Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/21/2020 at 3:07 PM, Meadowchik said:

People build idols, but are then surprised when people reject them.

If you "reject" something I have built on my property, okay.  Different strokes for different folks.  If you believe I have not followed applicable planning snd zoning laws, however, there is a process in place to remedy the issue(s), and that process doesn't involve your encroaching, trespassing on my property, and vandalizing and destroying my property.  In the same vein, if you think public property can be put to better use, by all means: Advocate for the better use; marshall resources; build consensus. The only way rioting buids consensus is when its targets capitulate out of fear.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Title of Liberty:

Alma 46

Quote

28 And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words he went forth, and also sent forth in all the parts of the land where there were dissensions, and gathered together all the people who were desirous to maintain their liberty, to stand against Amalickiah and those who had dissented, who were called Amalickiahites.
29 And it came to pass that when Amalickiah saw that the people of Moroni were more numerous than the Amalickiahites—and he also saw that his people were doubtful concerning the justice of the cause in which they had undertaken—therefore, fearing that he should not gain the point, he took those of his people who would and departed into the land of Nephi.
30 Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes.

 

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Title of Liberty:

Alma 46

 

Moroni, though, had the authority to do what he did.  Christ's words were to people who did not have authority.  The Jews were looking for their Messiah to lead a revolution against the Romans, instead he asked them to "turn the other cheek."

[Calm]

Just now, ksfisher said:

Moroni, though, had the authority to do what he did.  Christ's words were to people who did not have authority.  The Jews were looking for their Messiah to lead a revolution against the Romans, instead he asked them to "turn the other cheek."

Who gave him authority?

[USU78]

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No it is not mindreading. I do not pretend to know intentions or read thoughts. CFR when I did any such thing. Also, I don't claim my position is more special than any other citizen or church member. I consider it a duty for members of organisations to hold their group accountable.

6/22 9:21 am:

  “I am not concerned about judging in that sense, only in the sense of recognising enduring harm enough to make the world better. I think that would be an expression of divine love.”

You ascribe that "enduring harm" to individuals.  You accuse them of actions that proximately cause "enduring harm."  You implicitly ascribe blameworthiness therefor, which can only arise from knowing people's hearts.  You claim to know their intentions and read their minds and judge their hearts.

6/22 12:53 am:  “I'm an American so calling out the US to be accountable for its institutional role in slavery and the continued oppression of Black people since, is one of my duties. I am a BYU alumnus and was a believing member of the LDS church for 40 years, so calling out the church for its institutional role in perpetuating white supremacy is a moral duty.”

You take upon yourself the "duty" to judge hearts, minds, and intentions of individual actors and the Church itself.  "A moral duty."  You justify your judginess motivated by L-rd only knows what internal processes elevate you to mind-reading, heart-rejecting judge of others' intentions.

6/22 22 hours ago:  “I agree, with the disclaimer that this patience need not be endless to be charitable, especially when the patience is for brutality.”

And you accuse individual actors and the Church of "brutality."  I imagine and hope you are simply being hyperbolic, yet you give no indication that I can divine that you see Mormons [sic].  White Mormons [sic].  White male Mormons [sic] as brutal, accountable, oppressive, perpetuators of enduring harms in your zeal to fulfill your moral duty.  You thus judge their hearts.  You judge their minds.  You judge their souls.  You judge their actions.  You judge.

And thus your CFR is answered.  By your own words.  Typed out and published scan hours before you issued the CFR.  I cannot imagine it was done in good faith, but am delighted to be disabused of my ignorance, if not my brutality, my oppressiveness, my perpetuation of horrors, for which I must be held to account.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who gave him authority?

16 Now, the leader of the Nephites, or the man who had been ^aappointed to be the ^bchief captain over the Nephites—now the chief captain took the command of all the armies of the Nephites—and his name was Moroni;

17 And Moroni took all the command, and the government of their wars. And he was only twenty and five years old when he was appointed chief captain over the armies of the Nephites.

Alma 43

[Calm]

I see “standing on principle” as a reliable approach when in power...you (Smac) can stand on principle because you know police will back you up...with violence if necessary.
 

It is much less effective when one is not in power and the law/society is more likely to punish then reward you for your efforts.  The only way the disempowered can “stand on principle” and not end up shafted in some way or the other historically seems to be to gather enough together to ‘stand’ so that those who have power have to face the reality of change whether because of fear or finally recognition of broad social wrongs.  
 

Unfortunately given humans are involved and react on a wide range of emotion (and it is going to be emotion that gets one out there standing on principle when facing likelihood of rejection and punishment), that large of a group of people who have for most of their life been told “no, you can’t have it” is pretty much guaranteed to include those who view a “standing on principle” response as including violence if they don’t believe they are being listened to. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

16 Now, the leader of the Nephites, or the man who had been ^aappointed to be the ^bchief captain over the Nephites—now the chief captain took the command of all the armies of the Nephites—and his name was Moroni;

17 And Moroni took all the command, and the government of their wars. And he was only twenty and five years old when he was appointed chief captain over the armies of the Nephites.

