Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

President Nelson writes:  "We likewise call on government, business, and educational leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all."

I wish he had included religious leaders in that list and then sought to follow his own advice.  As written, this statement rings hollow to me.

I noticed that also. I find it difficult to take racial advice from a leadership of an organization which excluded membership benefits from others based on the color of their skin.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I noticed that also. I find it difficult to take racial advice from a leadership of an organization which excluded membership benefits from others based on the color of their skin.

42 years ago.  And it wasn't "based on the color of their skin."

Thanks,

-Smac

[CA Steve]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

42 years ago.  And it wasn't "based on the color of their skin.

I received the priesthood more that 42 years ago. How did the person giving me the priesthood then know I was eligible?

[Meadowchik]

26 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I noticed that also. I find it difficult to take racial advice from a leadership of an organization which excluded membership benefits from others based on the color of their skin.

I agree. Repentance is important to trust. 

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I received the priesthood more that 42 years ago. How did the person giving me the priesthood then know I was eligible?

It wasn't "based on the color of (your) skin."

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

But that is the only rational conclusion one can come to.  You did suggest that "we can’t adequately resolve racism if we continue to promote religion",

Let me just point out you keep quoting yourself then attributing your words to me.  

3 hours ago, pogi said:

herefore those who promote religion are responsible for sustaining racism. 

Please re read what I said.  And it is quite possible even if it's what i said to promote religion and still not sustain racism.  

3 hours ago, pogi said:

There is no other conclusion one can come to. 

There are plenty more.  And there certainly is more to the story.  

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

“But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them..."

Love your enemy?  Serve those that despitefully use you and curse you?  Pray for them that hate you?  Turn the other cheek?  Forgive?  Feed the hungry?  The greatest among you will be your servant?  I think all humans intrinsically love, but Christ took it to a whole higher level that defies the ways of man. 

Not so sure else only Christian societies would love an enemy or serve those spitefully use etc etc.  Again each refrain can easily be lived anyone unfamiliar with the bible.  

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not so sure else only Christian societies would love an enemy or serve those spitefully use etc etc.  Again each refrain can easily be lived anyone unfamiliar with the bible.  

No one is denying that this morals can be lived by non-religious people.  The question is, what would be the motive to live the discipline if you are not a disciple to such teachings?  What motive would there be to try and change and align with these morals?  Can you point to a non-religious discipline/teaching to the same effect that pre-dates Christ?  

 

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Let me just point out you keep quoting yourself then attributing your words to me.  

Are you going to deny that the following exchange happened? 

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know that we adequately resolve our issues if we continue to promote the very cause of them.  

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that we can’t adequately resolve racism if we continue to promote religion?  Is that what you are saying? 

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Essentially yes.   

They are "essentially" your words. 

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

No one is denying that this morals can be lived by non-religious people.  The question is, what would be the motive to live the discipline if you are not a disciple to such teachings?  What motive would there be to try and change and align with these morals?  Can you point to a non-religious discipline/teaching to the same effect that pre-dates Christ?  

 

Why be good and nice?  Being good and nice is an end to itself.  We don't need a reward.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you going to deny that the following exchange happened? 

They are "essentially" your words. 

I think.my explanation following my essentially helps.  I would not have worded as you did, but I didn't want to get all persnickety--didnt realize you'd get hung up on that.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Why be good and nice?  Being good and nice is an end to itself.  We don't need a reward.

Now who is attributing words to me that I did not use?  "Good and nice"?  Umm, not what I said.  Is it a universal moral/"good" to turn the other cheek.  Is it a universal moral/"good" to love your enemy and hope/pray for their benefit.  Why are you suggesting that it is?  What would prompt someone to see those things as "good" and practice the unnatural discipline?  I asked you to point to a non-religious reference for this discipline (which it is) outside of religion. 

Edited June 9, 2020 by pogi

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

President Nelson writes:  "We likewise call on government, business, and educational leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all."

I wish he had included religious leaders in that list and then sought to follow his own advice.  As written, this statement rings hollow to me.

The Church has processes, laws, and organizational attitudes promoting or defending racism? I have not see much of that lately.

