the Civil Rights movement had happened not in the 1950's but in the 1850's instead but that it did not work out as well as it did after the 1950's.  We can't know because we can't go back and test but I think maybe things needed to happen as they did before we could get the results we eventually got. 

The "I wish there had never been any racial inequities, ever" mindset is just a pipe dream mentality.  Complaining, complaining and more complaining that things weren't better when at least we did get to a point where things are pretty good now and still getting better.

Ok, thanks for clarifying on this.  It sounds like you're making a case that the timing of the lifting of the ban was somehow ideally positioned so as to minimize the negative impact on the people affected by the ban.  Couldn't this same reasoning be used to justify the oppression of many other minority groups throughout the world even in our present day with women or LGBTQ individuals in other countries.  How can anyone set a standard to say when the ideal time to implement equality is for various persecuted minorities?  Is this a matter up for debate in your eyes, or does this all boil down to an appeal to divine authority?   

1 hour ago, Ahab said:
Quote

As for your final question to me, I don't believe the term racist can be applied to any group of people about any comment about that group, that is not how I understand the term racism.  See below link for a broader understanding of how I look at race and racism.  The point of me explaining how the priesthood ban falls under a generally accepted definition for racism, is that it helps elucidate how powerful the current position of the church is with respect to a condemnation of past racism.  Considering the history of the church and its leaders, its really quite the fascinating and encouraging turn of events.  

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/

 

Haaaahhh.  Heeeehhh.  Haaaahhh.  I find your lack of faith disturbing, on several levels.

What lack of faith, can you clarify.  I'm enjoying our exchange but are you frustrated with me at this point, and if so what exactly is causing the frustration?  

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it is.

This?  "{T}he cumulative statistical advantage of being white, especially in factors beyond an individual's control."

That seems quite conclusory.  Question-begging.  

Moreover, where did you get this definition?  Did you just make it up yourself?  Do others agree with you that this is what "white privilege" means?  If so, who are these persons?  

No, I don't think you have.

Are you referencing this post?  The one where you attribute "smaller, premature babies" to "white privilege"?

The one where you quote an article by NPR (about as politically partisan an outfit as you can hope to find)?

The article entitled "How Racism May Cause Black Mothers To Suffer The Death Of Their Infants"?

The one that speculates that "racial discrimination experienced by black mothers during their lifetime makes them less likely to carry their babies to full term"?

Where is the evidence of causality?  The article references a 2004 study published in the American Journal of Public Health.  From the article:

This seems like evidence of potential adverse effects of racism.

But evidence of "white privilege"?  How so?

I asked previously: "How about other racial groups that have better maternal and infant mortality rates as compared to black US women?  Do they have 'white privilege' too?"

I'm curious as to your response.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Not being subject to those adverse effects of racism is an example of white privilege. There are many types of privilege and it's good to be aware of what you have and what others may not have. 

Systemic racism is still impacting black Americans. You're the one who introduced "white privilege" with a highly partisan context to this thread. Above you admit to what "seems like evidence of potential adverse effects of racism." That, to me, is the key concern I and others have consistently pointed you towards. 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Not being subject to those adverse effects of racism is an example of white privilege. There are many types of privilege and it's good to be aware of what you have and what others may not have. 

Systemic racism is still impacting black Americans. You're the one who introduced "white privilege" with a highly partisan context to this thread. Above you admit to what "seems like evidence of potential adverse effects of racism." That, to me, is the key concern I and others have consistently pointed you towards. 

Do you have en example of the phrase “white privilege” in discourse that does not have partisan or  ideological context or overtones? 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, smac97 said:

The one where you quote an article by NPR (about as politically partisan an outfit as you can hope to find)?

Really? NPR is an extreme leftist news source? In order to believe this, you need to move Fox News from its conservative right wing bias and place it center. Perhaps NPR is left-center, which I could concede, but you claim the bold above, placing NPR up there with or even beyond Huffington Post or MSNBC.

I'm tempted to give a CFR, but instead I'll ask this: tell me, please, where do you place Fox News' bias on the political spectrum?

