Interesting Article Re Byu Student Fighting Racism

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not that.  Free market capitalism is incompatible with slavery.

It's not an inherent part of capitalism.  To the extent it was used in a capitalistic environment, it failed.

Actually, I think the cotton gin produced the bubble.  See here:

Slavery unfortunately pre-dated the cotton gin, and so was ramped up when the cotton gin entered the market and increased the productivity of the South, which at that point was based on slave labor.  But it did not need to be this way.  And here:

It is a great tragedy that the South was already steeped in slavery before the cotton gin came along.

First, you said: "In terms of America history, racism is wrapped up in its capitalism. The ownership and exploitation of Black bodies to build wealth came first. Racism was the rationale used to continue it."

You then said: "Do you think that American slavery was not intertwined with capitalism? Are you saying that slavery was not used to build wealth in the United States?"

Now you are saying: "Slavery was enabled by capitalism."

So were speaking of a few things: "racism," slavery, capitalism and creation of wealth (all antebellum).  

You seem to be trying to say "Capitalism made 'em do it."  I dispute that.  Correlation is not causation, you see.  

Okay.  I'm not sure how that is relevant.  Nobody is disputing that slave labor generated wealth for others.

I think the point is that slavery is not an integral part of capitalism.  Capitalism just fine without slavery.  Capitalism is at odds with slavery.  An economic system based on the theft of labor and the concentration of power in the hands of a very few is not free market capitalism.  It's quite something else.

Trying to tie slavery to capitalism is a well-worn argument presented by socialists and communists.  The irony of that is pretty staggering given how those economic systems are well and truly based on the theft of labor and the oligarchical concentration of power.  It's nigh unto Orwellian.

Capitalism doesn't need redemption.  It's doing just fine.

Meanwhile, if you want to try to justify socialism/communism . . . good luck with that.

I oppose racism.

I don't understand the "what it enabled" bit.  I am a big advocate of marriage.  I believe it's a wonderful institution.  Now, it so happens that I have a dear friend who was in a horrible marriage.  Her husband abused her a lot, so much so that the marriage failed.  The husband was able to do what he did because he lived with his wife, shared resources with her, had sexual access to her, and so on.  But I would not say that "marriage" as an institution "enabled" his abuse.  To the contrary, the husband misused and exploited the institution.

Somewhat similarly, antebellum slaveholders misused and abused aspects of capitalism to "enable" slavery.  I find that appalling and immoral.  But I'm not going to blame "capitalism" for that, any more than I would blame "marriage" for the abuse suffered by my friend.

Free market capitalism is an amazing thing.  It has generated more wealth, and brought more people out of poverty, than any other economic system in the history of the world.

Meanwhile, I encourage you to find out for yourself the problems inherent with socialism and communism.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is not about capitalism versus socialism or communism. It's unfortunate that you're getting distracted by that competition. My point is that you cannot ignore the economic impact of slavery if you want to oppose racism in America. I would have said communism if slavery was used in the context of communism. But American slavery was used in the context of its capitalism.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Piffle.

We are often unable to see our prejudices for what they are.

This is not an accurate statement of Latter-day Saint doctrines, or "expect{ations}" derived therefrom.

Marvelously facile.

Through study, reasoning, discussion, pondering, prayer, fasting, and so on.

Well apply that study, reasoning, discussion, pondering, prayer, fasting and so on to everything else and the Church becomes a useless entity.  

It does not.  The Church is still necessary to provide ongoing prophetic guidance and and counsel, to administer saving ordinances, to manage the temples and missionary work and buildings and property holdings and finances contributed to the Lord, and so on.  It provides the framework for our community of faith.  

We have three principal sources of light and knowledge: A) the scriptures, B) continuing counsel from living prophets and apostles, and C) personal revelation.  The individual's own efforts ("study, reasoning, discussion, pondering, prayer, fasting, and so on") overlay all three sources.  Nevertheless, we are all human, and will not always get things right.  We might misconstrue things, or focus on one source of information to the exclusion of the others, or let pride or the philosophies of men have undue influence on us.  I imagine similar things happened to the Primitive Church, which is probably why Paul said (as recorded in Ephesians 4) :

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what to make of your dismissals. 

Most of what I said was disagreement, not dismissal.

The part I dismissed was your obviously-intended-to-provoke-and-offend, and wholly false, statement that "It's not so much that these men in history were racist, it's that their God was racist."

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Are you saying the Church never presented a racist policy? 

Nope.

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Or never claimed it was from God? 

Mostly nope.

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Are you saying that past leaders did not think they were inspired when they promoted racist ideas?  What exactly are you trying to dismiss?  

Again, I was disagreeing, not dismissing.

Broadly speaking, in 1852 the Church instituted race-based policy that restricted men of black African ancestry from being ordained and, as a corollary, did not allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.  "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions.  None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

So I guess I disagree about a few things. 

First, that the priesthood restriction was per se "racist."  I'm inclined to think it was.  Not because - as you so risibly and provocatively and profanely put it - "God is racist."  Rather, I lean toward the Brigham-Young-implemented-a-"policy"-around-1852-which-then-through-the-decades-became-entrenched-and-its-specific-provenance-was-lost-but-it-was-probably-a-product-of-19th-century-perspectives-on-race theory of the Ban's origins.  Nevertheless, I cannot completely foreclose the possibility that it had revelatory origins, either.  There were restrictions/limitations on the priesthood in antiquity, after all.

Second, the above-referenced "theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions" are "{not} accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."  Nevertheless, these "theories" have been the source of most of the offense given and anger fomented.  Much of this is reaction is quite understandable, as many of these explanations are patently offensive.  However, I think these explanations were based on personal prejudices and biases, and errors, and on limited light and knowledge.  I think few, if any, of these explanations were presented to deliberately provoke and offend and profane (such as, for example, a fellow coming to a message board peopled by Latter-day Saints and he airily telling them that "their God was racist").

Third, I disagree with the notion that we are bound by each and every statement uttered by each and every leader of the Church from 1830 to now.  That's just not the way things work.  That notion is enormously facile, to the point of being deceptive and misleading.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think the form of economy has anything to do with slavery. Slavery has always existed and continues to exist to this day. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. Slavery exists - full stop. 