Alma 43

So if protestors gather and give authority to their leader, violence is okay?

It is coming across as violence is acceptable if by those appointed by those in power in society; these are the ones who can now back up their choices to “stand on principle” with a violent response (as in no negotiation with terrorists doesn’t mean ignoring them, arresting those who are destroying property in protest, etc).

Edited June 23, 2020 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Moroni, though, had the authority to do what he did.  Christ's words were to people who did not have authority.  The Jews were looking for their Messiah to lead a revolution against the Romans, instead he asked them to "turn the other cheek."

 

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who gave him authority?

 

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

16 Now, the leader of the Nephites, or the man who had been ^aappointed to be the ^bchief captain over the Nephites—now the chief captain took the command of all the armies of the Nephites—and his name was Moroni;

17 And Moroni took all the command, and the government of their wars. And he was only twenty and five years old when he was appointed chief captain over the armies of the Nephites.

Alma 43

And there's this, that seems to indicate that, among the Nephites, military authority is not purely a civil matter but is a matter of ecclesiastical authority, as well:

Quote

 

3 Nephi 3

19 Now it was the custom among all the Nephites to appoint for their chief captains, (save it were in their times of wickedness) some one that had the spirit of revelation and also prophecy; therefore, this Gidgiddoni was a great prophet among them, as also was the chief judge.

 

 

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

 

 

You ascribe that "enduring harm" to individuals.  You accuse them of actions that proximately cause "enduring harm."  You implicitly ascribe blameworthiness therefor, which can only arise from knowing people's hearts.  You claim to know their intentions and read their minds and judge their hearts.

 

You take upon yourself the "duty" to judge hearts, minds, and intentions of individual actors and the Church itself.  "A moral duty."  You justify your judginess motivated by L-rd only knows what internal processes elevate you to mind-reading, heart-rejecting judge of others' intentions.

 

And you accuse individual actors and the Church of "brutality."  I imagine and hope you are simply being hyperbolic, yet you give no indication that I can divine that you see Mormons [sic].  White Mormons [sic].  White male Mormons [sic] as brutal, accountable, oppressive, perpetuators of enduring harms in your zeal to fulfill your moral duty.  You thus judge their hearts.  You judge their minds.  You judge their souls.  You judge their actions.  You judge.

And thus your CFR is answered.  By your own words.  Typed out and published scan hours before you issued the CFR.  I cannot imagine it was done in good faith, but am delighted to be disabused of my ignorance, if not my brutality, my oppressiveness, my perpetuation of horrors, for which I must be held to account.

You have answered none of them.  Causing harm, and brutality can be done regardless of thought and intent. I need not read minds for that. The duty of which I speak is nothing more or less than the duty of any citizen, or any member of a group. My role is no more special than any other group member. Again, I need not read minds for that.

[Meadowchik]

47 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If you "reject" something I have built on my property, okay.  Different strokes for different folks.  If you believe I have not followed applicable planning snd zoning laws, however, there is a process in place to remedy the issue(s), and that process doesn't involve your encroaching, trespassing on my property, and vandalizing and destroying my property.  In the same vein, if you think public property can be put to better use, by all means: Advocate for the better use; marshall resources; build consensus. The only way rioting buids consensus is when its targets capitulate out of fear.

The article you posted is about "cancel culture," it's not about rioting or vandalism. "Cancel culture" refers to (legal and voluntary) public censure.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Meadowchik

[ksfisher]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

So if protestors gather and give authority to their leader, violence is okay?

Are you trying to say protestors gave Moroni his authority to lead the Nephite armies?  Please provide some justification for that from the Book of Mormon. 

I don't read anything into what is written in that passage other than Moroni's authority being derived from their law.

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And there's this, that seems to indicate that, among the Nephites, military authority is not purely a civil matter but is a matter of ecclesiastical authority, as well:

I would say that with the institution of the judges, one of the things Mosiah was trying to do was to separate the two.  No more god/kings or the king as the peoples conduit to god/false gods.

I would say that Moroni's authority was derived from Nephite law.

Edited June 23, 2020 by ksfisher

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The violence employed so far has not been against the government.  The mob violence has overwhelmgingly been against private businesses, private property, private citizens.

I know, the police violence has largely not been aimed at the government. If it were the people would not be protesting.

Or were you talking about the lesser protester violence?

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  CHAZ is doing so well at "keep{ing} oppression down."

