Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[Amulek]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are acting like Tommy Gunn who doesn't give credit for his success where it is due, who turned on his trainer, and who actively ends up fighting against the man who helped turn him into a success.

And you may even think you are winning...until the other guy gets back up just as you are preparing to walk out and says, "I didn't hear no bell." 

You know how the story ends...

 

[MiserereNobis]

On 6/9/2020 at 11:06 AM, smac97 said:

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

I don’t know about “repentance,” but Pope John Paul II did apologize for the inquisition and lots of other bad behavior on the part of the Catholic Church. I guess I view it as a positive thing that he did so. Do you think he was right or wrong to do so? If you think he was right to do so, why shouldn’t President Nelson likewise apologize? 
 

Here’s a list of his apologies:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

[pogi]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I dislike this kind of argument. Not because I find it wrong (though I do) but because of the method used to reach it. It is purely utilitarian. We should drop religion because it is not useful. It sidesteps the question as to whether it is real. I think this mindset is part of the western world's current problem. Our sense of curiosity and exploration is dying. We seem to find little joy in knowing anything for the sake of knowing it because it is true (or right or correct if that offends someone's philosophy). Information seems to exist more and more just to be manipulated to spin a narrative or to sell something or whatever.

The question should be whether religion is correct and whether it describes things as they are. If it is correct but bad for society I say we keep it. If it is false but good for society we should chuck it.

I think many here will see things different.  Especially those pragmatists and pupils of Mr Bukowski among us. I don't think the purpose of religion is to "describe things as they are", Rather it is a utilitarian and principles based process for personal growth and joy.  It exists, and we exist,  to ultimately experience joy to its fullest.  If it is not useful to that end, it is not good; and if it is not good then we should chuck it out.

Of course, the counter to this will be to point out Jacob 4:13 and D&C 93:24.  However, what do the scriptures mean by what is "real"?  Alma 32, I think, answers that for us.  It makes it clearly understood that what is "real" is not a perfect knowledge of things as they are, but what is real is identified as something that brings growth, expansion, light, and goodness into our hearts, even if we don't have a perfect knowledge of what it is.
 

Quote

 

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay...

 

This describes utilitarianism.  If it doesn't work...throw out the seed. We know it is "real" not because we have a perfect description/knowledge of things as they are, but simply because it works.  It leads to the ultimate telos of joy. 

This is why I don't like the claim that there is no benefit to religion.  I just roll my eyes and think, "o then, is not this real"?  It's as if he is calling into question my personal experiences as if they are not real or beneficial. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And you may even think you are winning...until the other guy gets back up just as you are preparing to walk out and says, "I didn't hear no bell." 

You know how the story ends...

Exactly! 

In this case, the line would be, "I didn't hear no trumpet."  We all know how that story ends. 

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don’t know about “repentance,” but Pope John Paul II did apologize for the inquisition and lots of other bad behavior on the part of the Catholic Church. I guess I view it as a positive thing that he did so. Do you think he was right or wrong to do so? If you think he was right to do so, why shouldn’t President Nelson likewise apologize? 
 

Here’s a list of his apologies:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

Well, it took the Pope over 700 years to apologize for the inquisition...give us another 650 years or so and we might come around too 

Edited June 12, 2020 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Well, it took the Pope over 700 years to apologize for the inquisition...give us another 650 years or so and we might come around too 

Scott can start one of his timers 😊

[Calm]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

Thanks!  

I am not familiar with the Song dynasty.  Did they really formally teach principles of loving your enemy, serving those who despitefully use you, and turning the other cheek, etc. as philosophies to live by and aspire to?  I don't know if there is a reason to prove that Christians had an influence if stemelblow can't document that they actually systemically taught these disciplines in the first place.

The upper classes were heavy into NeoConfucianism, Taoism was influential as well. Buddhism was less in official favor as a foreign religion, but still highly influential. The era included numerous advances in science, economics, and governmental reforms. It is an impressive time period.  Not impressed though with the view of women. Slavery was allowed as well Iirc (checked, not outlawed until 1900’s).  Been about 20 years since I read the textbook of our friend, the Chinese history prof, so I am rather vague on details. 
 

I would be more impressed by the answer if stem gave specific examples that support  his claims (laws, well known figures promoting forgiveness of enemies, etc) rather than just pulling out a name. 

I am not going to dig into laws and such, but just link to the general teachings.  Been too long since I delved into this so this is mainly googling, but these do look like credible answers based off what I do remember.  If anyone has better suggestion...perhaps stem could provide some info since it was his claim...probably would be a good thing.  I never studied this stuff deeply, more tangential to what my interests were.

