Jump to content

Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed


Recommended Posts

To whom then, was the priesthood denied as referenced in the official declaration 2 found in the Doctrine & Covenants?

"He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood"

This suggests that there were some faithful, worthy men who were purposefully denied the priesthood by the Lord until such a day He seems fit to grant it.  If there was never a restriction, then the revelation should have been to 'correct' a misunderstanding and not waiting for a promised day.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

 

For what it's worth coming from me, about whom it really can be said that no one gives a damn about any of my posts, that's not true.  I don't have the Ph.D. in Philosophy that I often think I need to follow much of what you post, but your perspective is of inestimable value to me because of where you come from (thinking in terms of where you found yourself before joining the Restored Church of Jesus Christ) and the insights with which it provided you and the unique way you have of seeing and explaining the Gospel of Jesus Christ because of it.

Link to comment
On 1/24/2020 at 4:21 PM, smac97 said:

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

Ah.  That explains it.  I was wondering why it does not seem that I have benefitted from white privilege, even though I'm ... well, you know.  I was premature, and, therefore, small.  I got even smaller after I was born.  I'm glad you helped clear that up for me.  I appreciate it.  Thanks! ;) 

Link to comment

Has it been brought up yet that there is still the passages Elder Stevenson referred to in the CFM manual, in the student manuals in LDS institute classes? Maybe there needs to be a warning for it as well.

This section:

 

3. What was the mark or sign set upon the Lamanites?
It is also explained in verse 21 that so “they might not be enticing unto my people [the Nephites] the Lord did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them [the Lamanites].” It would appear that this was done to limit the spreading of more wickedness. Later Alma suggested this same motive when he explained that “the skins of the Lamanites were dark . . . that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions” (Alma 3:6, 8). Throughout scripture we find warnings of the Lord not to marry unbelievers (see Deuteronomy 7:2–3; 2 Corinthians 6:14); the result of doing so was often that the righteous were turned away from the Lord (see Deuteronomy 7:4; 1 Kings 11:4; D&C 74:5).
Some people have mistakenly thought that the dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was the curse. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained that the dark skin was not the curse:
“The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself]. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. . . .
“The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. . . . These converts are delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord” (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66], 3:122–23).

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
14 hours ago, tkv said:

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?

No, it is not. It simply describes Lamanites (religious and political, not racist) this way. And with a promise.....

Quote

Mormon 5:15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.
16 For behold, the Spirit of the Lord hath already ceased to strive with their fathers; and they are without Christ and God in the world; and they are driven about as chaff before the wind.
17 They were once a delightsome people, and they had Christ for their shepherd; yea, they were led even by God the Father.
18 But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they.
19 And behold, the Lord hath reserved their blessings, which they might have received in the land, for the Gentiles who shall possess the land.
20 But behold, it shall come to pass that they shall be driven and scattered by the Gentiles; and after they have been driven and scattered by the Gentiles, behold, then will the Lord remember the covenant which he made unto Abraham and unto all the house of Israel.
21 And also the Lord will remember the prayers of the righteous, which have been put up unto him for them.

There is no mention of the reinstatement of the sign of the curse. And then this interesting warning....

Quote

22 And then, O ye Gentiles, how can ye stand before the power of God, except ye shall repent and turn from your evil ways?
23 Know ye not that ye are in the hands of God? Know ye not that he hath all power, and at his great command the earth shall be rolled together as a scroll?
24 Therefore, repent ye, and humble yourselves before him, lest he shall come out in justice against you—lest a remnant of the seed of Jacob shall go forth among you as a lion, and tear you in pieces, and there is none to deliver.

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Has it been brought up yet that there is still the passages Elder Stevenson referred to in the CFM manual, in the student manuals in LDS institute classes? Maybe there needs to be a warning for it as well.

This section:

Hi Tacenda,

Thanks for bringing this up.  They may not be aware of it.  Is there contact info to provide comments or feedback in that manual?  If so, you might consider sending an email with your concerns.  It seems that the church has been moving in a positive direction regarding race issues, and they may be responsive to feedback. 

The unfortunate truth is that the church has a long history of statements and thoughts related to race.  It will take time to change opinions and beliefs of members who had been taught things growing up that are currently out of favor.  In order to assist the church in continuing to improve on this issue, individuals need to speak up when they see things that perpetuate racial stereotypes or myths.  It can work.  When I contacted both Scott Gordon and Jeff Lindsay about a misleading race-related quote on Fairmormon and Jeff Lindsay's site and , they were both gracious and prompt in correcting it.  There appears to be a real effort among many in the church fix things, and we should support that.

Spending time on this board gives me hope that things are improving, particularly when I compare it to the environment I was raised in.  But, I'm not sure how representative it is of the general membership.  Case in point... I went to another LDS forum this morning to see what their reaction to the recent news story was and it their responses were markedly different (in general).  Looking through that forum a little more, I came across a thread from earlier this year in which a meme was posted that included the n-word spelled out along with a black face emoji.  Granted, the meme was primarily to mock LGBT, and the racist portion of the meme fit into that overall theme. But, it was still disheartening to see that nobody spoke up about it, including participants in that thread that are also members of this board.  If people don't speak up, change will occur slower than it could.

-cacheman

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, cacheman said:

Hi Tacenda,

Thanks for bringing this up.  They may not be aware of it.  Is there contact info to provide comments or feedback in that manual?  If so, you might consider sending an email with your concerns.  It seems that the church has been moving in a positive direction regarding race issues, and they may be responsive to feedback. 

The unfortunate truth is that the church has a long history of statements and thoughts related to race.  It will take time to change opinions and beliefs of members who had been taught things growing up that are currently out of favor.  In order to assist the church in continuing to improve on this issue, individuals need to speak up when they see things that perpetuate racial stereotypes or myths.  It can work.  When I contacted both Scott Gordon and Jeff Lindsay about a misleading race-related quote on Fairmormon and Jeff Lindsay's site and , they were both gracious and prompt in correcting it.  There appears to be a real effort among many in the church fix things, and we should support that.