Oh, hush.  Can't you see the utility of blaming slavery on capitalism?  Doing so clears the way for socialism!  And  this time, we'll get it right!  No need to consider the failures of socialism in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Laos, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, and others.

As a Latter-day Saint, I aspire to the ideals of Zion:

Quote

Since love comprehends all righteousness (Matt. 22:36-40), the people of Zion live together in love as equals (see Equality; D&C 38:24-27). They have "all things common" (4 Ne. 1:3). They labor together as equals, each contributing to the good of all and to the work of salvation according to their individual talents (D&C 82:3; Alma 1:26). As equals, all receive the things that are necessary for survival and well-being, according to their circumstances, wants, and needs (D&C 51:3, 9). Consequently, among a people of Zion there are no rich or poor (4 Ne. 1:3). It is written of the ancient people of Enoch that "the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them" (Moses 7:18).

This sounds a lot like socialism, does it not?  

Why, then, would I be such an ardent critic of that economic model?  It's simple, really.  Socialism absolutely stinks when it is attempted through the use of coercion/force, and without the guiding and unifying influence of God.

As preached and practiced by its run-of-the-mill advocates, Socialism is pretty horrible.  See, e.g., here, here and here.

I don't know if I will ever be called upon to fully live the Law of Consecration.  If and when such a call were to be issued by the Presiding High Priest, I would give the matter considerable thought, study, and prayer, and I would probably go along with it (I hope I would).  

But socialism?  As advocated by self-appointed, inchoate oligarchs?  In light of how many times it's been the mechanism of enslaving and killing untold millions?  No way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2020 by smac97

[Amulek]

From the BSU letter to the NAACP:

Quote

From personal experiences as Black students, we know that it is physically impossible for us to feel like we matter or that we belong at BYU when arguably the most important building on our campus is named after a literal slave master. 

I'm quite certain that neither LaVell Edwards nor J. Willard Marriott were literal slave masters.

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by Amulek

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

This is not about capitalism versus socialism or communism.

It usually ends up that way.

Quote

It's unfortunate that you're getting distracted by that competition.

The biggest opponents of free market capitalism are usually advocates of socialism/communism.  Quite often they don't come right out and say this, though, which is why I was pointing it out.

These opponents are also the ones who seek to use the capitalism-is-bad-because-it-had-something-to-do-with-antebellum-slavery argument you are advancing here.

Quote

My point is that you cannot ignore the economic impact of slavery if you want to oppose racism in America.

Racism is a great evil.  We agree on this.

Slavery was (and is) a great evil.  We agree on this.

Actually, the "point" you made that precipitated the current discussion was you attempting to disparage capitalism by tying it to slavery:

• "In terms of America history, racism is wrapped up in its capitalism. The ownership and exploitation of Black bodies to build wealth came first. Racism was the rationale used to continue it."
• "Do you think that American slavery was not intertwined with capitalism? Are you saying that slavery was not used to build wealth in the United States?"
• "Slavery was enabled by capitalism."

I have disagreed with this idea, and have presented arguments and reasoning as to why.

And, with respect, I think it's fairly presumptuous of you to assert or suggest that "want{ing} to oppose racism in America" necessarily requires me to join you in denouncing the greatest and most liberating economic system every devised by man.

And again, virtually all attempts to tie slavery to "capitalism" come from advocates of socialism/communism.

Quote

I would have said communism if slavery was used in the context of communism. But American slavery was used in the context of its capitalism.

In the economy of the South, yes.  In the economy that was hugely inferior to the free market (and not-based-on-slavery) economy of the North.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It usually ends up that way.

The biggest opponents of free market capitalism are usually advocates of socialism/communism.  Quite often they don't come right out and say this, though, which is why I was pointing it out.

These opponents are also the ones who seek to use the capitalism-is-bad-because-it-had-something-to-do-with-antebellum-slavery argument you are advancing here.

Racism is a great evil.  We agree on this.

Slavery was (and is) a great evil.  We agree on this.

Actually, the "point" you made that precipitated the current discussion was you attempting to disparage capitalism by tying it to slavery:

• "In terms of America history, racism is wrapped up in its capitalism. The ownership and exploitation of Black bodies to build wealth came first. Racism was the rationale used to continue it."
• "Do you think that American slavery was not intertwined with capitalism? Are you saying that slavery was not used to build wealth in the United States?"
• "Slavery was enabled by capitalism."

I have disagreed with this idea, and have presented arguments and reasoning as to why.

And, with respect, I think it's fairly presumptuous of you to assert or suggest that "want{ing} to oppose racism in America" necessarily requires me to join you in denouncing the greatest and most liberating economic system every devised by man.

And again, virtually all attempts to tie slavery to "capitalism" come from advocates of socialism/communism.

In the economy of the South, yes.  In the economy that was hugely inferior to the free market (and not-based-on-slavery) economy of the North.

Thanks,

-Smac

American capitalism is tied to slavery. Capitalism even enabled people who spoke against slavery, both in the North and abroad, to also profit from it and perpetuate it by investing in it. I don't see why talking frankly about this is an inherent slight against capitalism anymore than it is a slight against America. If you want good to come from capitalism I do think you have to distinguish between the good from it and the evil from it. Same as in any other system.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

American capitalism is tied to slavery.

It is not.  Slavery was outlawed a very long time ago.

Quote

Capitalism even enabled people who spoke against slavery, both in the North and abroad, to also profit from it and perpetuate it by investing in it.

Oh, brother.  

Quote

I don't see why talking frankly about this is an inherent slight against capitalism anymore than it is a slight against America.

I don't mind talking frankly.  I think it is the inaccuracy of what you are saying that I find problematic.

Quote

If you want good to come from capitalism I do think you have to distinguish between the good from it and the evil from it. Same as in any other system.

In 2020, I think it is absurd to declare that "American capitalism is tied to slavery."  The antebellum South practiced slavery, as did pretty much every economic system in the history of the world.  And the South suffered because of it.  Slavery was fundamentally at odds with the principles of capitalism:

Quote

The fact is that slavery disappeared only as industrial capitalism emerged. And it disappeared first where industrial capitalism appeared first: Great Britain. This was no coincidence. Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.