Some short, some a bit more detailed....

Song Dynasty:  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/song-ming-confucianism/#Virt

https://songdynasty88.weebly.com/neo-confucianism.html

Confucianism:  https://cesa.rc.iseg.ulisboa.pt/Three Confucian Values.pdf

https://asiasociety.org/education/confucianism

On turning other cheek:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280520940_Why_You_Ought_Not_to_Turn_the_Other_Cheek_Confucius_on_How_to_Deal_With_Wrongdoers

Daoism:  https://www.goodnet.org/articles/these-4-teachings-daoism-will-help-you-navigate-life

https://asiasociety.org/education/daoism

Turning other cheek:  https://www.quora.com/What-would-Jesus-think-of-Lao-Tzu

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

Then why does it need to go?  

To say "there is no benefit" is a blanket and absolute statement which speaks for everyone. 

No. It happens to just be me speaking.  I'm simply stating my opinion. 

17 hours ago, pogi said:

How can you say there is no benefit for me?  If it benefits me and others, then how can you say "there is no benefit"? 

I'm thinking any benefit you attribute can be achieved through other means.  

17 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not attributing things to you that you have not said.  Perhaps you need to be more careful in using absolute and blanket statements, because those apply to me and others.  

I am not claiming that you indicated that you are not a product of your society.  I am claiming that you are failing to give credit for the good that religion offers (partly evidenced by the product of you). 

What benefit has it given me?  What credit must I owe?  And how do you know i have not given such credit?  

17 hours ago, pogi said:

You are acting like Tommy Gunn who doesn't give credit for his success where it is due, who turned on his trainer, and who actively ends up fighting against the man who helped turn him into a success.  It rubs as terribly ungracious and ungrateful.

What are my successes?  Who turned me into a the success you think I am?  

17 hours ago, pogi said:

 

To say that it is not for you anymore, while acknowledging how it has positively impacted your life is one thing.  But to actively fight against it and try to rub it out of existence after the countless hours members have sacrificed to help rear you, teach you good principles to live by, and serve you seems terribly nasty.  Just walk away in peace and grace. 

 

How has it positively impacted my life?  How have I actively fought against it?  

Do not fret, I'm feeling pretty good about things.  I don't imagine religion will disappear, but I think wed all be better off if it did.  

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I dislike this kind of argument. Not because I find it wrong (though I do) but because of the method used to reach it. It is purely utilitarian. We should drop religion because it is not useful. It sidesteps the question as to whether it is real.

That were talking about it says it's real.  If one says "when it comes to religion..." every listener is like "oh yeah their is religion, I know what that is."  Why do you wish to question whether it's real?  Are you turning into mfbukowski?  

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think this mindset is part of the western world's current problem. Our sense of curiosity and exploration is dying. We seem to find little joy in knowing anything for the sake of knowing it because it is true (or right or correct if that offends someone's philosophy). Information seems to exist more and more just to be manipulated to spin a narrative or to sell something or whatever.

That's not the mindset at all.  

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The question should be whether religion is correct and whether it describes things as they are. If it is correct but bad for society I say we keep it. If it is false but good for society we should chuck it.

That's too black and white of course.  Every religion could be correct in some way or another and every religion could be incorrect in one way or another.  You've simply left us to pretend there's a black and white in the question of whether a religion is true or correct.  Correct about what?  

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are confusing philosophy and reality. You may not arrive at morality via logic but everyone has it in them and act on it (to varying degrees) even if it has no logical basis. You overestimate how much logic influences human action. Parents don't love their children and lovers do not love each other and friends do not love each other because they argue their way to it from first principles. Even the most debased humans know "the rules". Watch someone who will step on anyone who gets in their way and pursue their own selfish interests without regard for anyone. Then see what happens when someone is unfair to them. They will scream unfairness or get revenge. We all know morality. Cultural and religious variations are more about overemphasis or deemphasizing the priority of the others.

You have mistaken my view.  Can one be spiritual and yet not find value in religion?  Or even find value in a belief in God?  

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The power of the Priesthood in the Church is not about goodness. Goodness is given to all via the light of Christ. Godliness is what our faith has a monopoly on.

So claimed...