Spending time on this board gives me hope that things are improving, particularly when I compare it to the environment I was raised in.  But, I'm not sure how representative it is of the general membership.  Case in point... I went to another LDS forum this morning to see what their reaction to the recent news story was and it their responses were markedly different (in general).  Looking through that forum a little more, I came across a thread from earlier this year in which a meme was posted that included the n-word spelled out along with a black face emoji.  Granted, the meme was primarily to mock LGBT, and the racist portion of the meme fit into that overall theme. But, it was still disheartening to see that nobody spoke up about it, including participants in that thread that are also members of this board.  If people don't speak up, change will occur slower than it could.

-cacheman

I saw this on a private FB group's post, that the below was emailed to them. So I wonder if this is worldwide.

Image may contain: possible text that says 'council, aware of recent clarification to upcoming lesson "Come Follow Me, Individuals and Families" copy manual version), specifically regard "curse" the Lamanites. We wish to encourage increased sensitivity awareness discussions, both church Per Please refer the version the manual your lessons discussions. lesson content nature appearance understood." "Prophets affirm day dark is a sign divine disfavor Church embraces Nephi's that come unto him free, female..." white, bond and Nephi 26:33). Nelson declared: President Russell Lord has of opportunity for children...Differences culture, language, gender, nationality insignificance as the faithful enter the path and come unto our beloved Redeemer".'

 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There is no mention of the reinstatement of the sign of the curse. And then this interesting warning....

Quote

22 And then, O ye Gentiles, how can ye stand before the power of God, except ye shall repent and turn from your evil ways?
23 Know ye not that ye are in the hands of God? Know ye not that he hath all power, and at his great command the earth shall be rolled together as a scroll?
24 Therefore, repent ye, and humble yourselves before him, lest he shall come out in justice against you—lest a remnant of the seed of Jacob shall go forth among you as a lion, and tear you in pieces, and there is none to deliver.

 

I have long been pondering the meaning of the following verse from section 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the prophecy on "wars", and I wonder if the statement above is connected (unless this is something that has already happened):

"And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation." (Doctrine and Covenants 87:5)
 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I have long been pondering the meaning of the following verse from section 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the prophecy on "wars", and I wonder if the statement above is connected (unless this is something that has already happened):

"And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation." (Doctrine and Covenants 87:5)
 

It is very similar language. I too have wondered how this will play out. 

On th other hand (being facetious), there is a lot of revenge being taken in the local NA Great and Spacious Buildings. <_<

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

 

20 hours ago, echelon said:

To whom then, was the priesthood denied as referenced in the official declaration 2 found in the Doctrine & Covenants?

"He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood"

This suggests that there were some faithful, worthy men who were purposefully denied the priesthood by the Lord until such a day He seems fit to grant it.  If there was never a restriction, then the revelation should have been to 'correct' a misunderstanding and not waiting for a promised day.

Never mind, found my answer in an earlier post by Tacenda.

On 1/25/2020 at 12:32 PM, Tacenda said:

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]

So the answer to my question is that until the revelation, the priesthood was only available to those of the proper lineage. 

That said, I don't think the restored church ever had a policy dictating which lineage was allowed to have the priesthood and how it is supposed to be determined and applied.  As a result, I think the revelation started out as a chastisement and rather than fix the 2 mistakes, one, misinterpreting the curse as evidence of a restricted lineage, and second, not verifying everyone else's lineage before conferring the priesthood, the church would just make it available to all worthy men and move on from there. 

As a side note, I don't know of any scripture foretelling the priesthood will be available to all worthy men. When the long-promised day was made and to whom?

 

 

 

Link to comment

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to   join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng  This was reiterated by John Smith and Elisha Grove to a member who was an African American slave in 1850 and 1854, that he would some day hold the priesthood.

Link to comment
On 1/24/2020 at 3:40 PM, hope_for_things said:

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?  

If in your mind the general idea of racism is any act or behavior that affects a particular group of people, even if there are good reasons for it, then i agree with that general definition of racism.  Some people attach a negative connotation to racism, though, so that general definition doesn't work for all people.  

On 1/24/2020 at 3:40 PM, hope_for_things said:

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? 

Yes, yes and by contemplating other times and circumstances when things may not have turned out as well for those who were affected. I'm reminded of a line from the movie Lincoln when he was discussing the abolition of slavery with Thaddeus Stevens, played by Tommy Lee Jones.  He said something about it isn't always best to go straight North if that leads you through swamps or other obstacles that could kill you if you went straight North instead of going around those obstacles to get to where you want to go up North. Many people in the South were still having a difficult time accepting the idea that people with black skin should be treated as equals to people with white skin and even though the atmosphere gradually got better over the next few generations there were still people in the South of the US and others who felt people with black skin were inferior to people with white skin.  And there is still some of that even today, but at least by 1978 the condition of the world had gotten better to the point where most people accepted the idea that people with black skin should be treated as equal to others, basing their opinions of others by the content of their character more than by the color of their skin.  In 1963 that was still only a dream to people like Martin Luther King Jr.

On 1/24/2020 at 3:40 PM, hope_for_things said:

Is this a matter up for debate in your eyes, or does this all boil down to an appeal to divine authority?   

Even appeals to divine authority are up for debate.  People can debate about anything and without ever reaching any agreement.

On 1/24/2020 at 3:40 PM, hope_for_things said:

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?  

Sometimes I'd rather see people simply agree with what God has taught me rather than see them disagree with me when I have that perspective.  A lack of faith is simply a lack of assurance and I'd just rather see you as sure of what I am sure of what God has taught me.

Link to comment
On 1/25/2020 at 5:05 PM, BlueDreams said:

Yeah, it was the first thing I tried. All it had was the quote. 

@smac97 Here's what I wanted to say the first time, for the most part. 

Quote

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.

I’ve read this paragraph several times and still don’t fully get it. I don’t get why those who reject the construct can have more lenient rules in giving proof for their rejection as those who are asserting it.

Those proposing the existence of "white privilege" have the initial burden of presenting competent evidence that it exists.