To begin with, the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery. As we Americans discovered, a belief in the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives cannot long coexist with an institution that condemns some people to bondage merely because of their identity.

But even on purely economic grounds, capitalism rejects slavery because slaves are productive only when doing very simple tasks that can easily be monitored. It’s easy to tell if a slave is moving too slowly when picking cotton. And it’s easy to speed him up. Also, there’s very little damage he can do if he chooses to sabotage the cotton-picking operation.

Compare a cotton field with a modern factory — say, the shipyard that my father worked in as a welder until he retired. My dad spent much of his time welding alone inside of narrow pipes. If you owned the shipyard, would you trust a slave to do such welding• While not physically impossible to monitor and check his work, the cost to the shipyard owner of hiring trustworthy slave-masters to shadow each slave each moment of the day would be prohibitively costly. Much better to have contented employees who want their jobs — who are paid to work and who want to work — than to operate your expensive, complicated, easily sabotaged factory with slaves.

Finally, the enormous investment unleashed by capitalism dramatically increases the demand for workers. (All those factories and supermarkets must be manned.) Even if each individual factory owner wants to enslave his workers, he doesn’t want workers elsewhere to be enslaved, for that makes it more difficult for him to expand his operations. As a group, then, capitalists have little use for slavery.

History supports this truth: Capitalism exterminated slavery.

American capitalism had far more to do with ending slavery then with perpetuating it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2020 by smac97

[stemelbow]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It does not.  The Church is still necessary to provide ongoing prophetic guidance and and counsel, to administer saving ordinances, to manage the temples and missionary work and buildings and property holdings and finances contributed to the Lord, and so on.  It provides the framework for our community of faith.  

We have three principal sources of light and knowledge: A) the scriptures, B) continuing counsel from living prophets and apostles, and C) personal revelation.  The individual's own efforts ("study, reasoning, discussion, pondering, prayer, fasting, and so on") overlay all three sources.  Nevertheless, we are all human, and will not always get things right.  We might misconstrue things, or focus on one source of information to the exclusion of the others, or let pride or the philosophies of men have undue influence on us.  I imagine similar things happened to the Primitive Church, which is probably why Paul said (as recorded in Ephesians 4) :

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Obviously to many it does.  So...I guess it's all a matter of subjective personal opinion.  

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Most of what I said was disagreement, not dismissal.

The part I dismissed was your obviously-intended-to-provoke-and-offend, and wholly false, statement that "It's not so much that these men in history were racist, it's that their God was racist."

So which is it?  They, these past mortal leaders, were racist, influenced by their culture?  or God was racist and he actually did inspire them to implement racist policies as they claimed?  

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.

Mostly nope.

Again, I was disagreeing, not dismissing.

Broadly speaking, in 1852 the Church instituted race-based policy that restricted men of black African ancestry from being ordained and, as a corollary, did not allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.  "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions.  None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

So I guess I disagree about a few things. 

First, that the priesthood restriction was per se "racist."  I'm inclined to think it was.  Not because - as you so risibly and provocatively and profanely put it - "God is racist."  Rather, I lean toward the Brigham-Young-implemented-a-"policy"-around-1852-which-then-through-the-decades-became-entrenched-and-its-specific-provenance-was-lost-but-it-was-probably-a-product-of-19th-century-perspectives-on-race theory of the Ban's origins.  Nevertheless, I cannot completely foreclose the possibility that it had revelatory origins, either.  There were restrictions/limitations on the priesthood in antiquity, after all.

Sure.  And what you say here supports the point I raised, as I see it.  Members get defensive, as Blue Dreams suggested, largely because they may think that the racist policy (as in policy based on discriminating by race) might possibly be God-ordained.  It is nearly required members leave room open for that possibility.    

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, the above-referenced "theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions" are "{not} accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."  Nevertheless, these "theories" have been the source of most of the offense given and anger fomented.

How do you measure the amount?  Why not simply the ban itself being the source for most of the offense given and anger fomented?  The ban is simply racism.  There is nothing more fomenting than implementing it.  

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  Much of this is reaction is quite understandable, as many of these explanations are patently offensive.  However, I think these explanations were based on personal prejudices and biases, and errors, and on limited light and knowledge.  I think few, if any, of these explanations were presented to deliberately provoke and offend and profane (such as, for example, a fellow coming to a message board peopled by Latter-day Saints and he airily telling them that "their God was racist").

Sure.  It very well could be that they are nothing but personal prejudices and biases.  But of course, they didn't see it that way.  They actually saw these patently offensive explanations as God-inspired, and said so. 

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, I disagree with the notion that we are bound by each and every statement uttered by each and every leader of the Church from 1830 to now.  That's just not the way things work.  That notion is enormously facile, to the point of being deceptive and misleading.  

Thanks,

-Smac

No body suggested you are bound by any statement uttered at all.  The problem of course is, leaders are leading the Church, are said to not even have the capacity to lead it astray in any way, and yet have apparently led it astray in terms of race.  We may say, "well it's been corrected".  But sadly for decades, at least, it was not corrected and the straying continued, apparently, unabated.  It's really no wonder why members are defensive and can't really fully discuss the topic, choosing instead, as Blue Dreams suggested, to shut it down and leave POC feeling isolated.  It's a real problem that seems apparently even today.  

[rodheadlee]

On 7/16/2020 at 2:25 PM, Calm said:

This assumes that people want to stay on the program if they have a way out. The myth of the welfare queen is a myth. The problem is getting just enough money to maintain that level of poverty and not enough to get out of the poverty cycle...for black communities. 
 

Phone is going to die and grandkids coming over, so will provide more evidence later, but some of this is in the two links. 

No it isn't. I watched a woman cash a welfare check for a month that was $1,600 more than my paycheck. My paycheck was 3200 bucks for the month. I don't work that cheap anymore since Trump became president. But I was pretty irate. I was making 20 bucks an hour and now I don't work for less than 35.

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No body suggested you are bound by any statement uttered at all.  The problem of course is, leaders are leading the Church, are said to not even have the capacity to lead it astray in any way, and yet have apparently led it astray in terms of race.  We may say, "well it's been corrected".  But sadly for decades, at least, it was not corrected and the straying continued, apparently, unabated.  It's really no wonder why members are defensive and can't really fully discuss the topic, choosing instead, as Blue Dreams suggested, to shut it down and leave POC feeling isolated.  It's a real problem that seems apparently even today.  