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Arguing that apostate Christianity brought progress to the western world seems silly to me. Religious liberty was not a thing to the Catholic Church as a whole until the 20th century. You will not find democracy given place of priority in western religious texts. The same arguments that some use to claim Islam can never be a religion of peace can be easily turned on Jews and Christians. The move towards freedom in the West was driven by the Enlightenment which was triggered more by revived interest in pagan classical writing than it was to studying the Bible or Christian writings. The economic freedom that led to the erosion of serfdom came from the bubonic plague and not some general interest in being fair to all. I do believe God guided those events so that that freedom manifested where the Bible was around but I think you are assuming religion was the cause.

Yes.

[Meadowchik]

Here's one potential step in institutional repentance, and a strong argument for institutional repentance overall:

"Tasi Young: Time to change the name of BYU

It is time to change the name of Brigham Young University.

I earned two degrees from BYU, the flagship university of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Brigham Young was the founding leader of Utah and iconic pioneer of the west.

However, arguably, there is not a more successful white supremacist in American history when considering his impact on keeping his church, his community, and his state “white and delightsome” for nearly 200 years.

Young single handedly created and ingrained teachings of racial violence, segregation and white moral authority that enabled a social norm that not only oppressed black lives, but taught his followers that white supremacy was a mandate from God.

In a speech to the Utah Legislature on Jan. 23, 1852, Young said:

“In as much as we believe in the Bible ... we must believe in slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses ... which they have brought upon themselves. And until the curse is removed by Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences.”

The LDS Church doubled down on his teachings through the Civil War and the modern civil rights movement and only generally repudiated them in a little-known historical essay in 2013.

I learned Young’s teachings in high school seminary when I was taught that my parents’ interracial marriage was a disappointment to God and that my black friends’ skin was a curse due to their actions in a premortal realm.

I witnessed Young’s teachings as a missionary when my Utah-raised trainers yelled from our church-owned vehicle “[racial slur] doggy dog” every time we passed a black man on the street, and when my white BYU classmates disrespected and heckled an LDS Latino professor who was visiting to share minority perspective.

I acknowledged Young’s teachings when I left BYU having never had a professor of color after eight years of classes, and the only two black faculty I knew of were being pushed out of their positions.

I felt Young’s teachings when I stood shirtless, hands in the air, under a police spotlight, on the side of a Utah highway, being unlawfully searched as my children looked on from our minivan.

Today the LDS church calls on others to look inside and find racist practices and “root them out.” However, this hypocritical call comes from a religious empire and financial behemoth that, in part, stands as a monument to the actions and teachings of Brigham Young and white supremacy.

With calculated campaigns and flashy photo-ops, the LDS Church uses the words of racial justice but has completely and utterly failed to look at its own roots and repent and atone for the violence and oppression in its own history, especially the effects of the teachings of Brigham Young.

It is time for the LDS Church to take demonstrative steps to look to its own roots and eradicate the teachings, philosophy and structures of white supremacy that were started by Brigham Young, and which are blatantly practiced and espoused by many at my alma mater.

Brigham Young has had his day. It is time for a new day, where black lives are not subjected to ingrained white morality, whispered doctrines of whiteness and white-washed perspectives on all things from biology to jurisprudence.

The LDS Church can start this process and clearly show students, faculty, alumni and the larger faith community that it is serious about rooting out the racial injustices in its own body.

It is time to change the name of BYU." https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/12/tasi-young-time-change/

[pogi]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

No. It happens to just be me speaking.  I'm simply stating my opinion. 

It's a figure of speech.  Obviously you are not literally speaking for me.  Your opinion that there is "no benefit" to religion just seems so blind to the billions who do find benefit in it.   That's what I mean by "speak for yourself", but I think you already knew that. 

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm thinking any benefit you attribute can be achieved through other means.  

So you don't really believe there is "no benefit" to religion after all, you simply think it can be achieved through other means.  Am I understanding you correctly?   Even if that was true (which I am not admitting to), why would it be better for me to choose the "other means" when I already have a good source?  Why should I abandon my source that has proven itself?   

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What benefit has it given me?  What credit must I owe?  And how do you know i have not given such credit?  

What are my successes?  Who turned me into a the success you think I am?  

You tell me.  You're the one who acknowledged that you are in large part a product of your environment you were raised in (religion).  There must be some good in you, no?

How do I know you have not given such credit?  Probably because you want to destroy it.  You have claimed that it "offers no benefit".  No benefit?  Really? Where is the credit in that?

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Do not fret, I'm feeling pretty good about things. 

  You might have the peace part, but from my advantage point, you are lacking in grace towards your roots. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

On 6/9/2020 at 5:44 PM, Amulek said:

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. 

 

Repentance is more than change. 