It's a fairly general proposition.  If Person A is arguing for the existence of Claim X, I don't think it is incumbent on Person B to simply roll over and uncritically accept the existence of Claim X based on nothing more than Person A's say-so.  Person A has to do more than merely assert that Claim X exists.  Person A needs to provide, for lack of a better term, a "prima facie case" for Claim X.

Quote

Especially when their argument really is only persuasive to those who already agree with their assertions.

Isn't that pretty much what "white privilege" is all about?  Being persuasive "only ... to those who already agree with {it}"?

Quote

For me they come off as super holey assertions.

That's what I think of "white privilege."

If it exists, it needs to be demonstrated and substantiated.  It can't be simply asserted.

Quote

For example, Tatum pointed to all the “benefits” in society given to black people in terms of doors that open around education and such for those who have certain qualifications. This only works if you ignore the context. Here’s a parallel example. My daughter has a genetic condition. This conditions “opened doors” to certain Medical “benefits”: a medical team with easy and quick access to just about anyone on the team, a liaison person who’s only job is to volley between the pharmaceutical company and the insurance company, etc. Many of these “benefits” people would love to have. You could argue, without the context, that my daughter is getting more access to things that others don’t have. But that ignores the reason WHY she has access to it. Likewise there are windows and opportunities that promote access to minorities. But Tatum is ignoring WHY they’re there. That why is tied heavily to the construct of white privilege and a legacy of systemic racism that’s made it less likely for minorities to receive certain opportunities.

This seems to only beg the question.  You are assuming that which has yet to be demonstrated.

Quote
Quote

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.  

First, before I try to tackle this one, I’d note that not finding the exact phrase “white privilege” in legal docs does not mean the term isn’t use to explaining a social construct.

I am not suggesting that the courts are the sole source of evidence for "social constructs."  But they sure are pretty good testing grounds, particularly for hyper-partisan hyper-politicized ideas like "white privilege."

I submit that if such a systemic "privilege" exists, lawyers nationwide would be using it to file lawsuits and make huge sums of money.  That is not happening.

Quote

There are terms in the psychological world that have meaning and utility in describing a problem in the world that doesn’t exist in the DSM-5. For example, orthorexia or porn/sex addictions. Neither show up in the therapy medical/insurance based jargon…but they still can be very effective in describing problems in our society.

Fair enough.

Quote

White privilege is meant to encapsulate several aspects of our society (culture, systems, beliefs, etc) that end up leaving white people at a general advantage based on race.

Again, I continue to note that we can't seem to even settle on a basic definition of the term.

It was coined/popularized in the 80s by a leftist academic.

It is hugely partisan and political.

I have yet to see competent evidence of its existence, let alone it having a causal effect ("leaving white people at a general advantage based on race").

I think it is a rhetorical gimmick used to foment racial hatred, to impose blame and shame and guilt on white people based solely on the color of their skin, and to procure unearned and unfair leverage and advantage in difficult discussions about race.

Quote

And in that sense there are plenty of cases that indicate systemic issues that disproportionately effect minorities….I pulled out quotes from each. I made some commentary last time. I don’t have time for that now….but I did pull out one or two quotes:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1122011

"An African American man who went to his local bank in Michigan to deposit checks had the police called on him by a branch manager suspecting fraud."

This sounds like a possible instance of racism.  

I don't see how it constitutes evidence of "white privilege."

Quote

Allegations of "voter suppression" are very speculative.  And heavily politicized.  And again, I don't see how it constitutes evidence of "white privilege."

Ironically, I think the idea that voter ID laws suppress the "black" vote is itself exhibiting the very sort of racism it purports to find objectionable.  See here:

"{Black people} are less likely to have state IDs."

"You can always get IDs over the Internet. Does that also make it difficult for black people in particular?"
"Yeah. You have to have access to the Internet. You have to be able to pay an Internet service provider for certain fees."

"Do you think it's harder for black people to go online?"
"Well, I feel like they don't have the knowledge of, like, how it works. ... For most of the {minority} communities, they don't know what's out there, 'cuz they're not aware, or, like, they're not informed."

Hmm...

Quote

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/housing-discrimination-us-report: There were 28,181 complaints of housing discrimination in 2016. 

And again, this might be evidence of racism, but I don't see how it constitutes evidence of "white privilege."

Quote

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/10/489505940/lock-up-all-the-black-hoodies-doj-report-details-abuses-by-baltimore-police : To be clear, the report emphasizes that this is not a case of a few bad apples. The problems are systemic — supervisors, policies, weak investigations and officer culture all play a role, the DOJ found.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/883296/download

Systemic racism against black people by Baltimore police is evidence of "white privilege"?  Where the mayor, Jack Young, is black (as were his predecessors, Catherine Pugh and Stephanie Rawlings-Blake)?  Where the police commissioner, Michael S. Harrison, is black (as were a number of his predecessors, such as Gary Tuggle, Darryl D. DeSousa, Anthony W. Batts, Leonard D. Hamm, Kevin P. Clark, Ronald L. Daniel, Edward V. Woods, etc.)?  Where, IIRC, the majority of the city council is black?

City-Council-group.jpg

All these folks have signed up for, and are perpetuating, "white privilege"?  

Where is the evidence of this?

The only thing "systemic" about Baltimore is its profound dysfunction and corruption.  Hence the investigation by the DOJ.

How are the problems with Baltimore PD evidence of "white privilege"?

Quote

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1X90CF

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-two-civil-rights-investigations-ferguson-missouri

This last one was a fairly famous case: The Justice Department announced the findings of its two civil rights investigations related to Ferguson, Missouri, today.  The Justice Department found that the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First, Fourth, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. 

Which is deplorable, but which is not evidence of systemic, nationwide "white privilege."

Quote

https://racism.org/articles/defining-racism/white-privilege/1890-the-ultimate-white-privilege-statistics-data-post-2

Here’s one that goes over the evidence and data backing the construct of white privilege

Again, you (and the author of the article) are presuming that which has yet to be demonstrated.