It appears that the defensiveness permeates not only religious perspectives but also political ones. 

 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

American capitalism had far more to do with ending slavery then with perpetuating it.

Not conceding that evaluation, but it even if it were accurate, capitalism still helped perpetuate slavery. These issues are deeply connected to economics. This should be no surprise. People are self-interested. If slavery could have been ended at no economic cost, it would have been a totally different story.

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This raises, in my mind, an interesting point that seems left out of the conversation quite often.  The reason for defensiveness in this are perhaps many.  But one main reason seems to be the notion of God's interaction with man.  It's not so much that these men in history were racist, it's that their God was racist.  We might say today, "well it wasn't really God, it was just their prejudices" but that's not how they saw it nor how they presented it.  How is a believing member to take seriously the criticism of their leaders when it is expected that they do nothing but revere their revelations as if from God himself?  

We are not supposed to just take our mortal, fallible Church leaders at their word whenever they say something, not even when they say that what they are saying is what God said or told them to say.  We are responsible for checking with God for ourselves.  And then we are supposed to live by every word of God that God has given to us, personally.  If we don't do that, then it is our own problem, regardless of what any mortal, fallible Church leader may expect us to do.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

As it is, for most of this Church's existence, the teaching was God wanted racism....we pretend it used to be, but by and large many still maintain that the racist policies were God's will.  How are members supposed to see it differently?  

We;re supposed to see it as God sees it.  Interpretations and personal opinions vary.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We are not supposed to just take our mortal, fallible Church leaders at their word whenever they say something, not even when they say that what they are saying is what God said or told them to say.  We are responsible for checking with God for ourselves.  And then we are supposed to live by every word of God that God has given to us, personally.  If we don't do that, then it is our own problem, regardless of what any mortal, fallible Church leader may expect us to do.

We;re supposed to see it as God sees it.  Interpretations and personal opinions vary.

How do you know God did not institute the priesthood ban?  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How are members supposed to see it differently?  

Through study, reasoning, discussion, pondering, prayer, fasting, and so on.

Well apply that study, reasoning, discussion, pondering, prayer, fasting and so on to everything else and the Church becomes a useless entity.  

It does not.

Obviously to many it does.  So...I guess it's all a matter of subjective personal opinion.  

Or not.

Plenty of people may feel that physical exercise, healthy eathing, hydration, good sleep patterns, abstaining from harmful/addictive substances, etc. are "useless" in terms of improving their physical and emotional health.  But I think that can be waived off as merely "all a matter of subjective personal opinion."

Quote

Quote

The part I dismissed was your obviously-intended-to-provoke-and-offend, and wholly false, statement that "It's not so much that these men in history were racist, it's that their God was racist."

So which is it?  They, these past mortal leaders, were racist, influenced by their culture?  or God was racist and he actually did inspire them to implement racist policies as they claimed?  

Again with the provocative and profane schtick.  Not impressed.

Quote

Quote

So I guess I disagree about a few things. 

First, that the priesthood restriction was per se "racist."  I'm inclined to think it was.  Not because - as you so risibly and provocatively and profanely put it - "God is racist."  Rather, I lean toward the Brigham-Young-implemented-a-"policy"-around-1852-which-then-through-the-decades-became-entrenched-and-its-specific-provenance-was-lost-but-it-was-probably-a-product-of-19th-century-perspectives-on-race theory of the Ban's origins.  Nevertheless, I cannot completely foreclose the possibility that it had revelatory origins, either.  There were restrictions/limitations on the priesthood in antiquity, after all.

Sure.  And what you say here supports the point I raised, as I see it. 

No, it does not.

Quote

Members get defensive, as Blue Dreams suggested, largely because they may think that the racist policy (as in policy based on discriminating by race) might possibly be God-ordained.  It is nearly required members leave room open for that possibility.

Not really.  I cannot attribute evil motives to God.  That is what I find provocative and offensive.

Quote

Quote

Second, the above-referenced "theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions" are "{not} accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."  Nevertheless, these "theories" have been the source of most of the offense given and anger fomented.

How do you measure the amount? 

I find little value in trying to "measure the amount."  

Quote

Why not simply the ban itself being the source for most of the offense given and anger fomented? 

I guess that could happen.  But we can't really talk about "the ban itself" without heavily qualifying the issue.

Quote

The ban is simply racism.  There is nothing more fomenting than implementing it.  

That's way too facile for me.

Again, I cannot attribute evil motives to God.  We have historical antecedents for restrictions on the priesthood.  I cannot get on board with the idea of reflexively and automatically attributing such restrictions to evil motives (all the more so when people like you purport to accuse God of having those evil motives).

See here:

Quote

With Moses, a new social and religious order with special priesthood offices was established among the Israelites. The priesthood emphasis shifted from Patriarchs presiding over extended families to a designated tribe of Levitical priesthood holders, who served Israel for centuries. Under the Lord's direction, Moses ordained his older brother, aaron, to preside over the tribe of Levi, which served all the people (Lev. 8:1-13; Num. 8:13-22; Heb. 5:4). Over time, Aaron became exemplary in his priesthood service and the "lesser" priesthood was named the Aaronic Priesthood after him (Heb. 7:11; D&C 84:18, 26;107:13-16). The major priesthood offices were the priests, including a "high" (Hebrew "great") priest, and the Levites.

Priests were worthy male descendants of Aaron. The high priest was designated from among the first-born descendants of Aaron. His office was responsible for the annual Day of Atonement rituals (Lev. 16) and for all the tithes and offerings of the Israelites (see Tithing). The priests supervised the system of worship and sacrifices at the holy sanctuary and helped regulate the religious affairs and holy days of Israel.

The Levites included all male descendants of Levi. They assisted the priests in collecting and distributing the tithes and offerings, in the elaborate system of animal and food sacrifices, in teaching the law, in singing, and in building and maintaining places of worship, especially the tabernacle and the temple.