[Meadowchik]

On 6/9/2020 at 5:52 PM, bluebell said:

Ok, how does an institution repent?

Confess, forsake, repair any damage as much as possible, and change behaviour.

[Meadowchik]

On 6/9/2020 at 6:06 PM, 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

It's not that mysterious. Institutions are and can be repentant. Throughout history, there are examples including treaties, reforms, public apologies, education, reparations, negotiations made by all sorts of institutions including governments, businesses, religious institutions, clans, etc... It's actually a pretty well-known and understood quality of civilizations.

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not that mysterious. Institutions are and can be repentant.

I think that's a very loose use of the term.  And I don't think it's one that fits in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.  Again, we don't believe in collective guilt.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Here's one potential step in institutional repentance, and a strong argument for institutional repentance overall:

But the Church / University is not "a monument to the actions and teachings of Brigham Young and white supremacy." If someone feels that way, their only real solution is to abolish the monument, not just change the name. I don't think this is warranted in this case.

That said, I think BYU could very likely be renamed "The Lord's University" in due time.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Here's one potential step in institutional repentance, and a strong argument for institutional repentance overall:

"Tasi Young: Time to change the name of BYU

It is time to change the name of Brigham Young University.

I earned two degrees from BYU, the flagship university of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Brigham Young was the founding leader of Utah and iconic pioneer of the west.

However, arguably, there is not a more successful white supremacist in American history when considering his impact on keeping his church, his community, and his state “white and delightsome” for nearly 200 years.

Young single handedly created and ingrained teachings of racial violence, segregation and white moral authority that enabled a social norm that not only oppressed black lives, but taught his followers that white supremacy was a mandate from God.

In a speech to the Utah Legislature on Jan. 23, 1852, Young said:

“In as much as we believe in the Bible ... we must believe in slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses ... which they have brought upon themselves. And until the curse is removed by Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences.”

The LDS Church doubled down on his teachings through the Civil War and the modern civil rights movement and only generally repudiated them in a little-known historical essay in 2013.

I learned Young’s teachings in high school seminary when I was taught that my parents’ interracial marriage was a disappointment to God and that my black friends’ skin was a curse due to their actions in a premortal realm.

I witnessed Young’s teachings as a missionary when my Utah-raised trainers yelled from our church-owned vehicle “[racial slur] doggy dog” every time we passed a black man on the street, and when my white BYU classmates disrespected and heckled an LDS Latino professor who was visiting to share minority perspective.

I acknowledged Young’s teachings when I left BYU having never had a professor of color after eight years of classes, and the only two black faculty I knew of were being pushed out of their positions.

I felt Young’s teachings when I stood shirtless, hands in the air, under a police spotlight, on the side of a Utah highway, being unlawfully searched as my children looked on from our minivan.

Today the LDS church calls on others to look inside and find racist practices and “root them out.” However, this hypocritical call comes from a religious empire and financial behemoth that, in part, stands as a monument to the actions and teachings of Brigham Young and white supremacy.

With calculated campaigns and flashy photo-ops, the LDS Church uses the words of racial justice but has completely and utterly failed to look at its own roots and repent and atone for the violence and oppression in its own history, especially the effects of the teachings of Brigham Young.

It is time for the LDS Church to take demonstrative steps to look to its own roots and eradicate the teachings, philosophy and structures of white supremacy that were started by Brigham Young, and which are blatantly practiced and espoused by many at my alma mater.

Brigham Young has had his day. It is time for a new day, where black lives are not subjected to ingrained white morality, whispered doctrines of whiteness and white-washed perspectives on all things from biology to jurisprudence.

The LDS Church can start this process and clearly show students, faculty, alumni and the larger faith community that it is serious about rooting out the racial injustices in its own body.

It is time to change the name of BYU." https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/12/tasi-young-time-change/

Leftist cancel culture striking at the Church of Jesus Christ. I suppose it was only a matter of time. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not that mysterious. Institutions are and can be repentant. Throughout history, there are examples including treaties, reforms, public apologies, education, reparations, negotiations made by all sorts of institutions including governments, businesses, religious institutions, clans, etc... It's actually a pretty well-known and understood quality of civilizations.

I point you to the people of anti-Nephi Lehi, who in their ignorance committed atrocities and then abandoned their traditions entirely to the extent of risking and in many cases losing their lives... without apologizing. The Lord reaches out to people in their ignorance and societal circumstances (even prophets!). No sense in beating them up for it.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think that's a very loose use of the term.  And I don't think it's one that fits in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.  Again, we don't believe in collective guilt.