From the first page:

Quote
  • Young black boys/men, ages 15-19, are 21 times more likely to be to be shot and killed by the police than young white boys/men.[1]
  • Blacks are less than 13% of the U.S. population, and yet they are 31% of all fatal police shooting victims, and 39% of those killed by police even though they weren’t attacking.[2] See chart:

KilledByPolice_circumstances_v3.0.png?zo

How is this evidence of "white privilege"?  Where is the causality?

Moreover, even the author seriously hedges his bets here ("Also worth noting is that this data is limited—many police departments across the country do not report it, as it is not required...").

Merely rattling off statistics will not do.  That's just facile nonsense.

Quote

 I’m also not sure what you mean by the dictionary thing. I found it in the oxford/lexico (https://www.lexico.com/definition/white_privilege)

Mirriam-Webster doesn't.  American Heritage doesn't.  Collins doesn't.  MacMillan doesn't.

Meanwhile, Lexico defines it as "Inherent advantages possessed by a white person on the basis of their race in a society characterized by racial inequality and injustice."

Cambridge defines it as "the fact of people with white skin having advantages in society that other people do not have."

Dictionary.com (under its "pop culture" section) defines it as "unearned rights and benefits afforded white people in Western society because of the color of their skin."

So what are these "advantages" that white people have "that other {non-white} people do not have"?  And how are they "inherent"?  And what evidence exists as to the existence of these advantages?

Quote

And a lot of social issues and terms become politicized in our hyper-partisan climate. That one really shouldn’t be a surprise. BUT it doesn’t have to be such. Other forms of privilege are less “hyperpartisan”….like privilege based on class, ablesism, etc.

I acknowledge that some forms of "privilege" exist.  For example, I, as an American adult who has not committed a felony, have the "privilege" of voting.  Non-Americans, minors, and felons do not have this "privilege."  But that has nothing to do with the color of my skin.

I acknowledge that "racism" exists.  I very much dispute that "white privilege" exists.  There are many factors that play into societal problems.  Systemic race-based "privilege" favoring whites at the expense of blacks is not one of them.

Yesterday I came across this story:

Quote

Concordia College MLK Day seminar for white students: ‘How to Embrace Your Inner Racist’

For this past Monday’s Martin Luther King Day, Minnesota’s Concordia College offered a racially segregated seminar titled “How to Embrace Your Inner Racist: A Session for White People.

One of many “concurrent sessions” offered throughout the day, Professor Ahmed Afzaal’s “Inner Racist” discussion noted that participants would be able to “recognize and acknowledge that there is a nasty little racist inside them, and to do so without becoming angry or defensive.”

In addition, attendees would then “describe the skills of psychological flexibility that they must develop in order to make authentic choices in defiance of their racist tendencies.”

While the workshop included a special note that it was for whites only, the school wouldn’t stop “people of color from attending.” Nevertheless, non-whites needed to be aware “that their presence in the room [was] likely to interfere with the effectiveness of the session.”

Afzaal is a professor of religion at Concordia.

According to the college’s “MLK Day 2020 Theme” page,

Quote

they [sic] year 2020 marks the 401st anniversary of slavery in the US. On this day, we ask that you reflect on the progress that has and has not been made in eliminating racial and economic injustices in the U.S. We ask that we be intentional in examining 1) the social systems of race and economics, 2) the role that whiteness plays in keeping us stuck in the space of “negative peace”, and 3) the role that white moderates/Dreamers play in being “obstacles to change.”

 

Holy cow.  

Advocates of "white privilege" posit that all white people, based solely on the color of their skin, have "nasty little racist{s} inside them."

Imagine the outrage that would arise if such invidious race-based calumnies were publicly pronounced about black people.  Or hispanics.  Or Jews.  Or Chinese.

But if such horrible falsehoods are about white folks, well, it's a Tuesday.  Ho-hum.  Nothing to see here.

We live in a society where disparaging an entire racial category (based on that racial category, and nothing else) is broadly prohibited and condemned, with the exception of disparagements against white people.  That's fair game.  No problem whatsoever.  

I also saw this story:

Quote

The University of Alabama recently promoted a specifically targeted professional development opportunity in the name of “diversity and inclusion.”

A Morgan Stanley Bank student professional enhancement opportunity, promoted by the University of Alabama, is only available to “Black, Hispanic, Native American, and/or LGBT+” students. 

UA’s Culverhouse College of Business career center distributed multiple emails to business students advertising Morgan Stanley’s “2020 Freshman Enhancement Program.” The opportunity entails a one-week paid program at Morgan Stanley’s New York City headquarters.
...
According to Morgan Stanley’s description, “The week will include valuable training, as well as opportunities to network with each other and learn from Morgan Stanley professionals across our divisions.”

Among listed requirements for the program was one specifying that applicants be “Black, Hispanic, Native American, and/or LGBT+” freshmen undergraduate students. The program is meant to provide “the opportunity to experience Morgan Stanley culture first-hand” specifically to “Black, Hispanic, Native American and LGBT+ students.”

Hmm.  Seems like white heterosexual students have the "privilege" of being excluded from the Freshman Enhancement Program.  Solely because of the color of their skin and the sexual orientation.

Quote

 I could say more, but twice trying to write this with a baby is more than enough. I can’t garuntee I can respond past this much.

Yes, I ran into the same problem.

This last Saturday evening I watched one of my absolute favorite movies of all time: To Kill a Mockingbird.  My 9th grade English teacher read the entire book to us in class, then showed us the movie.  It had a tremendous impact on me.  Atticus remains my all-time favorite fictional hero.  The book was one of the main inspirations for me to pursue the study of law.

I watched the movie with my wife and daughters.  My daughters had never seen it before.  They were quite touched.

The closing argument of Atticus at the trial of Tom Robinson is a brilliant piece of writing.  Simple.  Concise.  Penetrating.  Honest.  Hard.  An excerpt (from the movie, not the book) :

Quote

The witnesses for the State, with the exception of the Sheriff of Maycomb County, have presented themselves to you gentlemen, to this court, in the cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted. Confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption, the evil assumption, that all Negros lie, that all Negroes are basically immoral beings, all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women. An assumption that one associates with minds of their caliber, and which is in itself, gentlemen, a lie, which I do not need to point out to you. 