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

No one is denying that this morals can be lived by non-religious people.  The question is, what would be the motive to live the discipline if you are not a disciple to such teachings?  What motive would there be to try and change and align with these morals?  Can you point to a non-religious discipline/teaching to the same effect that pre-dates Christ?  

Happiness? Self-respect? There are lots of reasons to live a disciplined life that are secular. If you look to ancient Rome their religion was pretty amoral but they had disciplined philosophies many chose to adhere to. Jesus is possibly the worst example though of a moral teacher. He allows for things to be right at one time and wrong in another and his goal is to change the person in a way that changing behavior cannot. He is not even primarily concerned with morality. It is just something that comes with the rest of the package.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Happiness? Self-respect?

This assumes that these things are universally viewed as respectable.  If you argued to some that turning the other cheek brings happiness, they would laugh you to scorn.  It is not a natural instinct.  It must be taught.  Maybe you can point me to a secular discipline before Christ that teaches these things.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Happiness? Self-respect? There are lots of reasons to live a disciplined life that are secular. If you look to ancient Rome their religion was pretty amoral but they had disciplined philosophies many chose to adhere to. 

The key word here is “religion”.  What does a Roman religion have to do with a-religionists?

My argument is not that secularists are amoral or lack discipline.  My argument is that Christ/religion elevated the discipline of love.

Edited June 9, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

He is not even primarily concerned with morality. It is just something that comes with the rest of the package.

As in what?  Love and obedience first, morality follows?

[Meadowchik]

Quote

 

Wil Colom, special counsel to the NAACP president, said the group "hasn't seen very much progress" on joint projects.

Indeed, the two organisations have collaborated on a handful of employment and educational initiatives. But those were "minor efforts," Colom said. They "do not befit the stature and magnitude of what the church can do and should do."

The NAACP is "looking forward to the church doing more to undo the 150 years of damage they did by how they treated African Americans in the church," Colom said, and by their "endorsement of how African Americans were treated throughout the country, including segregation and Jim Crow laws."

But there seems to be "no willingness on the part of the church," Colom said, "to do anything material."

He looks forward "to their deeds matching their words," he said. "It's time now for more than sweet talk."  Salt Lake Tribune article

 

Wil Colom, along with LDS member Steve Hill, helped bring the leaders of the two organisations to meet together in 2018, as reported in the Deseret News.

 

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Amulek,

Quote

What on earth makes you think that ethnic tribalism goes away just because you remove religion? Have you got any evidence showing that to be the case?

I don't think that.  Why do you think I think that?  

Um...because of what you said.

Remember how you claimed that "since the dawn of time, as far as we can tell, religion has been with us, inspiring us to annihilate, subjugate, or at the very least be suspicious of the other, and defeat those whom God has told us are outside the pale of Hs chosen.  I mean that's the BIble, but basically all religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian and Islamic ones, hurt us today."

Seems pretty clear to me that you are saying religion is what inspires violence and conquest, and that it is responsible for creating this sense of 'otherness.' 

Only that's ridiculous. Because absolutely all of those problems exist in the absence of religion. Ethnic tribalism is what results from thousands and thousands of years of evolution; it isn't a byproduct of religion. 

It's like someone trying to blame violence and ill-will on church basketball. True, the sport can potentially be an avenue for those things to be expressed, but those things exist independent and apart from the activity itself, so blaming the game is just weak sauce. 

 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

The NAACP is "looking forward to the church doing more to undo the 150 years of damage they did by how they treated African Americans in the church," Colom said, and by their "endorsement of how African Americans were treated throughout the country, including segregation and Jim Crow laws."

But there seems to be "no willingness on the part of the church," Colom said, "to do anything material."

He looks forward "to their deeds matching their words," he said. "It's time now for more than sweet talk."  Salt Lake Tribune article

 

Wil Colom, along with LDS member Steve Hill, helped bring the leaders of the two organisations to meet together in 2018, as reported in the Deseret News.

So, in just two years, the church has yet to solve the problems which the NAACP has been working on themselves for the past 100+ years?

Our bad. 

 

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

No one is denying that this morals can be lived by non-religious people.  The question is, what would be the motive to live the discipline if you are not a disciple to such teachings?  What motive would there be to try and change and align with these morals?  Can you point to a non-religious discipline/teaching to the same effect that pre-dates Christ?  