Thanks,

-Smac

What do you think about this article?

 https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2011/05/can-institutions-repent/

What about this?

Quote

We acknowledge the disparity of those past actions and suspicions, regretting the expulsion of the community of Latter-day Saints," the resolution says. "We ask the pardon and forgiveness of the community of Latter-day Saints for the misguided efforts of our citizens, chief executive and the General Assembly in the expulsion of their Mormon ancestors.

Here is what President Hinckley thought of it:

Quote

"We are pleased to note ... the Illinois House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution of regret for the forced expulsion of our people from Nauvoo in 1846," he told the Mormon general conference last weekend.

"This magnanimous gesture may be coupled with action taken by then-Gov. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, who in 1976 revoked the cruel and unconstitutional extermination order issued against our people by Gov. Lilburn W. Boggs in 1838," he added."

I don't think the idea of institutional repentance (loose use of the term) escapes our paradigm.  We view it as a "magnanimous gesture".

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

On 6/9/2020 at 11:00 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

In the past, when this topic has been raised and I've shared the thread with my West Africa-born housemate, his responses have been unpublishable. He's a generally laid-back bloke, but few things set him off more than a bunch of white Americans who think they need to be anguished on his behalf. He finds it the worst kind of infantilising behaviour.

I know that's one man's lived experience, but it's worth remembering, and from what I have seen, the Church is full of black Saints of like mind. We have ten members of our ward from West Africa alone (one of them a former housemate, one a current housemate), and all of the adults (all converts) have shared similar feelings with me at some point.

I am not suggesting you are trying to shame anyone, quite the opposite. My view of your post is you are pointing out it is not a one size fits all situation (thank goodness) and that we should pay attention to the context of a person’s life and not make assumptions based on skin color. 

I give the above clarification as I read this FB post today which topic was tangential to your post and I do think we need to be careful not to go monolithic whether it is being dismissive of black Americans because of nonAmerican views or assuming the Black American experience is what all blacks wherever they live experience and therefore have the same POV, motivations, desires.  I think too often posts like yours can be misused.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10163799610240523&id=734515522

I used to be able to copy paste from FB, can’t any more so please read the perception of a nonAmerican black on one aspect of discussing the black American experience:  the use of Africans to shame black Americans. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I used to be able to copy paste from FB, can’t any more so please read the perception of a nonAmerican black on one aspect of discussing the black American experience:  the use of Africans to shame black Americans. 

'Content not found'.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Content not found'.

Looks like the phone doesn't have the option to copy/paste, but iPad does:

Quote

“I read this post about how some people use Africans to try to shame black Americans...

I was trying to explain the difference to a friend the other day because people kept asking me to weigh in on the current issue in the US - perhaps, on the presumption that I could relate, directly to the black American experience. 

See, privilege doesn't see privilege...until something horrible like this happens, that forces one to acknowledge it and to call-out one's individual complacency in not trying to be better educated on the subject.

I was born in a wealthy African country, into a middle-class family, surrounded by role models who looked just like me. People in the Senate and Judiciary looked like me. Schools taught about African history (nothing about slavery in our school curriculum, perhaps because it wasn't considered part of the history?...) and we celebrated the beauty we saw in our African culture (like the annual new yam festival and masquerade festivals) which filled me with a great sense of pride in my heritage. So I never understood the struggles of minority groups because I was never a minority in my developing years. 

So even when I moved to the UK in my teens, I continued to assume my privilege and never considered that I deserved anything less. No one questioned my aspirations, probably because I never questioned it myself or perhaps because any attempt they made to question it went unnoticed. The power of suggestion cannot be underestimated in its fuelling of these 'other-ness' ideologies. 

Recent events have forced me to acknowledge my complacency resulting from a lack of knowledge of the history of minorities in western countries, so I too, am trying to educate myself on this issue...I can do better!

My point is: it's grossly unfair to shame a black American by comparing them to an African because we Africans didn't grow up in the same system as they did. They didn't have the same opportunities or affirmations of legitimacy as we did. Anyone who shames black Americans with Africans is basically holding up a 'black privilege' version of themselves and saying that that is still better and more legitimate.”

 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 6/13/2020 at 12:51 PM, Meadowchik said:

Here's one potential step in institutional repentance, and a strong argument for institutional repentance overall:

"Tasi Young: Time to change the name of BYU

It is time to change the name of Brigham Young University.

I earned two degrees from BYU, the flagship university of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Brigham Young was the founding leader of Utah and iconic pioneer of the west.