"White privilege" is a comparable assumption, only told about white people.  All white people are "privileged."  All white people have "nasty little racist{s} inside them."  All white people are to be resented, even hated.  They are to be publicly maligned and scolded and insulted.  Not because of anything they have done, but solely because of the color of their skin.  They are to be blamed for anything and everything you like.  No evidence required.  No causality need be shown.  To be white is to be guilty.  To be white is to be bad.

I just cannot get on board with this sort of thinking.  I can't even call it "reasoning," since it's not reasoned.  There's no competent evidence for it.  No demonstrable causality.  Just a lot of assumptions and hasty generalizations, which are nevertheless safe and socially appropriate because they are targeting the one racial demographic that is expected to just shut up and accept whatever sort of horrible, race-based vitriol is spewed at them.

I will not remain silent about such falsehoods.  I dissent.  I reject the notion of "white privilege."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
14 hours ago, echelon said:

As a side note, I don't know of any scripture foretelling the priesthood will be available to all worthy men. When the long-promised day was made and to whom?

From the 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism article:   https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blacks

Quote

Some Latter-day Saints theorized that blacks would be restricted throughout mortality. As early as 1852, however, Brigham Young said that the "time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more" (Brigham Young Papers, Church Archives, Feb. 5, 1852), and increasingly in the 1960s, Presidents of the Church taught that denial of entry to the priesthood was a current commandment of God, but would not prevent blacks from eventually possessing all eternal blessings.

There were many "theories" as to why there was a ban at all, but apparently even Brigham Young at one point stated that all worthy men would have the blessings of the priesthood eventually.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

From the 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism article:   https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blacks

There were many "theories" as to why there was a ban at all, but apparently even Brigham Young at one point stated that all worthy men would have the blessings of the priesthood eventually.

I think you mean there were now disavowed “revealed doctrines” as to why there was a ban. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"White privilege" is a comparable assumption, only told about white people.  All white people are "privileged."  All white people have "nasty little racist{s} inside them."  All white people are to be resented, even hated.  They are to be publicly maligned and scolded and insulted.  Not because of anything they have done, but solely because of the color of their skin.  They are to be blamed for anything and everything you like.  No evidence required.  No causality need be shown.  To be white is to be guilty.  To be white is to be bad.

I just cannot get on board with this sort of thinking.  I can't even call it "reasoning," since it's not reasoned.  There's no competent evidence for it.  No demonstrable causality.  Just a lot of assumptions and hasty generalizations, which are nevertheless safe and socially appropriate because they are targeting the one racial demographic that is expected to just shut up and accept whatever sort of horrible, race-based vitriol is spewed at them.

I will not remain silent about such falsehoods.  I dissent.  I reject the notion of "white privilege."

All people of different cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, station, etc have varying kinds (combinations) of prejudices to some degree.  It is human nature, not necessarily racism.  It was surprising for me to read in Clarence Thomas' book (My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir. Harper. ISBN 978-0-06-056555-8) that he was subjected to razzing from fellow black students in college about his ebony skin tone while others were not so dark.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, longview said:

All people of different cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, station, etc have varying kinds (combinations) of prejudices to some degree.  It is human nature, not necessarily racism.  It was surprising for me to read in Clarence Thomas' book (My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir. Harper. ISBN 978-0-06-056555-8) that he was subjected to razzing from fellow black students in college about his ebony skin tone while others were not so dark.

IF by prejudice you mean some things they don't like as opposed to other things, then I agree.  Some people will even say that something that is good is evil, and that something that is evil is good.  Or they will just like something more than something else.

Prejudice isn't a  bad word, necessarily, just as racism isn't a bad word.  It is bad only if you think in terms of negative connotations, but what a negative connotation is to some is a positive connotation to some other people who think differently about that.

Even hatred isn't necessarily a bad thing.  We should hate all that is evil, while loving everybody... although not everybody agrees with that, either, because of their own likes and dislikes.

Link to comment
On 1/24/2020 at 5:25 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Quote
Quote

 

Quote

I am also surmising that there are many factors that likely play important roles in outcomes.

such as what?

Familial circumstances/environment (absentee fathers are a huge factor).  Socioeconomic circumstances.  Education.  Substance abuse.  Culture.  Community environment.  Religious belief (or lack thereof).  Sexual ethics.  Governmental interventionism.

None of these is predetermined by race.

 

What factors have caused black fathers to be missing? 

An interesting question.  Plenty of theories for this.

Quote
Quote

Socioeconomic circumstances

What causes minorities, especially black people to have substantially lower socioeconomic opportunities compared to their white counterparts?

What does "socioeconomic opportunities" mean?  

And who are these "white counterparts"?  There are plenty of poor white people, after all.

Quote
Quote

Education. 

Why do black kids go to worse schools than white kids?

Again, a complex question.  "'Cuz whitey is privileged" is facile.  A hasty generalization.

And why are you comparing black kids to white kids?  What about kids who of other ethnicities?  Korean?  Japanese?  Chinese?  Indian?  Filippino?  Hispanic?

If "white privilege" is a thing, then how is it that Asians are punished the most for their ethnicity in terms of college admissions?  See, e.g., here:

Quote

My Center for Equal Opportunity this week published a study looking at Asian acceptance rates at three elite universities: Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology. The study’s author, Althea Nagai, looked at acceptance rates at the three schools and found that the two that use race and ethnicity as factors in admission, Harvard and MIT, appear to cap Asian acceptance rates, much as rates of acceptance for Jews were limited by elite schools in early eras.

Hmm.  

Quote

Except that each and every factor above has been shaped by the racial landscape in America over the last several hundred years. Do you disagree?

I don't know what "has been shaped by racial landscape in America" means.

From the above article (emphases added):

Quote

Affirmative action has always been sold on the proposition that it is meant to raise the floor for minorities who have faced discrimination and, in some instances, still do. There is no question that the pervasive, state-sponsored discrimination against blacks has had a lasting legacy. Discrimination against Hispanics was never as systemic as that against blacks, but many Hispanics, especially new immigrants and their children, still encounter obstacles to social, economic and educational achievement.