Is the limitation of the high priest to "among the first-born descendants of Aaron" something that we can attribute to evil intent?  I don't think so.

Is the current limitation of the priesthood to males something we can attribute to evil intent?  I don't think so.

Was the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews before the Gentiles something we can attribute to evil intent?  I don't think so.

And so on.

I also can't help but note that much of the current agitation about "racism" comes from people who are manifestly opposed to the Church.  They want to stir the pot.  They want to foment discord and animosity, even hatred, in and against the Church.

There are certainly individuals who fall outside of this category.  Blue Dreams is a good example.  Darius Gray is another.  There is a black sister in my ward with whom I have had some candid discussions.  And others.

But when someone comes along and airly declares that we Latter-day Saints worship a "racist" God, I will resist and speak against that.  Such a person has very little credibility or cachet with me, and instead is merely playing the provocateur.

Quote

Quote

Much of this is reaction is quite understandable, as many of these explanations are patently offensive.  However, I think these explanations were based on personal prejudices and biases, and errors, and on limited light and knowledge.  I think few, if any, of these explanations were presented to deliberately provoke and offend and profane (such as, for example, a fellow coming to a message board peopled by Latter-day Saints and he airily telling them that "their God was racist").

Sure.  It very well could be that they are nothing but personal prejudices and biases.  But of course, they didn't see it that way.  They actually saw these patently offensive explanations as God-inspired, and said so. 

I'm not sure about that.

Quote

Quote

Third, I disagree with the notion that we are bound by each and every statement uttered by each and every leader of the Church from 1830 to now.  That's just not the way things work.  That notion is enormously facile, to the point of being deceptive and misleading.  

No body suggested you are bound by any statement uttered at all. 

Sure seems like it.  Here we are, arguing about statements made 150+ years ago by people long dead.  Statements that have been categorically rejected by the Church.  Statements I have never indicated that I accept. 

So the implication sure seems to be there.  

Quote

The problem of course is, leaders are leading the Church, are said to not even have the capacity to lead it astray in any way, and yet have apparently led it astray in terms of race. 

Malarky.  The Church does not teach this.

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse that the Church teaches that its leaders "{do} not even have the capacity to lead it astray in any way."

I will hold you to this.  If you don't respond, I will report you to the mods.  I am fine with legitimate critiques and criticisms of my religion.  But highly misleading fabrications will not do.

Quote

We may say, "well it's been corrected". 

Yes, we may say that.  Why are you seemingly disparaging that is perplexing.

Don't we want to have errors corrected?  Isn't that a primary function of living prophets and apostles, continuing revelation, etc.?  Why, then, are you complaining about it?

Quote

But sadly for decades, at least, it was not corrected and the straying continued, apparently, unabated.

I invite you to do some actual research and study on this issue.  See, e.g. here:

Quote

According to Prince's book, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, Pres. McKay was evaluating the issue extensively as early as 1954 (p. 103), and continued to grapple with it for many years afterward.  Prince also states that Pres. McKay "made a conscious decision not to enter the fray of the emerging  civil rights  movement that came of age during his presidency," (p. 104), and yet you here seem to be positioning the Civil Rights movement as a key motivating factor for the 1978 revelation ("I am guessing you missed the period of activism for blacks receiving the priesthood, it was pretty big public spectacle").

Prince goes on to say that "{o}n several occasions ... [Pres. McKay] had opportunities to reverse the church's long-standing legacy of racial discrimination.  Yet each time he chose to turn away" (p. 104).  He also states that Pres. McKay "softened the ban around the edges, intervening to extend priesthood blessings to individuals where he could, and repeatedly pleading with the Lord for a complete reversal ... On uncounted occasions, he sought unsuccessfully to call down the revelation that would have changed the ban, a revelation that came to one of his successors eight years after his death.  This largely undocumented and almost wholly unknown struggle means that it is no stretch to assert that David O. McKay built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests" (p. 106).

This is also quite illuminating (p. 103):

Quote

His earliest inquiry, as far as we have record ... occurredin 1954 ... Other inquiries followed, though generally the dates are not known.  On one occasion his daughter-in-law, Mildred Calderwood McKay, who served on the general board of the Primary ... expressed her anguish that black male children, who commingled with white children during their Primary years (through age twelve), were excluded from the Aaronic Priesthood when they turned twelve.  "Can't they be ordained also?"  She asked.  He replied sadly, "No."  "Then I think it is time for a new revelation."  He answered, "So do I."

Marian D. Hanks ... related an incident from a [] trip to Vietname, in which he had comforted a woulded black LDS soldier.  As he told the story, McKay began to weep.  Referring to the priesthood ban, McKay said, "I have prayed and prayed and prayed, but there has been no answer."

Prince also provides this fascinating account (p. 104):

Quote

But the most remarkable account came from Richard Jackson, an architect who served in the Church Building Department from 1968 to McKay's death in 1970:

Quote

I remember one day that President McKay came into the office.  We could see that he was very much distressed.  He said, "I've had it!  I'm not going to do it again!"  Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro.  I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly.  The last time I did it was late last night.  I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone." ...

This uncharacteristic outburst in the presence of an astonished church architect highlights the contrast between two strands in McKay's thought that are, by today's standard, inseparably joined: civil rights for blacks and priesthood ordination for black men.  The blurring, combined with McKay's own reticence, means that this difference has not been understood until now.

By Prince's accounting, Pres. McKay wanted to rescind the ban, but was told by the Lord to "not bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

You seem to be suggesting that the Civil Rights Movement was a major precipitating cause of the 1978 revelation, and you cite Prince as your source.  But Prince's citations about McKay's efforts to rescind the ban have it starting around 1954 (if not earlier), when the Civil Rights Movement was in its infancy.  Meanwhile, the revelation came in 1978, fourteen years after the Civil Rights Movement was at its apex (1964).  And more to the point, Prince characterizes Pres. McKay as having "built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests," and this foundation was built by repeatedly seeking revelatory guidance.  Prince seems to have very little to say about Pres. McKay (the president of the Church during the entirety of the Civil Rights Era) being influenced by the "pretty big spectacle" of "activism for blacks receiving the priesthood."

Furthermore, Edward Kimball traces efforts to address the ban back to 1948 (pp. 18-19).