However, arguably, there is not a more successful white supremacist in American history when considering his impact on keeping his church, his community, and his state “white and delightsome” for nearly 200 years.

Young single handedly created and ingrained teachings of racial violence, segregation and white moral authority that enabled a social norm that not only oppressed black lives, but taught his followers that white supremacy was a mandate from God.

In a speech to the Utah Legislature on Jan. 23, 1852, Young said:

“In as much as we believe in the Bible ... we must believe in slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses ... which they have brought upon themselves. And until the curse is removed by Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences.”

The LDS Church doubled down on his teachings through the Civil War and the modern civil rights movement and only generally repudiated them in a little-known historical essay in 2013.

I learned Young’s teachings in high school seminary when I was taught that my parents’ interracial marriage was a disappointment to God and that my black friends’ skin was a curse due to their actions in a premortal realm.

I witnessed Young’s teachings as a missionary when my Utah-raised trainers yelled from our church-owned vehicle “[racial slur] doggy dog” every time we passed a black man on the street, and when my white BYU classmates disrespected and heckled an LDS Latino professor who was visiting to share minority perspective.

I acknowledged Young’s teachings when I left BYU having never had a professor of color after eight years of classes, and the only two black faculty I knew of were being pushed out of their positions.

I felt Young’s teachings when I stood shirtless, hands in the air, under a police spotlight, on the side of a Utah highway, being unlawfully searched as my children looked on from our minivan.

Today the LDS church calls on others to look inside and find racist practices and “root them out.” However, this hypocritical call comes from a religious empire and financial behemoth that, in part, stands as a monument to the actions and teachings of Brigham Young and white supremacy.

With calculated campaigns and flashy photo-ops, the LDS Church uses the words of racial justice but has completely and utterly failed to look at its own roots and repent and atone for the violence and oppression in its own history, especially the effects of the teachings of Brigham Young.

It is time for the LDS Church to take demonstrative steps to look to its own roots and eradicate the teachings, philosophy and structures of white supremacy that were started by Brigham Young, and which are blatantly practiced and espoused by many at my alma mater.

Brigham Young has had his day. It is time for a new day, where black lives are not subjected to ingrained white morality, whispered doctrines of whiteness and white-washed perspectives on all things from biology to jurisprudence.

The LDS Church can start this process and clearly show students, faculty, alumni and the larger faith community that it is serious about rooting out the racial injustices in its own body.

It is time to change the name of BYU." https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/12/tasi-young-time-change/

No. Brigham Young does not fall in with Confederate war memorials. Brigham Young is not commemorated in the name of the university for fighting for or defending racial teachings. There is a reason protesters are not pulling down memorials to Washington and Jefferson even though they owned slaves and in that sense caused more real harm than Brigham Young who operated mostly in the theoretical in Utah where there were few people there to oppress with the teaching. Confederate war memorials and monuments all came up around the time of Jim Crow laws and during the Civil Rights movement primarily as monuments to institutionalized racism and a warning that some were not welcome. They were also celebrated primarily for their role in the war and not for other less racist achievements. Expecting people to be ahead of their time on racial issues to the point of discounting their other achievements is unwise. Celebrating someone primarily for their regressive views on race and (sometimes) their military ability put to use in treason against the nation “honoring” them is a signal that you want to hold onto those regressive views.

I do not think that there is a credible argument that President Young was the most successful white supremacist in American history. Those titles belong to those who created slavery, fought to maintain it, changed to systematic oppression politically and socially, and fought to maintain it. Giving the title to a guy who taught racist stuff in a pretty isolated area that consisted almost entirely of white people and native Americans seems very forced.

 

[The Nehor]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think that's a very loose use of the term.  And I don't think it's one that fits in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.  Again, we don't believe in collective guilt.

Thanks,

-Smac

I do. It is all over the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I think that's a very loose use of the term.  And I don't think it's one that fits in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.  Again, we don't believe in collective guilt.

I do. It is all over the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants.

I think we are perhaps working with differing understandings of the term.

Original Sin (see AoF 1:2) is perhaps the most obvious example of Latter-day Saint rejection of (what I am calling) "collective guilt."

The horrible invocations of "Christ-killer" against the Jews is another example of the concept that I reject.

Then, of course, we have the abhorrent vilification of all Muslums because of 9/11.  And, more recently, the unfortunate disparagement of police generally for the killing of George Floyd.  I came across this earlier today:

Yep.

I am not culpable for the sins of others.  I have no need to repent of the sins of others.  

Thanks,

-Smac