But so, traditionally, have Asian-Americans — and unlike the case with blacks and Hispanics, their race appears to be a factor in explaining why they are currently not admitted to elite universities commensurate with their academic achievements.

Nagai shows that at both Harvard and MIT, Asian admissions seem to have hit a ceiling over the past 20 years or even declined. At MIT, Asian admissions peaked in 1995 at 29 percent and have declined slightly since, to 26 percent in 2016. At Harvard, admissions for Asians hit a high of 21 percent in 1993, dropped and have remained nearly constant at 17 percent since then.
...

By contrast, Nagai’s analysis shows that Caltech — which does not use race as a factor in admissions — has seen a steady increase in the number of Asians admitted over the past two decades. In 2016, 43 percent of students admitted to Caltech were Asians, but more importantly, the trend line since the late 1990s has been going up almost every year. Caltech has not applied a ceiling to Asian admissions, which is why it has more than twice the percentage of such students as Harvard and 65 percent more than MIT. (As an interesting aside, Caltech manages to admit a large percentage of Hispanic students, 12 percent, even without using race or ethnicity as a plus factor.)

Isn’t it time we quit pretending that using race in college admissions is morally acceptable because it helps some minorities? Asians have suffered enough discrimination over the years; they shouldn’t face it now in the name of improving diversity.

And here:

Quote

Harvard’s Asian Quotas Repeat an Ugly History

A popular college ditty during the 1910s began:

Oh, Harvard’s run by millionaires,
And Yale is run by booze,
Cornell is run by farmers’ sons,
Columbia’s run by Jews.

If you thought that sort of bigotry at elite universities was a thing of the past, you might want to reconsider in light of a federal district court ruling last week on Harvard’s admissions policies. It seems the only thing that’s changed over the past century is the group being targeted for exclusion.

In 1914 about 40% of Columbia’s students were Jewish. By 1918 effective quotas had reduced their numbers to 22%. In the 1920s Harvard and Yale would follow Columbia’s lead. Harvard’s freshman class of 1925 was nearly 30% Jewish. The next year it fell to 15% and remained thereabouts for the next two decades.

Today’s concern is the overrepresentation of Asian students on elite campuses and the sneaky ways that colleges go about capping their numbers. In 2014 Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit, sued Harvard, alleging that the school had passed over Asians for admission because of their race. The plaintiffs presented data showing that Asian applicants needed SAT scores that were about 140 points higher than their white peers to be accepted. And they argued that the percentage of Asians admitted to Harvard was suspiciously similar year after year despite dramatic increases in the number of Asian applicants and the size of America’s Asian population.

Asian enrollment at Harvard was 19% in 1992, 18% in 2013, and in the interim always remained roughly between 15% and 20%. By contrast, Asian enrollment at another highly selective school, the California Institute of Technology, grew steadily from 25% to 43% over the same two-decade period. The plaintiffs argued that the disparity in Asian enrollment at the two institutions reflected the fact that Harvard’s admissions process is race-conscious while Caltech’s is race-blind.

It’s bad enough that Judge Allison Burroughs’s decision last week ignored this evidence and blessed Harvard’s admissions policies. What’s equally disturbing is that she also ignored the history. Harvard boasts that it vets applicants using a “holistic” approach that weighs social characteristics as well as test scores. What often goes unmentioned is that Harvard and other schools developed this approach a century ago for the express purpose of excluding Jews.

Back then, Harvard argued that Jews were excellent students with deficient personalities. Their social characteristics were described as “different” and “peculiar.” They were accused of being clannish and focusing on their studies to a fault. Harvard maintained that it was trying to create a certain type of environment on campus, and Jews were a poor fit. “No one suggested the Jewish students threatened academic standards,” wrote Stephen Steinberg in a 1971 Commentary magazine article about Jewish quotas in the Ivy League. “Rather it was argued that the college stood for other things, and that social standards were as important and valid as intellectual ones.” Harvard is still making that argument, and the courts are still indulging it.

In her ruling, Judge Burroughs writes that a “partial cause” of racial disparities in admissions rates is that “Asian American applicants’ disproportionate strength in academics comes at the expense of other skills and traits that Harvard values.” She says it’s “possible” that the Asian applicants “did not possess the personal qualities that Harvard is looking for at the same rate as white applicants.” Moreover, “it would be unsurprising to find that applicants that excel in one area, tend to be somewhat weaker in other areas.” To Jews, such language and reasoning might sound painfully familiar. And if a judge today wrote that blacks or Hispanics excel at sports and have outgoing personalities, so it would be really surprising if they flourished academically as well, liberals would be calling for his head.

If pervasive, systemic racism continues to give white people a leg up over minorities, how do you account for overrepresentation of Asian-Americans and Jews at elite academic institutions?  

How is it that "white privilege" deprives black (and, presumably, Hispanics, and Native Americans) of opportunities, but does not have similar effects on Asian-Americans and Jews?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Those proposing the existence of "white privilege" have the initial burden of presenting competent evidence that it exists.

...[[removed for ease of scrolling]]

Advocates of "white privilege" posit that all white people, based solely on the color of their skin, have "nasty little racist{s} inside them."

Imagine the outrage that would arise if such invidious race-based calumnies were publicly pronounced about black people.  Or hispanics.  Or Jews.  Or Chinese.

But if such horrible falsehoods are about white folks, well, it's a Tuesday.  Ho-hum.  Nothing to see here.

We live in a society where disparaging an entire racial category (based on that racial category, and nothing else) is broadly prohibited and condemned, with the exception of disparagements against white people.  That's fair game.  No problem whatsoever.  

I also saw this story:

Hmm.  Seems like white heterosexual students have the "privilege" of being excluded from the Freshman Enhancement Program.  Solely because of the color of their skin and the sexual orientation.

Yes, I ran into the same problem.

This last Saturday evening I watched one of my absolute favorite movies of all time: To Kill a Mockingbird.  My 9th grade English teacher read the entire book to us in class, then showed us the movie.  It had a tremendous impact on me.  Atticus remains my all-time favorite fictional hero.  The book was one of the main inspirations for me to pursue the study of law.