ETA: here Forbes says what I say. NPR is left of center, but not how you characterize it.

Edited by MiserereNobis
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you have en example of the phrase “white privilege” in discourse that does not have partisan or  ideological context or overtones? 

Why do you also want to exclude ideological overtones? 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Really? NPR is an extreme leftist news source? In order to believe this, you need to move Fox News from its conservative right wing bias and place it center. Perhaps NPR is left-center, which I could concede, but you claim the bold above, placing NPR up there with or even beyond Huffington Post or MSNBC.

I'm tempted to give a CFR, but instead I'll ask this: tell me, please, where do you place Fox News' bias on the political spectrum?

ETA: here Forbes says what I say. NPR is left of center, but not how you characterize it.

NPR is extreme leftist?  That means The Blaze and Breitbart are centrist?

Link to comment

Back to the original topic

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2020/01/25/holly-richardson-what-if/

In 2015, Ethan Sprout, a professor of English at Utah Valley University, published an article in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies that explored the idea of “skin” or “skins” referring to clothing and not to human skin.

Pointing to verses in Alma 3:5-6, he shows us why we can interpret “skin” as clothing: First, the Lamanites were naked, “save it were the skin which was girded about their loins,” and then, “the skins of the Lamanites were dark.” He asks — as we should ask — do they not refer to the same thing? Clothing, or garments? Surely that is a possibility.”...

”For Latter-day Saints who truly believe that God is no respecter of persons, doesn’t it make sense to ask ourselves if there could possibly be other interpretations from a translated record written over 2000 years ago than the one passed down through the lens of Civil War and then Civil Rights culture? That perhaps our lens of white privilege has colored our view? I believe we can and should be asking those kinds of questions, especially as members of a church that began because of a counter-cultural question asked by a teenage boy.”

 

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment

In Answers to Gospel Questions, we have that JFS wrote: "After the people again forgot the Lord and dissensions arose, some of them took upon themselves the name Lamanites and the dark skin returned." Where did he get that the dark skin returned?  Is skin color mentioned after 3 Nephi 2?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Pointing to verses in Alma 3:5-6, he shows us why we can interpret “skin” as clothing: First, the Lamanites were naked, “save it were the skin which was girded about their loins,” and then, “the skins of the Lamanites were dark.” He asks — as we should ask — do they not refer to the same thing? Clothing, or garments? Surely that is a possibility.”

That would be nice if it was a likely reading. When the text refers to skin in a possessive way, it refers to human skin, not animal skin.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, tkv said:

That would be nice if it was a likely reading. When the text refers to skin in a possessive way, it refers to human skin, not animal skin.

I believe those that want to believe something hard enough, will. Especially if it means they're going to lose some belief.

I believe a lot of what is in the BoM and BoA was found wrongly in the Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

Misconception, racism, and slavery[edit]

In the past, some people claimed that the curse of Ham was a biblical justification for imposing slavery or racism upon black people, although this concept is essentially an ideologically driven misconception.[40] Regarding this matter, the Christian leader Martin Luther King Jr. called such an attempt "a blasphemy" that "is against everything that the Christian religion stands for."[41]

For Southern slave owners who were faced with the abolitionist movement to end slavery, the curse of Ham was one of the only grounds upon which Christian slave owners could formulate an ideological defense of slavery.[42] Even before slavery, in order to promote economic motivations within Europe associated with colonialism, the curse of Ham was used to shift the common Aristotelian belief that phenotypic differentiation among humans was a result of climatic difference, to a racialist perspective that phenotypic differentiation among the species was due to there being different racial types.[43] This latter effort started in England. Englishmen were widely afraid to further the colonial efforts of The Crown and begin a new life in lower latitude colonies for fear of becoming black.[44] In 1578, George Best, a sea captain who was a member of the Elizabethan court,[45] first popularized the myth of racial differences[43] within what would be a widely read book on the search for a Northwest passage to Asia.[45] Best uses careful ethnographic descriptions to portray the indigenous peoples of the North West as being sophisticated hunters and gatherers, not different in spirit than the white Englishmen,[46] at the same time he presents a scathing account of Africans, saying of them that they are a "black and loathsome" people on account of being descendants of the “cursed chus[46]". Interestingly, Best doesn’t mention the curse as lying upon Ham, but rather Chus. The fact is there is no indication in Genesis proper that can be used to justify racism and slavery, but the vagueness of Genesis 9-11 coupled with a damning curse from an important biblical patriarch was used as propaganda to influence popular belief by racist Christians who were trying to further particular agendas. The historian David Whiteford writes of a “curse matrix” which was derived from the vagueness of genesis 9 and interpreted to mean that it didn’t matter who was cursed or what group of people the curse originated with, all that mattered was that there was a vague reference to a generational curse that could be exploited any which way by agenda-driven racists like George Best.