CHAZ is a stupid side issue primarily supported by the weirdos who are into these weird autonomous zones. It was never likely it would last. There is unlikely to be a Freetown Christiana equivalent in the USA.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Lawless behavior is a dangerous thing.  I am concerned some folks, like yourself, have become too cavalier and indifferent to the real-world ramifications.  By way of example:

Of course it is. It can also serve as a corrective if the system of law isn't working.

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you were in Mr. Balla's situation, I don't think you would be so flippantly and airly dismissive of wanton mob violence.

If I am flippantly and airily dismissive in my concern for this situation it is because you are continuing to wring your hands in distress over a solved problem:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/scores-bar-mpls-riot-rebuild

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Two quotes come to mind.  The first is from the 2006 film Amazing Grace, which portrays the efforts of William Wilberforce and others in abolishing slavery in the British Empire.  In one scene, Wilberforce and one of his fellow abolitionists, Thomas Clarkson, have just come from a session of Parliament (of which Wilberforce is a member).  Wilberforce had been making progress toward abolition, but had just been dealt a setback by a fellow MP, Henry Dundas, who (in the screenplay) agrees with Wilberforce that slavery was "an almighty calumny and is a disgrace to this nation," but that abolition should be attempted "gradually."  Wilberforce and Clarkson then have this private discussion:

Both men raise fair points here.  But I think Wilberforce carried the day.  Revolution is not a safe thing.  An imperfect order is better than no order.

This is not a revolution....yet. How about we work on the imperfect order before it becomes one. Of course you seem to want to insist that we do nothing under duress (when did protest become duress?) and want to sit on your hands until the bad people stop knocking over the racist statues and come to the political table where the odds are stacked against them and play "by the rules" when their complaint is that "the rules" are not fair. Do you understand why they believe this is the most effective way to act?

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So it is in our day.  Mob rule is not the answer.

The second quote is from  A Man for All Seasons.  This film, based on a play, is about Sir Thomas More during the reign of Henry VIII.  More is appointed by the king as Lord Chancellor, but thereafter finds that the appointment comes with expectations from the king that are not compatible with More's sense of ethics.  The scene in question involves More interacting with a poor but ambitious young man, Rich, who wants More's help in obtaining political power.  More declines, and Rich hints that he (Rich) might be willing to pursue his ambitions in other ways, including ways that could injury More.  More nevertheless lets Rich go, much to the consternation of his (More's) wife (Alice), daughter (Margaret) and soon-to-be-son-in-law (Roper).  Here's a link to the video and the dialog:

I hope you someday come to recognize that the rule of law means that there is no cause celebre that can give others the power to dispense with your rights. For your own safety's sake, I hope you come to appreciate the value of the rule of law.

The bolded part is so ironic in the current context when the failure to apply the bolded portion is literally why the protests are happening. Rights and lives are being dispensed with unlawfully and the law is not dealing justly with the situation. In fact the law is causing the situation. I believe it was C.S. Lewis who said that we give up our rights to vengeance when we trust the state to take care of it. If the state does nothing about murder we can logically conclude we live amongst barbarians and can take up the barbarian code and avenge the death of our kin.

Perhaps the words of Moroni would be apt here as one of many ways that could describe extrajudicial killings by those sworn to enforce the law:

"Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up."

I appreciate the value of the rule of law but also recognize that the rule of law largely treats me better than it does others and even with that advantage I still do not trust those who enforce the law. In my teenage years and in my young adult years I saw my rights violated and ignored by those who wielded the power of the state. I don't trust it and recent events have made me seen how petty my grievances are by comparison and how much worse it is for others. Trust has been broken. Calls for those with grievances to trust the system come across as a call to choose insanity.

If you truly value the rule of law listen to the people with grievances about their not getting the protections of said law and that those who are supposed to enforce the law are abusing and literally killing them and getting away with it.

The code of silence used to protect and cover up the sins of those with power granted to them bring to mind the words of another scriptural figure who delighted in being able to get away with it:

"Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain."

[ksfisher]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is coming across as violence is acceptable if by those appointed by those in power in society; these are the ones who can now back up their choices to “stand on principle” with a violent response (as in no negotiation with terrorists doesn’t mean ignoring them, arresting those who are destroying property in protest, etc).

There is a passage in Alma (I don't recall exactly where it is now and won't have time to locate it until later) which explains that God allowed the Nephites to defend themselves, by violence if necessary, if they had not committed the original offense and had earnestly tried to solve the problem through peaceful means.

Those are by no means the exact words.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why not?

Different objectives.  Different means.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Are you trying to say protestors gave Moroni his authority to lead the Nephite armies?  Please provide some justification for that from the Book of Mormon. 

I don't read anything into what is written in that passage other than Moroni's authority being derived from their law.

Just trying to understand what you see as valid forms of authority.  Roman authority over Jews was not by their assent of the ruled, but by violence, military might.  I am not seeing much difference than authority assumed by a mass of protestors except for greater numbers.