 

I'm stepping in between this conversation to ask what you mean by what motive, you mean you must be told to do something by a Christ before being or doing a good thing? 

[Thinking]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

And it wasn't "based on the color of their skin."

?

Quote

Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances. Race and the Priesthood

 

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So, in just two years, the church has yet to solve the problems which the NAACP has been working on themselves for the past 100+ years?

Our bad. 

 

What do you mean by this, exactly?

I think that the LDS gospel persuades believers and reasonable people to do good work unto repentance:

From the words of Amulek, Alma 34:16-32, bolding added:

 

Quote

 

16 And thus ^amercy can satisfy the demands of ^bjustice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of ^cjustice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal ^dplan of ^eredemption.

17 Therefore may God grant unto you, my brethren, that ye may begin to exercise your ^afaith unto repentance, that ye begin to ^bcall upon his holy name, that he would have mercy upon you;

18 Yea, cry unto him for mercy; for he is ^amighty to save.

19 Yea, humble yourselves, and continue in ^aprayer unto him.

20 Cry unto him when ye are in your ^afields, yea, over all your flocks.

21 ^aCry unto him in your houses, yea, over all your household, both morning, mid-day, and evening.

22 Yea, cry unto him against the power of your ^aenemies.

23 Yea, ^acry unto him against the ^bdevil, who is an enemy to all ^crighteousness.

24 Cry unto him over the crops of your fields, that ye may prosper in them.

25 Cry over the flocks of your fields, that they may increase.

26 But this is not all; ye must ^apour out your souls in your ^bclosets, and your secret places, and in your wilderness.

27 Yea, and when you do not cry unto the Lord, let your ^ahearts be ^bfull, drawn out in prayer unto him continually for your ^cwelfare, and also for the welfare of ^dthose who are around you.

28 And now behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you, do not suppose that this is all; for after ye have done all these things, if ye ^aturn away the ^bneedy, and the ^cnaked, and visit not the sick and afflicted, and ^dimpart of your substance, if ye have, to those who stand in need—I say unto you, if ye do not any of these things, behold, your ^eprayer is ^fvain, and availeth you nothing, and ye are as ^ghypocrites who do deny the faith.

29 Therefore, if ye do not remember to be ^acharitable, ye are as dross, which the refiners do cast out, (it being of no worth) and is trodden under foot of men.

30 And now, my brethren, I would that, after ye have ^areceived so many witnesses, seeing that the holy scriptures testify of these things, ye come forth and bring ^bfruit unto repentance.

31 Yea, I would that ye would come forth and ^aharden not your hearts any longer; for behold, now is the time and the ^bday of your ^csalvation; and therefore, if ye will repent and ^dharden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.

32 For behold, this ^alife is the time for men to ^bprepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of ^cthis life is the day for men to perform their ^dlabors.

 

 

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

And it wasn't "based on the color of their skin."

?

Quote

Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances. Race and the Priesthood

 

The Church has preached the Gospel to people of every "skin color," so I think the "based on the color of their skin" thing is facile.  The picture becomes more complicated when we look at ideas in the early Church about "lineage identity" (see "All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage" by Armand Mauss, pp. 19-40), the social milieu in which the Church was formed and grew (antebellum America, in which slavery was legal in some states, and prejudice against black Africans was pervasive), the history of the Church (the ordinations of Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis,  the actions of William McCary at Winter Quarters, etc.), and so on.

By way of clarification: Because the priesthood ban lacks any known revelatory provenance, and in light of foregoing considerations, as well as the various - and now disavowed - "theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else," I am of the present opinion that the priesthood ban was not revelatory, and was instead a policy arising from unfortunate - and what we today call "racist" - 19th-century attitudes toward people of black African descent.  But to reduce this to "based on the color of their skin" is a bit misleading.  There was more to it than that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 9, 2020 by smac97

[CA Steve]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

It wasn't "based on the color of (your) skin."

How did the person giving me the priesthood  know whether or not I had any African American blood in my veins?

Edited June 9, 2020 by CA Steve

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

How did the person giving me the priesthood  whether or not I had any African American blood in my veins?

Asked?