Pro-slavery intellectuals were hard pressed to find any justification for slavery and racism within Christian theology which taught that all humans were descendants of Adam and therefore one race, possessed with equal salvation potential and deserving to be treated as kin.[47] The curse of Ham was used to drive a wedge in the mythology of a single human race, as elite intellectuals were able to convince people that the three sons of Noah represented the three sects of Man and their respective hierarchy of different fates. Leading intellectuals in the south, like Benjamin M. Palmer, claimed that white Europeans were descended from Japhet who was prophesied by Noah to cultivate civilization and the powers of the intellect, while Africans, being descendants of the cursed Ham, were destined to be possessed by a slavish nature ruled by base appetites.[48] The curse of Ham, as construed by agenda driven, pro-slavery intellectuals like Palmer, gave a biblical depth to the justification of slavery that couldn't be found anywhere else within the Christian Framework. Palmer cited the Germanic philosophical position put forth by thinkers like Friedrich Von Schlegel, that there are different "historic peoples," with different roles to play in the unfolding of history.[49] These philosophies gave the common pro-slaver their only sense of profound justification for their behavior. As Palmer liked to preach, the southern slave owners were just continuing the pattern set forth by the great biblical patriarch Noah. Palmer taught that slave owners should appraise their own actions because they were planters of the land as was Noah, and the enslavement of the Africans was making good upon the great patriarch’s righteous curse.[50] Pro-Slavers could make connections between the ancient rabbinical tradition that interpreted the mysterious wrong doings of Ham as being sexually deviant in nature with their own racialized, hyper-sexualized conception of Africans.[51] Thus southern slave owners could convince themselves of a perverse natural order that set them at the top. The curse of Ham itself gives no grounds for such gross misuse, and misinterpretation, as the majority of Christian theologians have always argued, yet agenda-driven intellectuals found ways to exploit the vagueness and mystery of Genesis 9-11 to further their own ends.

Me: And an excerpt including the LDS church:

Latter Day Saint movement[edit]

In 1835, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, produced a work called the Book of Abraham. It explicitly denotes that an Egyptian king by the name of Pharaoh was a descendant of Ham and the Canaanites,[79] who were black (Moses 7:8), that Noah had cursed his lineage so they did not have the right to the priesthood,[80] and that all Egyptians descended from him.[81] It was later considered scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). This passage is the only one found in any Mormon scripture that bars a particular lineage of people from holding the priesthood, and, while nothing in the Book of Abraham explicitly denotes Noah's curse was the same curse mentioned in the Bible or that the Egyptians were related to other black Africans,[82] it later became the foundation of church policy in regards to the priesthood ban.[6] The 2002 Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual points to Abraham 1:21–27 as the reasoning behind not giving black people the priesthood until 1978.[7]

In the following year, Smith taught that the curse of Ham came from God, and that blacks were cursed with servitude.[83] He warned those who tried to interfere with slavery that God could do his own work.[84] Without reversing his opinion on the curse of Ham, Smith started expressing more anti-slavery positions starting in 1842.[85]:18[86]:18–19 After Smith's death, leaders of the LDS Church continued to teach that black Africans were under the curse of Ham and that those who tried to abolish slavery were going against the decrees of God, although the day would come when the curse would be nullified through the saving powers of Jesus Christ.[87] In addition, based on his interpretation of the Book of Abraham, Brigham Young believed that, as a result of this curse, negroes were banned from the Mormon priesthood.[88]

