Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[rockpond]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

Not lately.  But we have racist "laws' that ought to be formally denounced and apologized for.  President Nelson is giving advice to other leaders, he ought to follow it himself.

 

Brigham Young:  "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."  --JoD, 10:110 

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Asked?

No questions were asked in regard to my lineage or race.

[rockpond]

1 hour 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. 

 

That's not what Colom said.  From the SLTrib article:

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.”

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

1 hour 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 mean that since we have only just recently started collaborating with the NAACP (i.e., within the past two years), then maybe it's a bit premature to start in with the incessant sniping about us not doing "enough."

 

Quote

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:

I think the church is engaged in doing all of those things.

Here's the deal though - unlike the NAACP, which focuses its efforts solely on black Americans, the Church of Jesus Christ has a mandate which spans the entire world and every individual in it.

Don't get me wrong, helping inner city kids here at home is great. But you also have to think about the children living in Ethiopia who don't even have access to water, and the people in South America, and Asia, and in the Middle East, etc. (see where I'm going with this?). 

It just isn't reasonable to expect the church to spend all of its time and energy on one specific subset of the world's population. 

 

[Amulek]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's not what Colom said.

I know what Colom said. He's whining that we aren't spending enough money. Classy.

Again, we have only just recently started working with the NAACP institutionally - literally, within the last two years. Maybe give it a bit of time for us to work together and build a solid working relationship before you start backhandedly accusing us of not doing 'enough.' 

 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I know what Colom said. He's whining that we aren't spending enough money. Classy.

Again, we have only just recently started working with the NAACP institutionally - literally, within the last two years. Maybe give it a bit of time for us to work together and build a solid working relationship before you start backhandedly accusing us of not doing 'enough.' 

 

Where is Colom "whining that we aren't spending enough money"?

I agree with what Colom said and I don't think the Church needs to spend any significant amount of money to start working to undo the 150 years of damage.  It starts with President Nelson following his own advice:  "leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all."

[Storm Rider]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Where is Colom "whining that we aren't spending enough money"?

I agree with what Colom said and I don't think the Church needs to spend any significant amount of money to start working to undo the 150 years of damage.  It starts with President Nelson following his own advice:  "leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all."

Gosh, I wish you were the prophet. You are just so much more enlightened than those old men that I am positive you would do a smashingly better job and, given a year or two, a great job that would make angels fear to tread where you go. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Gosh, I wish you were the prophet. You are just so much more enlightened than those old men that I am positive you would do a smashingly better job and, given a year or two, a great job that would make angels fear to tread where you go. 

So, you don't have a real response to the situation.  Okay.

[Meadowchik]

42 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I mean that since we have only just recently started collaborating with the NAACP (i.e., within the past two years), then maybe it's a bit premature to start in with the incessant sniping about us not doing "enough."

 

I think the church is engaged in doing all of those things.

Here's the deal though - unlike the NAACP, which focuses its efforts solely on black Americans, the Church of Jesus Christ has a mandate which spans the entire world and every individual in it.

Don't get me wrong, helping inner city kids here at home is great. But you also have to think about the children living in Ethiopia who don't even have access to water, and the people in South America, and Asia, and in the Middle East, etc. (see where I'm going with this?). 

It just isn't reasonable to expect the church to spend all of its time and energy on one specific subset of the world's population. 

 

It is reasonable for the church to focus on areas of repentance.

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"

 

 

Where has the church worked  to undo the damage it inflicted over 150 years? It should not need the NAACP to point this out. It should not need to wait until 2018 to start repenting. 

[Meadowchik]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Where is Colom "whining that we aren't spending enough money"?

I agree with what Colom said and I don't think the Church needs to spend any significant amount of money to start working to undo the 150 years of damage.  It starts with President Nelson following his own advice:  "leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all."

An unambiguous apology from the pulpit at General Conference can help further the message so the entire membership can understand where the church stands theoretically. A temple recommend question that addresses racist behavior as sinful would be another step. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It is reasonable for the church to focus on areas of repentance.