Sounds like Pres. McKay (and others) were seeking guidance on the priesthood ban.  For decades.  That's kinda hard to square that with your glib characterization that "it was not corrected and the straying continued, apparently, unabated."

Quote

It's really no wonder why members are defensive and can't really fully discuss the topic, choosing instead, as Blue Dreams suggested, to shut it down and leave POC feeling isolated.  It's a real problem that seems apparently even today.  

Part of the problem arises when people come along with intentionally provocative and offensive characterizations of their faith, such as "{your} God was racist."

Good faith discussion with such persons is fairly difficult, and understandably so.  The accusing provocateur is obviously not interested in civil discourse, else he would . . . not play the part of accuser and provocateur.

I have had plenty of frank, substantive discussions about racism pertaining to the Church.  But again, good faith and good will are really important.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2020 by smac97

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How do you know God did not institute the priesthood ban?  

Actually, I do not know if he did.  I have asked him and have gotten only a stupor of thought on that.  I only know that he said the priesthood ban/restriction should be removed, and was removed.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

American capitalism had far more to do with ending slavery then with perpetuating it.

Not conceding that evaluation, but it even if it were accurate, capitalism still helped perpetuate slavery.

In the same way that "marriage" helped perpetuate the abuse of my friend by her husband.  

A husband egregiously distorts and misuses the institution of marriage in mistreating his wife.  That is an indictment of the individual, not of the institution of marriage.

Slaveholders distorted and misuses some aspects of capitalism by holding slaves.  That it an indictment of the slaveholders, not of capitalism.

Quote

These issues are deeply connected to economics. This should be no surprise. People are self-interested.

Agreed.  That's why it's kinda hard to understand why you are attributing evils wrought by slaveholders to an economic system that it inherently incompatible with slavery.

Quote

If slavery could have been ended at no economic cost, it would have been a totally different story.

The cost of ending slavery was measured in much more than treasure.  Much blood was spilt.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2020 by smac97

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

American capitalism had far more to do with ending slavery then with perpetuating it.

If it wasn't capitalistic greed that perpetuated slavery, then what did?  We could debate whether capitalism played a role in ending slavery, but I don't think it played much of a role.  Slavery didn't end because it became unprofitable.  It took the South over 70 years before they could match the slave-era production of cotton.  Let the meet packing plants etc. own slaves today and they would surely turn a capitalistic profit from their "commodities" fairly quickly, industrial revolution and all.  Much of the seed money that funded industrialization, came from slavery profits.  That got us into the game quick and early. 

While I am a fan of capitalism, I can't pretend as if the foundation of slavery didn't help make us the economic powerhouse we are today.  We are at least beholden to give credit to the lives of the slaves who helped build America.  They at least deserve that after all that was taken from them.

Quote

1783 at the end of the American Revolution to 1861, the number of slaves in the United States increased five times over, and all this expansion produced a powerful nation. For white enslavers were able to force enslaved African-American migrants to pick cotton faster and more efficiently than free people. Their practices rapidly transformed the southern states into the dominant force in the global cotton market, and cotton was the world’s most widely traded commodity at the time, as it was the key raw material during the first century of the industrial revolution. The returns from cotton monopoly powered the modernization of the rest of the American economy, and by the time of the Civil War, the United States had become the second nation to undergo large-scale industrialization.

Quote

The second major assumption is that slavery in the United States was fundamentally in contradiction with the political and economic systems of the liberal republic, and that inevitably that contradiction would be resolved in favor of the free-labor North. Sooner or later, slavery would have ended by the operation of historical forces; thus, slavery is a story without suspense. And a story with a predetermined outcome isn’t a story at all.

https://www.nhpr.org/post/without-slavery-would-us-be-leading-economic-power#stream/0

The other half of the story:

https://www.amazon.com/The-Half-Never-Been-Told/dp/046500296X/?tag=wburorg-20

 

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or not.

Plenty of people may feel that physical exercise, healthy eathing, hydration, good sleep patterns, abstaining from harmful/addictive substances, etc. are "useless" in terms of improving their physical and emotional health.  But I think that can be waived off as merely "all a matter of subjective personal opinion."

huh?  Are you saying one's personal opinion about which church is true is as definitive as scientific research in how best to maintain health?  I don't understand your point.  My point is simply, many people who attempt to research to determine the LDS Church's truth claim end up concluding it is not what it claims to be.  That's true for many who have prayed, fasted, pondered too.  

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again with the provocative and profane schtick.  Not impressed.

No, it does not.

Not really.  I cannot attribute evil motives to God.  That is what I find provocative and offensive.

You have mischaracterized the point I raise.  If God is behind the racist policy then whose to say that's evil?  You claim I'm saying God has evil intents.  If God then we simply have to accept that what He does, endorses and thinks is not evil.  So if God decides to implement a racist policy, then that policy is not evil.   

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I find little value in trying to "measure the amount."  

Then why did you claim to know the amount in relation to other amounts when you said:  "these "theories" have been the source of most of the offense given and anger fomented".  I tend to think the policy itself carries more of the blame for the offense.  So I wonder how you measure this amount you claim to know?

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess that could happen.  But we can't really talk about "the ban itself" without heavily qualifying the issue.

That's way too facile for me.

Again, I cannot attribute evil motives to God.  We have historical antecedents for restrictions on the priesthood.  I cannot get on board with the idea of reflexively and automatically attributing such restrictions to evil motives (all the more so when people like you purport to accuse God of having those evil motives).

I didn't talk motives.  The only motives I see talked about are from those who tend to get defensive.  They want to say, apparently, that the motives of those who supported the ban, during the ban's existence, were racist.  Maybe they were simply doing God's bidding?  Seems possible...and puts us back to what Blue Dreams said about getting defensive and making the situation pretty uncomfortable.  

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See here:

Is the limitation of the high priest to "among the first-born descendants of Aaron" something that we can attribute to evil intent?  I don't think so.

You don't have to think so.  I have no interest to get involved in intent, as you seem to keen on.  

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is the current limitation of the priesthood to males something we can attribute to evil intent?  I don't think so.

Was the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews before the Gentiles something we can attribute to evil intent?  I don't think so.

And so on.