Seems to me Jesus was telling the Jews to turn the other cheek not because the Romans had any sort of moral right to authority over them, but because in part they could achieve no good through rebellion but death for others as well as themselves. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

The meek are the teachable. They learned that nothing was working but aggressive protesting is getting results.

The merciful are those who do not act out of vengeance. Is Chauvin still alive or was he choked to death? Have the protesters started shooting back yet?

The peacemakers are those who want peace. I would argue that fixing problems promotes peace.

 

The Sanhedrin and the Roman Empire as a whole would have had a lot less commotion and disturbance if that obnoxious Jesus had just shut up and known his place. "Shut up and sit down" was not the message Jesus was trying to convey.

Edited June 23, 2020 by The Nehor

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Different objectives

Seems to me they were tired of those in power over them not listening to their requests for what they saw as just treatment. 

[Amulek]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Do you understand why they believe this is the most effective way to act?

And if the blowback from violent protests leads lots of people (as it predictably will) to appreciate more the need for police presence / increased police action, is it really an effective way to act? 

 

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And if the blowback from violent protests leads lots of people (as it predictably will) to appreciate more the need for police presence / increased police action, is it really an effective way to act? 

 

Are the protestors the only ones possibly making mistakes in their desire to change things?  If people generally acted in effective positive ways, we likely wouldn’t be having protests. 
 

I think people expect violence from protestors to a certain extent. When they see excessive violence from police, that may be more shocking to many and is as likely imo to lead to greater calls for changes. The protests have shown success in getting that message out. 
 

The difference between the two is an individual can on their own decide to go out and buy a gun while it is much harder to get a large number of people to decide on how to change things. 
 

I will be shocked if the result is that police are generally beefed up even if there is a significant portion of society who think they need that for their safety. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

41 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And if the blowback from violent protests leads lots of people (as it predictably will) to appreciate more the need for police presence / increased police action, is it really an effective way to act? 

 

The police response to peaceful protestors has included hundreds of unnecessary, unprovoked attacks to date. I think that should confirm concerns over the violence sanctioned by the state through police.

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just trying to understand what you see as valid forms of authority.  Roman authority over Jews was not by their assent of the ruled, but by violence, military might.  I am not seeing much difference than authority assumed by a mass of protestors except for greater numbers.

Seems to me Jesus was telling the Jews to turn the other cheek not because the Romans had any sort of moral right to authority over them, but because in part they could achieve no good through rebellion but death for others as well as themselves. 

I think there were other reasons that Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek as well (not just because we might die if we don't) but I think you make a good point.

From my perspective though, I think both you and Smac are right and also both wrong, in that it doesn't seem like God has just one way for this type of situation to morally play out.  Sometimes God requires us to follow the law and submit, even when the laws are not just.  Other times He seems to expect us to push back.  The scriptures contain both kinds of stories, with God treating each situation as unique.

I don't know that there is any easy answer for where we are today.  Protesting and breaking the law can help.  It can also hurt.  It can move people closer to justice and it can also entrench the powerful to be even more resolved in the exercise of their power.  It can lead people to want to change or make them refuse to change.  It can create more success or it can create more innocent victims.  I think only God really knows where those lines are and when it's necessary and when it's not.  

I just pray for more wisdom, for all of us.  Wisdom in protesting.  Wisdom in judging the protests.  Causes are necessary and causes can also really backfire.  Humility and wisdom are our only hope, in my opinion.  Is our society, as a whole, capable of humility and wisdom right now?  I really don't know.  I fear that we aren't.

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective though...it doesn't seem like God has just one way for this type of situation to morally play out.  Sometimes God requires us to follow the law and submit, even when the laws are not just.  Other times He seems to expect us to push back.  The scriptures contain both kinds of stories, with God treating each situation as unique.

I agree.  This is my position. It may appear I am promoting one response (violent protest only occurs in unjust situations and therefore is justified), but I am not. 
 

I am troubled by the apparent absolute position that Smac and others seem to be promoting in a very complicated situation with many different actors with different objectives who he seems to be treating as both monolithic and immoral. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

And if the blowback from violent protests leads lots of people (as it predictably will) to appreciate more the need for police presence / increased police action, is it really an effective way to act? 

Wow, we really are reliving the Civil Rights movement. That was a common talking point as to why the protests should stop. History does not repeat itself but the lyrics do rhyme a lot.

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The police response to peaceful protestors has included hundreds of unnecessary, unprovoked attacks to date. I think that should confirm concerns over the violence sanctioned by the state through police.

This. If the police who know that they are under a microscope right now with people recording everything can't stop attacking people unprovoked just for a few weeks just for the optics until the situation blows over then it is baked into their behavior.