 

Where has the church worked  to undo the damage it inflicted over 150 years? It should not need the NAACP to point this out. It should not need to wait until 2018 to start repenting. 

How does one repent of something they weren't personally responsible for?  (It's a sincere question.)  How would you personally repent of your ancestors sins?  Is it possible for you to repent for them?

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Where is Colom "whining that we aren't spending enough money"?

I agree with what Colom said and I don't think the Church needs to spend any significant amount of money to start working to undo the 150 years of damage.  It starts with President Nelson following his own advice:  "leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all."

What if Pres. Nelson believes he is taking his own advice?  

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How does one repent of something they weren't personally responsible for?  (It's a sincere question.)  How would you personally repent of your ancestors sins?  Is it possible for you to repent for them?

A person repents for what they've personally done. An institution repents for what it has institutionally done. 

That can pertain to us as members (past and present) of a religion and citizens of a country.

[Amulek]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Where is Colom "whining that we aren't spending enough money"?

Come on. You provided the quote yourself just now:

Colom said there seems to be “no willingness on the part of the church to do anything material.”  

In other words, the pilot programs that the church has started (and completed) in multiple cities throughout the country don't count because those are really just "minor efforts" that "do not befit the stature and magnitude of what the LDS Church can do and should do."

He looks forward “to [our] deeds matching [our] words,” and added that “It’s time now for more than sweet talk.” 

You can try and dance around it all you want, but it's pretty clear to me that he is unhappy because the church hasn't been leading with its wallet. 

He wants to jump past all of this collaboration nonsense and get to the point where we start cutting checks like we have done for other organizations (see, e.g., here). 

I think it's unfortunate that he insists on characterizing the church's efforts as being insufficient rather than how they more truthfully ought to be considered: as just the beginning phases of a committed, long-term relationship.

 

Quote

I agree with what Colom said and I don't think the Church needs to spend any significant amount of money to start working to undo the 150 years of damage.  It starts with President Nelson following his own advice:  "leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all."

Give me a break. The church clearly and soundly denounces racism. Period. Full Stop.

What "organizational attitudes regarding racism" do you think persist in the church currently which have yet to be rooted out?

I'm not talking about individual racists who may happen to be members of the church. I'm talking about the "processes, laws, and organization attitudes" you are saying we have which persist in the church today.

Don't play coy: let's have the list.

 

[Amulek]

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It is reasonable for the church to focus on areas of repentance.

Where has the church worked  to undo the damage it inflicted over 150 years? It should not need the NAACP to point this out. It should not need to wait until 2018 to start repenting. 

Repentance is change. Do you honestly think the church hasn't changed in the last 50 years on this subject?

If you want to insist that the church hasn't really repented of its previous behavior unless or until you hear an apology over the pulpit in General Conference, then you may be in for a long wait. 

 

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What if Pres. Nelson believes he is taking his own advice?  

He might.  But, I don't see evidence that he is.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

A person repents for what they've personally done. An institution repents for what it has institutionally done. 

That can pertain to us as members (past and present) of a religion and citizens of a country.

Ok, how does an institution repent?

[bluebell]

Just now, rockpond said:

He might.  But, I don't see evidence that he is.

I think it would largely depend on each of your personal interpretation of what it means to do those things.  But back to the question, couldn't we use evidence from past experiences with him to help us find the answer to whether or not Pres. Nelson is a hypocrite?  

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Come on. You provided the quote yourself just now:

Colom said there seems to be “no willingness on the part of the church to do anything material.”  

In other words, the pilot programs that the church has started (and completed) in multiple cities throughout the country don't count because those are really just "minor efforts" that "do not befit the stature and magnitude of what the LDS Church can do and should do."

He looks forward “to [our] deeds matching [our] words,” and added that “It’s time now for more than sweet talk.” 

You can try and dance around it all you want, but it's pretty clear to me that he is unhappy because the church hasn't been leading with its wallet. 

He wants to jump past all of this collaboration nonsense and get to the point where we start cutting checks like we have done for other organizations (see, e.g., here). 

I think it's unfortunate that he insists on characterizing the church's efforts as being insufficient rather than how they more truthfully ought to be considered: as just the beginning phases of a committed, long-term relationship.