In 1978, LDS Church president Spencer W. Kimball said he received a revelation that extended the priesthood to all worthy male members of the church without regard to race or color.[89] In 2013, The LDS church denounced the curse of Ham explanation for withholding the priesthood from black Africans.[90] However, the essays have not been well publicized,[91] and many members remain unaware of the essays and hold to racist beliefs that had been taught in the past.[92] The Book of Abraham is still considered scripture in the LDS church. The Old Testament student manual, which is published by the Church and is the manual currently used to teach the Old Testament in LDS Institutes, teaches that Canaan could not hold the priesthood because of his ancestral lineage but mentions nothing of race or skin color:

Therefore, although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood.[93]

 
Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
On 1/20/2020 at 9:54 AM, CV75 said:

How about j) 2 Nephi 5:21 had nothing to do with the priesthood ban or its lifting. The Church's position on both subjects is found in Come Follow Me and Gospel Topics essays, respectively.

CFR that the Church used 2 Nephi 5:21 to justify the priesthood ban.

 

Do we have evidence proving that Nephi was referring to black africans in 2 Nephi 26:33? 

[“He [meaning Christ, who is the Lord God] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33).  These words have now taken on a new meaning. We have caught a new vision of their true significance. This also applies to a great number of other passages in the revelations.]  All Are Alike unto God, Bruce R. McConkie
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles August 18, 1978 • Devotional

As for 2Nephi5:21 see Harris, Ch1 "Three Mormon Scriptural Works Providing a Canonical Framework for Race, Slavery, and the Status of Black People"  The Mormon Church and Blacks : A Documentary History by Matthew L. Harris , and Newell G. Bringhurst,  University of Illinois Press.  Also see footnote 4 where Harris cites all the dark, darkness, and filthiness scriptures in the book of mormon, 2 nephi5:21, Alma3:13, 1Ne12:23, jac 3:9, Alma3:6, mor5:15, jac3:5-9.  "LDS officials considered the book of Abraham to be the main "proof text" justifying priesthood denial,but they sometimes associated the book of mormon with their racial teachings.  Mark E Petersen, "Race Problems - As they affect the church", Aug 27, 1954, Mormon doctrine pg108, melvin brooks, LDS reference encyclodepedia pg328, Alvin Dyer, "for what purpose" speech to LDS misisonaries mar 18, 1961. 

Storey fought for civil rights not only for black african americans but also for native americans.  Do you feel that NAACP was the correct venue for Stevenson to speak out against 2Nephi 5:21?  "Elder Stevenson began his remarks saying he was “deeply saddened and hurt” by an error included in a recent Church manual referencing outdated commentary about race.  “Our position as a Church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past or present, in any form and we disavow any theory that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse. We are brothers and sisters and I consider you friends.” 

Link to comment
23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think anecdotal perceptions and opinions are sufficient to establish and validate the concept of "white privilege."  Tatum and Owens are rejecting the concept.  Those who are advocating it have the burden of proof to establish it in the first instance.  Tatum and Owens (and Shapiro, and others) are arguing that they (advocates of "white privilege") haven't met that burden.  And at present I find those arguments pretty persuasive.

To be sure, I don't dispute that racism exists.  But "white privilege," a claim of systemic preferential treatment of white people at the expense of black people (that is, somehow, "baked into our cultural DNA"), is a pretty serious thing.  It should be substantiated before being taken seriously.  I don't think it has been.  

Again, if "white privilege" is a thing, then why isn't it being used as a litigation tool in courts throughout the land?  There are huge incentives to do so.  Huge amounts of money to be made by lawyers who would drool at the prospect of fleecing government and private entities.  Employment discrimination.  Housing discrimination.  Statutory penalties.  Attorney's fees galore.  

If "white privilege" is a thing, why isn't it defined in dictionaries?