I watched the movie with my wife and daughters.  My daughters had never seen it before.  They were quite touched.

The closing argument of Atticus at the trial of Tom Robinson is a brilliant piece of writing.  Simple.  Concise.  Penetrating.  Honest.  Hard.  An excerpt (from the movie, not the book) :

"White privilege" is a comparable assumption, only told about white people.  All white people are "privileged."  All white people have "nasty little racist{s} inside them."  All white people are to be resented, even hated.  They are to be publicly maligned and scolded and insulted.  Not because of anything they have done, but solely because of the color of their skin.  They are to be blamed for anything and everything you like.  No evidence required.  No causality need be shown.  To be white is to be guilty.  To be white is to be bad.

I just cannot get on board with this sort of thinking.  I can't even call it "reasoning," since it's not reasoned.  There's no competent evidence for it.  No demonstrable causality.  Just a lot of assumptions and hasty generalizations, which are nevertheless safe and socially appropriate because they are targeting the one racial demographic that is expected to just shut up and accept whatever sort of horrible, race-based vitriol is spewed at them.

I will not remain silent about such falsehoods.  I dissent.  I reject the notion of "white privilege."

Thanks,

-Smac

You seem to have created a strawman epithet with "nasty little racist."

The dictionary definitions are consistent with the one I provided earlier, and it really is not that difficult to understand the causal chain:

1) Non-white Americans have been subject to racist practices institutionalised at the conception of the nation. Abolition of slavery came, but legalised discrimination and segregation continued well into the 20th century. 

2) Not being subject to that institionalised racism at the conception of the nation was an example of white privilege. It was unearned, just as the torture and injustice of slavery was unearned. Not being subject to the legalised discrimination and segregation that continued well into the 20th century, by virtue of being white, is an example of white privilege. 

3) Racism still exists in the USA. Much of it is inevitably a result of the old systems described above. Not being subject to that racism, because one is white, is an example of white privilege.

There are many people seeking to step into the shoes of others, trying to develop empathy and trying to also engender trust in communities still divided by racism. It is correct that, in many cases, discussion surrounding white privilege already assumes the audience believes it exists. 

However, a white person being aware of systemic racism and trying to argue against such a system,  which seems to be the motivation for your introduction "white privilege" into this thread, is not someone to be shamed and mocked or characterised badly.

 

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You seem to have created a strawman epithet with "nasty little racist."

It's not my phrase.

And I don't see how it's a strawman.  It's right there, in black and white.

Quote

The dictionary definitions are consistent with the one I provided earlier, and it really is not that difficult to understand the causal chain:

1) Non-white Americans have been subject to racist practices institutionalised at the conception of the nation.

Then how do you account for overrepresentation of Asians and Jews in elite academic institutions, medicine, law, STEM jobs, etc.?

Quote

2) Not being subject to that institionalised racism at the conception of the nation was an example of white privilege.

Oh, brother.  None of us were alive "at the conception of the nation."

And institutionalized racism doesn't really exist.  It's illegal, you see (well, except for things like affirmative action, which by design is "institutionalized racism").

Quote

It was unearned, just as the torture and injustice of slavery was unearned. Not being subject to the legalised discrimination and segregation that continued well into the 20th century, by virtue of being white, is an example of white privilege. 

Not in 2020.

Quote

3) Racism still exists in the USA.

A point I have acknowledged.  Many times now.

A point that pertains to every racial group, all of which are on both the giving and receiving ends.

A point that does not substantiate the claim that "white privilege" exists.

Quote

Much of it is inevitably a result of the old systems described above. Not being subject to that racism, because one is white, is an example of white privilege.

Right.  White people are not subject to racism, except when they are.

Nor are Asian Americans, except when they are.

Nor are Jews, except when they are.

Quote

There are many people seeking to step into the shoes of others, trying to develop empathy and trying to also engender trust in communities still divided by racism.

Dandy.  But promoting the idea of "white racism" is a pernicious and awful thing to do.  It was horrible when people in society believed that black people were necessarily flawed and inferior due to the color of their skin.  We do not advance race relations by resurrecting that concept and turning it into invective against white people.

Quote

It is correct that, in many cases, discussion surrounding white privilege already assumes the audience believes it exists. 

I agree.  Others, however, dispute that assumption.  I'm one of them.

Quote

However, a white person being aware of systemic racism and trying to argue against such a system,  which seems to be the motivation for your introduction "white privilege" into this thread, is not someone to be shamed and mocked or characterised badly.

I don't know what you mean by "systemic racism."  That does not exist in any meaningful sense in 2020.  Racism is illegal.  Explicitly.  The "system" has been that way for quite a while.  Where racism in the "system" is detected, it is litigated over and addressed.  The exceptions to this state of affairs are things like affirmative action (which really is systemic racism), quota systems in higher education (which penalize Asian-Americans, as they previously did to Jews), etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Ahab said:
On 1/24/2020 at 4:40 PM, hope_for_things said:

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?  

If in your mind the general idea of racism is any act or behavior that affects a particular group of people, even if there are good reasons for it, then i agree with that general definition of racism.  Some people attach a negative connotation to racism, though, so that general definition doesn't work for all people.  

I'm talking specifically about discrimination, in this case the church's baring of access to the highest ordinances and rights for certain races.  I call it clearly a negative thing, and not sure how a person could spin it in a positive light, regardless of whether you believe God was the author of this practice.  It was church leaders trying spin this as a positive thing that got us to the awkward situation with the theories about reasons why.  

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yes, yes and by contemplating other times and circumstances when things may not have turned out as well for those who were affected. I'm reminded of a line from the movie Lincoln when he was discussing the abolition of slavery with Thaddeus Stevens, played by Tommy Lee Jones.  He said something about it isn't always best to go straight North if that leads you through swamps or other obstacles that could kill you if you went straight North instead of going around those obstacles to get to where you want to go up North. Many people in the South were still having a difficult time accepting the idea that people with black skin should be treated as equals to people with white skin and even though the atmosphere gradually got better over the next few generations there were still people in the South of the US and others who felt people with black skin were inferior to people with white skin.  And there is still some of that even today, but at least by 1978 the condition of the world had gotten better to the point where most people accepted the idea that people with black skin should be treated as equal to others, basing their opinions of others by the content of their character more than by the color of their skin.  In 1963 that was still only a dream to people like Martin Luther King Jr.