There's nothing in there, even with your bold, that indicates the church has to spend money. That is your own interpretation and one that I disagree with.

 

20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Give me a break. The church clearly and soundly denounces racism. Period. Full Stop.

What "organizational attitudes regarding racism" do you think persist in the church currently which have yet to be rooted out?

I'm not talking about individual racists who may happen to be members of the church. I'm talking about the "processes, laws, and organization attitudes" you are saying we have which persist in the church today.

Don't play coy: let's have the list.

The Church has been clear in denouncing racism today.  It has not been so clear in denouncing it's past racism and identifying those teachings as wrong.  If racism has always been wrong, then the racist temple and priesthood restrictions were wrong and ought to be identified as such rather than continuing to allow members and others to believe that they were of God.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it would largely depend on each of your personal interpretation of what it means to do those things.  But back to the question, couldn't we use evidence from past experiences with him to help us find the answer to whether or not Pres. Nelson is a hypocrite?  

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How does one repent of something they weren't personally responsible for?  (It's a sincere question.)  How would you personally repent of your ancestors sins?  Is it possible for you to repent for them?

I guess it's like the mountain meadow massacre catastrophe, no apologies from our current leaders because they weren't there and apart of it, but have we caused the death of someone's loved one when we say "sorry for your loss"? Maybe not a good comparison, but slightly the same. We've had this conversation or debate before about if the church should apologize. I think they should say sorry that the institution harmed the way they have, all it does is make the recipient of the hurt feel better. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not lately.  But we have racist "laws' that ought to be formally denounced and apologized for.  President Nelson is giving advice to other leaders, he ought to follow it himself.

 

Brigham Young:  "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."  --JoD, 10:110 

I have a feeling interracial dating/marriage is what made people like BY, such hateful racists. Just a thought that occurred to me when I was trying to figure out when racism started.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

A person repents for what they've personally done. An institution repents for what it has institutionally done. 

In terms of doctrine, I reject the notion of institutional sin / guilt.  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  (AoF 1:2.)

I likewise reject the notion of "institutional repentance."  Repentance is an individual exercise.

I likewise reject the notion of civil "repentance."  We confess our sins and repent to God, not to self-appointed arbiters of morality.

Nevertheless, I think an institution, like the Church, can seek conciliation and peacemaking with other groups.

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That can pertain to us as members (past and present) of a religion and citizens of a country.

So all Muslims "past and present" should "repent" for 9/11?

All Catholics "past and present" should "repent" for the Inquisition?

All Protestants, "past and present" should "repent" for Martin Luther's anti-semitism?

All Japanese and Germans and Turks "past and present" should "repent" for the Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, and the Armenian Genocide, respectively?

All Americans should "repent" for the My Lai Massacre?

The list is endless.

I'm curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Church has been clear in denouncing racism today.  It has not been so clear in denouncing it's past racism and identifying those teachings as wrong. 

Are you sure?

From the Race and the Priesthood essay (emphases added) :

Quote

Today, the Church disavows the 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. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

What is "not...so clear" about this statement?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In terms of doctrine, I reject the notion of institutional sin / guilt.  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  (AoF 1:2.)

I likewise reject the notion of "institutional repentance."  Repentance is an individual exercise.

I likewise reject the notion of civil "repentance."  We confess our sins and repent to God, not to self-appointed arbiters of morality.

Nevertheless, I think an institution, like the Church, can seek conciliation and peacemaking with other groups.

So all Muslims "past and present" should "repent" for 9/11?

All Catholics "past and present" should "repent" for the Inquisition?

All Protestants, "past and present" should "repent" for Martin Luther's anti-semitism?

All Japanese and Germans and Turks "past and present" should "repent" for the Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, and the Armenian Genocide, respectively?

All Americans should "repent" for the My Lai Massacre?

The list is endless.

I'm curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Then the church didn't follow their own articles of faith! Why did blacks suffer for their ancestors, like the curse of Cain? I guess they're the exception to the rule of not having to be punished for someone else's transgression. This has always puzzled me.