If "white privilege" is a thing, why is it that it is only (or overwhelmingly) used in hyper-partisan and politicized contexts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Ugghhhhh! I wrote i very long response to this and the stupid 403 forbidden thing made me lose every last word. If i have time i’ll write some semblance of it on my computer a little later

 

with luv,

BD 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Really? NPR is an extreme leftist news source? In order to believe this, you need to move Fox News from its conservative right wing bias and place it center. Perhaps NPR is left-center, which I could concede, but you claim the bold above, placing NPR up there with or even beyond Huffington Post or MSNBC.

I'm tempted to give a CFR, but instead I'll ask this: tell me, please, where do you place Fox News' bias on the political spectrum?

ETA: here Forbes says what I say. NPR is left of center, but not how you characterize it.

In the 60's and 70's it was THE prime voice for radicals and Marxists. I was in SDS and It was MY station . I listened constantly.

Tuned in a few months ago, and found it Bernie-ish, which is now pretty mainstream.

I am truly sorry for my partial responsiblity in what this country has become.

Now I know better what "blood and sins of this generation " means.

Yes I am serious 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Ugghhhhh! I wrote i very long response to this and the stupid 403 forbidden thing made me lose every last word. If i have time i’ll write some semblance of it on my computer a little later

 

with luv,

BD 

Join the club.

In the last few years I have lost many hours to 403, including some last week.

I am trying to remember to cut and paste every post before I send it. 

Or just post less.  Nobody really cares anyway.

 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Ugghhhhh! I wrote i very long response to this and the stupid 403 forbidden thing made me lose every last word. If i have time i’ll write some semblance of it on my computer a little later

 

with luv,

BD 

Sometimes if you back up a page, the 'editor' may have saved it, even if the the page gets refreshed.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Ugghhhhh! I wrote i very long response to this and the stupid 403 forbidden thing made me lose every last word. If i have time i’ll write some semblance of it on my computer a little later

 

with luv,

BD 

That stinks! :(

Link to comment
4 hours ago, blueglass said:

Do we have evidence proving that Nephi was referring to black africans in 2 Nephi 26:33? 

[“He [meaning Christ, who is the Lord God] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33).  These words have now taken on a new meaning. We have caught a new vision of their true significance. This also applies to a great number of other passages in the revelations.]  All Are Alike unto God, Bruce R. McConkie
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles August 18, 1978 • Devotional

As for 2Nephi5:21 see Harris, Ch1 "Three Mormon Scriptural Works Providing a Canonical Framework for Race, Slavery, and the Status of Black People"  The Mormon Church and Blacks : A Documentary History by Matthew L. Harris , and Newell G. Bringhurst,  University of Illinois Press.  Also see footnote 4 where Harris cites all the dark, darkness, and filthiness scriptures in the book of mormon, 2 nephi5:21, Alma3:13, 1Ne12:23, jac 3:9, Alma3:6, mor5:15, jac3:5-9.  "LDS officials considered the book of Abraham to be the main "proof text" justifying priesthood denial,but they sometimes associated the book of mormon with their racial teachings.  Mark E Petersen, "Race Problems - As they affect the church", Aug 27, 1954, Mormon doctrine pg108, melvin brooks, LDS reference encyclodepedia pg328, Alvin Dyer, "for what purpose" speech to LDS misisonaries mar 18, 1961. 

Storey fought for civil rights not only for black african americans but also for native americans.  Do you feel that NAACP was the correct venue for Stevenson to speak out against 2Nephi 5:21?  "Elder Stevenson began his remarks saying he was “deeply saddened and hurt” by an error included in a recent Church manual referencing outdated commentary about race.  “Our position as a Church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past or present, in any form and we disavow any theory that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse. We are brothers and sisters and I consider you friends.” 

These examples do not satisfy the CFR or establish that the Church used 2 Nephi 5:21 to justify establishing or maintaining  the priesthood ban. Those presiding over the individuals listed in your second paragraph, during that 1954-61 period, had different views. I take Elder Stevenson's remarks to decry racist (and by extension, ignorant, parochial, etc.) misinterpretations and misapplications of 2 Nephi 5:21.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...