I also can't help but note that much of the current agitation about "racism" comes from people who are manifestly opposed to the Church.  They want to stir the pot.  They want to foment discord and animosity, even hatred, in and against the Church.

I disagree they,  particularly if you are talking about me and my intent, simply want an honest thoughtful discussion on history and culture.  They do not want to stir a pot so much as discuss the possibilities simply to arrive at truth.  

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are certainly individuals who fall outside of this category.  Blue Dreams is a good example.  Darius Gray is another.  There is a black sister in my ward with whom I have had some candid discussions.  And others.

But when a long-time critic and opponent of the Church comes along and airly declares that we Latter-day Saints worship a "racist" God, I will resist and speak against that.  Such a person has very little credibility or cachet with me, and instead merely playing the provocateur.

You've missed my point.  I"m simply pointing out to those leaders of the past who made offensive claims, attributing their notions to God, they are the ones who saw God supporting their teaching, thinking God was behind their ideas.  It was their God who was racist.  

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure about that.

Sure seems like it.  Here we are, arguing about statements made 150+ years ago by people long dead.  Statements that have been categorically rejected by the Church.  Statements I have never indicated that I accept. 

nah...I'm thinking just as much of statements made far more recently.  

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the implication sure seems to be there.  

Malarky.  The Church does not teach this.

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse that the Church teaches that its leaders "{do} not even hav the capacity to lead it astray in any way."

Why are you asking me this?  You know the statement.

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their dutt"

Is your issue with "in any way"?  Would you suggest the Lord will let the prophet lead the Church astray in some way?  Which way?  

 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I will hold you to this.  If you don't respond, I will report you to the mods.  I am fine with legitimate critiques and criticisms of my religion.  But highly misleading fabrications will not do.

Yes, we may say that.  Why are you seemingly disparaging that is perplexing.

Don't we want to have errors corrected?  Isn't that a primary function of living prophets and apostles, continuing revelation, etc.?  Why, then, are you complaining about it?

I invite you to do some actual research and study on this issue.  

Part of the problem arises when people come along with intentionally provocative and offensive characterizations of their faith, such as "{your} God was racist."

Good faith discussion with such persons is fairly difficult, and understandably so.  The accusing provocateur is obviously not interested in civil discourse, else he would . . . not play the part of accuser and provocateur.

I have had plenty of frank, substantive discussions about racism pertaining to the Church.  But again, good faith and good will are really important.

Thanks,

-Smac

I"m clearly interested.  It appears you have misunderstood me.  Of course to those leaders who were preaching the offensive things you mention, they were supported by their God.  They were preaching his will.  That's my point.  I'm not sayin git can't be corrected.  Nor that the Church can't move on.  BUt it certainly takes some acknowledgment of the obvious.  

[smac97]

Just now, pogi said:

If it wasn't capitalistic greed that perpetuated slavery, then what did? 

Greed.  Racism.  Wicked traditions passed down through the generations.

The North was capitalistic, too.  Yet slavery was outlawed.

See, e.g., here:

Quote

Many people believe capitalism caused slavery and that government ended it. This is untrue.

Capitalism could not possibly be the cause of slavery because slavery preceded capitalism as the dominant social order in virtually all parts of the world. Slavery was characteristic of the classical civilizations of Athens and Rome and is discussed and defended in much of their great literature. Slavery was practiced without regard to race in Europe, Africa, and Asia, and by Native Americans in North and South America.

Slavery in the United States arose from belief in the myth of African-American racial inferiority, which was reinforced in the South by religious beliefs. In its day-to-day operation, it more closely resembled a government program than a capitalist institution. “Slavery was quintessentially about one person assuming, through brute force and the legalized violence of his government absolute power and authority over another,” wrote Orlando Patterson. “The slave was reduced in law and civic life to a nonperson.”
...
Slavery in the United States was losing its place to the institutions of capitalism around the time of the Civil War. Historians debate whether slavery would have been extinguished by competitive pressures from the capitalist North without a single shot being fired, as it had ended in other nations. Was the Civil War fought, as Abraham Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address, to defend “the proposition that all men are created equal,” or strictly to preserve the union, as Lincoln repeatedly said when campaigning for the Presidency?

Republicans, Robert William Fogel writes, “urged the Northern electorate to vote for them not because it was their Christian duty to free the slaves but in order to prevent slaveholders from seizing land in the territories that rightly belonged to Northern whites, to prevent slaveholders from reducing the wages of Northern workers by inundating Northern labor markets with slaves, and to prevent the ‘slave power’ . . . from seizing control of the American government.” In other words, northerners recognized slavery to be a threat to their businesses because it operated according to principles that were fundamentally incompatible with those of capitalism.

(Emphasis added.)

Just now, pogi said:

We could debate whether capitalism played a role in ending slavery, but I don't think it played much of a role.  Slavery didn't end because it became unprofitable.  It took the South over 70 years before they could match the slave-era production of cotton. 

Huh.  Per this article: "By 1870, freedmen and whites produced as much cotton as the South produced in the slave time of 1860."

Just now, pogi said:

Let the meet packing plants etc. own slaves today and they would surely turn a capitalistic profit from their "commodities" fairly quickly, industrial revolution and all. 

They would turn a profit, perhaps.  But would it be "capitalistic?"  Not really.  Both in principle and practice, slavery is incompatible with capitalism.  See here:

Quote

The fact is that slavery disappeared only as industrial capitalism emerged. And it disappeared first where industrial capitalism appeared first: Great Britain. This was no coincidence. Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.

To begin with, the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery. As we Americans discovered, a belief in the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives cannot long coexist with an institution that condemns some people to bondage merely because of their identity.

But even on purely economic grounds, capitalism rejects slavery because slaves are productive only when doing very simple tasks that can easily be monitored. It’s easy to tell if a slave is moving too slowly when picking cotton. And it’s easy to speed him up. Also, there’s very little damage he can do if he chooses to sabotage the cotton-picking operation.