I have a very hard time with this perspective of thinking.  I might be able to be persuaded from a utilitarian angle if you could somehow make the argument that the most good will be reached through specific timing, meaning that there will be less blow back and ultimately the largest number of people will be effected for good through a most effective timing strategy. Otherwise, if timing means we wait for bigoted people to shed their prejudice, at some level I think we’re enabling evil, and I’d have a very hard time reconciling these kinds of arguments with my desire for justice and equality.  

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Sometimes I'd rather see people simply agree with what God has taught me rather than see them disagree with me when I have that perspective.  A lack of faith is simply a lack of assurance and I'd just rather see you as sure of what I am sure of what God has taught me.

Experiences with God are unique and individual.  I wouldn't expect yours and mine to align any more than I would expect you to fall in love with the same people, or feel inspired by the same music or art that I am.  This is part of what makes life such a beautiful experience.  

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm talking specifically about discrimination, in this case the church's baring of access to the highest ordinances and rights for certain races.  I call it clearly a negative thing, and not sure how a person could spin it in a positive light, regardless of whether you believe God was the author of this practice.  It was church leaders trying spin this as a positive thing that got us to the awkward situation with the theories about reasons why.  

I have a very hard time with this perspective of thinking.  I might be able to be persuaded from a utilitarian angle if you could somehow make the argument that the most good will be reached through specific timing, meaning that there will be less blow back and ultimately the largest number of people will be effected for good through a most effective timing strategy. Otherwise, if timing means we wait for bigoted people to shed their prejudice, at some level I think we’re enabling evil, and I’d have a very hard time reconciling these kinds of arguments with my desire for justice and equality.  

I think you did well coming up with a way to spin the delay into a positive thing.  Waiting for the right time or just a better time to open it up to all men would mean waiting until more people were able to at least tolerate the idea of opening it up to all men.

Quote

Experiences with God are unique and individual.  I wouldn't expect yours and mine to align any more than I would expect you to fall in love with the same people, or feel inspired by the same music or art that I am.  This is part of what makes life such a beautiful experience.  

I envision a "perfect" state wherein those who attain that perfect state are able to appreciate everything that is good.  Being able to appreciate something that is good is a step in that direction but not until we can appreciate everything that is good will we reach that state of perfection.

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

I'm talking specifically about discrimination, in this case the church's baring of access to the highest ordinances and rights for certain races.  I call it clearly a negative thing, and not sure how a person could spin it in a positive light, regardless of whether you believe God was the author of this practice.  It was church leaders trying spin this as a positive thing that got us to the awkward situation with the theories about reasons why.  

I have a very hard time with this perspective of thinking.  I might be able to be persuaded from a utilitarian angle if you could somehow make the argument that the most good will be reached through specific timing, meaning that there will be less blow back and ultimately the largest number of people will be effected for good through a most effective timing strategy. Otherwise, if timing means we wait for bigoted people to shed their prejudice, at some level I think we’re enabling evil, and I’d have a very hard time reconciling these kinds of arguments with my desire for justice and equality.  

I think you did well coming up with a way to spin the delay into a positive thing.  Waiting for the right time or just a better time to open it up to all men would mean waiting until more people were able to at least tolerate the idea of opening it up to all men.

I wouldn't say I did a good job.  The utilitarian argument would need to reach an extremely hire bar for compelling evidence to be considered, I would look at that as an exception to a rule that I personally might never be convinced is reasonable.  Best to just stick with treating people the right way no matter what.  I find these kinds of arguments extremely sketchy.  

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I envision a "perfect" state wherein those who attain that perfect state are able to appreciate everything that is good.  Being able to appreciate something that is good is a step in that direction but not until we can appreciate everything that is good will we reach that state of perfection.

Its interesting, the more I think about the typical perfect state that many people in Mormonism envision, the more it sounds like Hell rather than Heaven.  I just can't imagine wanting to live in a state where we all appreciate everything that is good.  Variety and diversity are the spice of life.  

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its interesting, the more I think about the typical perfect state that many people in Mormonism envision, the more it sounds like Hell rather than Heaven.  I just can't imagine wanting to live in a state where we all appreciate everything that is good.  Variety and diversity are the spice of life.  

This is precisely why there is a place prepared for those who would be completely uncomfortable in the Celestial kingdom. 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I wouldn't say I did a good job.  The utilitarian argument would need to reach an extremely hire bar for compelling evidence to be considered, I would look at that as an exception to a rule that I personally might never be convinced is reasonable.  Best to just stick with treating people the right way no matter what.  I find these kinds of arguments extremely sketchy.  

That's what I earlier referred to as a pipe dream mentality.  the idea that people should settle for nothing less than perfection, that small incremental steps are not enough and that we should fix everything as it should be fixed all in one shot.  Think some more about how Lincoln responded to Thaddeus Stevens who wanted to completely abolish slavery, upholding the idea that people with black skin should be treated as equal to people with white skin.  Our representatives in Congress just would not have voted for such a large move at that time.  The people weren't ready for it. It's perfectly fine to feel as Thaddeus Stevens felt if that's how you feel but not enough people were willing to go along with that in 1850 or 1900 or even 1963.  That was still just a dream to people like Martin Luther King Jr.

Quote

Its interesting, the more I think about the typical perfect state that many people in Mormonism envision, the more it sounds like Hell rather than Heaven.  I just can't imagine wanting to live in a state where we all appreciate everything that is good.  Variety and diversity are the spice of life.  

There is enough variety and diversity in things that are good without having to go to Hell to look for some more variety and diversity.  Heaven includes all the places where all good things are even if it is divided into 3 different categories of glory. Hell is for bad things and bad people, IMO.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...