Compare a cotton field with a modern factory — say, the shipyard that my father worked in as a welder until he retired. My dad spent much of his time welding alone inside of narrow pipes. If you owned the shipyard, would you trust a slave to do such welding• While not physically impossible to monitor and check his work, the cost to the shipyard owner of hiring trustworthy slave-masters to shadow each slave each moment of the day would be prohibitively costly. Much better to have contented employees who want their jobs — who are paid to work and who want to work — than to operate your expensive, complicated, easily sabotaged factory with slaves.

Finally, the enormous investment unleashed by capitalism dramatically increases the demand for workers. (All those factories and supermarkets must be manned.) Even if each individual factory owner wants to enslave his workers, he doesn’t want workers elsewhere to be enslaved, for that makes it more difficult for him to expand his operations. As a group, then, capitalists have little use for slavery.

History supports this truth: Capitalism exterminated slavery.

Yep.

Just now, pogi said:

While I am a fan of capitalism, I can't pretend as if the foundation of slavery didn't help make us the economic powerhouse we are today. 

I'm not persuaded that capitalism is founded on slavery.  The South's slave-labor economy was destroyed by the war, and the North didn't have slavery. 

Slavery was overwhelmingly centered on antebellum cotton production, which was not the foundation of "the economic powerhouse we are today."  See here:

Quote

The rise of capitalism depended, the King Cottoners claim, on the making of cotton cloth in Manchester, England, and Manchester, New Hampshire. The raw cotton, they say, could come only from the South. The growing of cotton, in turn, is said to have depended on slavery. The conclusion—just as our good friends on the left have been saying all these years—is that capitalism was conceived in sin, the sin of slavery.

Yet each step in the logic of the King Cotton historians is mistaken. The enrichment of the modern world did not depend on cotton textiles. Cotton mills, true, were pioneers of some industrial techniques, techniques applied to wool and linen as well. And many other techniques, in iron making and engineering and mining and farming, had nothing to do with cotton. Britain in 1790 and the U.S. in 1860 were not nation-sized cotton mills.

Nor is it true that if a supply chain is interrupted there are no possible substitutes. Such is the theory behind strategic bombing, as of the Ho Chi Minh trail. Yet only in the short run is it "necessary" for a good to come from a particular region by a particular route. A missing link can be replaced, as in fact it was during the blockade of raw cotton from the South during the war. British and other European manufacturers turned to Egypt to provide some of what the South could not.

My sense is that our current prosperity (such as it is, given that we are many trillions in debt) arose consequent to World War II.  Kinda hard to attribute "economic powerhouse"-ism to an institution that had been abolished 80 years before that.

Just now, pogi said:

We are at least beholden to give credit to the lives of the slaves who helped build America. 

Certainly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

From the BSU letter to the NAACP:

I'm quite certain that neither LaVell Edwards nor J. Willard Marriott were literal slave masters.

 

Imagine looking at a building named after an individual that spent a lifetime serving others and seeing nothing but a demographic: sex and race and nationality. These people that have buildings named after them spent their entire lives in service to God and to humanity. Why can’t these individuals see that? Because their minds are infected with a very odd illness: a poisonous ideology which renders all white men as mere villains in the tragedy of European imperialism. It appears to be beyond their ability to look beyond a skin color and a moment in the entire lives of these individuals and see nothing but what offends their hypersensitivity. 

 

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They would turn a profit, perhaps.  But would it be "capitalistic?"  Not really.  Both in principle and practice, slavery is incompatible with capitalism.  See here:

Are you suggesting that the South was not capitalistic?

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

American capitalism is tied to slavery.

Slavery can be associated in any economic system.  Socialism and Communism are not exempt.  Some of the worst cases of slavery right now are in North Korea.  Some of American capitalism is tied to slavery today but not slavery in America but other countries like China.  Slavery is about as old as prostitution.  Probably will be around until Christ comes back. 

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that the South was not capitalistic?

I'm saying that slavery is fundamentally incompatible with free market capitalism.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

No it isn't. I watched a woman cash a welfare check for a month that was $1,600 more than my paycheck. My paycheck was 3200 bucks for the month. I don't work that cheap anymore since Trump became president. But I was pretty irate. I was making 20 bucks an hour and now I don't work for less than 35.

I am talking about the specific woman being referred to with the title originally. 

https://newrepublic.com/article/154404/myth-welfare-queen

There undoubtedly is welfare fraud, as there is tax fraud and other crimes perpetrated by individuals of all economic status. 
 

How much welfare fraud is there actually?  This article suggests it is at least not worst than what you would expect in most organizations.

https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2020/02/the-myth-of-the-welfare-queen/
 

Probably would be a good idea to compare it to other government programs such as fraud in the defense department. 
 

Wiki (all I have time for):

Quote

Welfare fraud, which may include state or federal benefits, is low in incident numbers but widespread geographically, much of it committed by persons other than the benefit recipients; some of it stolen from them or collected after their death by others not entitled to it. Incidents of government program workers stealing or diverting benefits were prosecuted. In 2016, the Office of Investigations for the Social Security Administration received 143,385 allegations and opened 8,048 cases. Of those cases, about 1,162 persons were convicted for crime. Recoveries amounted to $52.6 million, fines to $4.5 million, settlements/judgements to $1.7 million and restitution to $70 million. The estimated savings were $355.7 million.[40]

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm saying that slavery is fundamentally incompatible with free market capitalism.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yet, it existed in it and was perpetuated by it for some time.  Yes, greed (as you say), etc. helped perpetuate slavery, but it is the capitalistic system that nourished greed and allowed it to run rampant.  It is all intertwined.  

What principles of capitalism are not compatible with slavery?  Your quote mentioned that "the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery", but those principles are not the same thing as capitalism per se. 

Quote

As we Americans discovered, a belief in the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives cannot long coexist with an institution that condemns some people to bondage merely because of their identity.

These political principles are partly outlined in the declaration of independence, and yet slavery thrived despite it.  They are more political principles than capitalistic.  They may help capitalism thrive, but they are not capitalistic by definition.  A "belief in the dignity of human beings" does not describe capitalism.  It describes a belief.   

 

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Actually, I do not know if he did.  I have asked him and have gotten only a stupor of thought on that.  I only know that he said the priesthood ban/restriction should be removed, and was removed.

And therein lies the issue.  It's a problem that its an open unanswered question because that means God could have instituted the priesthood ban.  If so, then He is behind the racist policy.