"Love One Another" v. "Black Lives Matter"

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is that the kind of missionary you were?  That’s not how I recall being trained in the MTC. 

I agree that the effort is not to convince others through logic or reason (some religions certainly try that though), but in our church, as you well know, we encourage others to not take our word for it, but to seek spiritual confirmation through study and prayer.  We do not do the convincing - we leave that job up to the Holy Spirit.

No threats, no coercion, no intimidation, no force - just a simple invitation (James 1:5).

 

I'm taking the whole of religious history into consideration when I made that statement.  That is to say there were plenty of times where threats, coercion, intimidation and such were the favored tactics for enforcing and spreading religion.  

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

My conclusion is that my question - is "disproportionate" or "disparate" "outcomes" by race sufficient to prove a charge of racial animus, such as the alleged existence of white "systemic racism" - has gone unanswered the three times I have posed it to you, and by that evidence you are disinclined to answer it.  Fair enough.

A necessary condition to problem solving is having an actual problem to solve.  Suppose one sets about to solve the problem of "systemic racism," by which is meant white racism, but everywhere one looks, one cannot find it - the rules are racially neutral, and they are applied racially neutrally - and everything one tries does not eliminate its alleged symptoms, such as disparate or disproportionate outcomes, then one will begin to suspect the problem isn't the system - one will suspect the problem is whites qua whites.  That reasoning ends in pogroms and holocausts.

It seems wise to me, though I concede many disagree, to find out the truth first, and then see if the problem as originally hypothesized exists.  If disparate or disproportionate outcomes may possibly not be the result of racial animus, but instead be explicable entirely as the normal outworkings of heritable differences in abilities among humans that are in competition with one another for resources, power, reproductive opportunities, pleasure, and popularity, then disparate or disproportionate outcomes may not be symptomatic of "systemic racism," and thus not evidence for its existence.

So, given that the context of my question is what we find in our assessment of news reports and other observations, what is your (working) conclusion, presumably having performed the wise thing?

Edited November 10, 2020 by CV75

[Jared Livesey]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Are you still in the questioning or discovery stage as to whether some people do not like people who have black skin simply because of the color of their skin?

No, and that's not the topic I was speaking on.

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Do you seriously doubt that type of "racism" exists?

No, and that's not the topic I was speaking on.

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

All people are in the same race.

That depends on what we mean by "race."  "Ancestral background" is a more verbose equivalent to what I use "race" to mean. Otherwise, I suppose we might type out "the human subspecies of whites of Northern European descent" and "the human subspecies of Sub-Saharan African Blacks," and so on, instead of using the words "whites," "blacks," and so on.

How would you answer the questions I posed?

Edited November 10, 2020 by Jared Livesey

[Jared Livesey]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So, given that the context of my question is what we find in our assessment of news reports and other observations, what is your (working) conclusion, presumably having performed the wise thing?

Speaking very bluntly, and only because you asked, my working conclusion is to not attempt to engage you in conversation, as it proves fruitless.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Jared Livesey

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Jared Livesey said:

Speaking very bluntly, and only because you asked, my working conclusion is to not attempt to engage you in conversation, as it proves fruitless.

Well, that didn't take long!

[Ahab]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I'm taking the whole of religious history into consideration when I made that statement.  That is to say there were plenty of times where threats, coercion, intimidation and such were the favored tactics for enforcing and spreading religion.  

Yep, useful tactics at appropriate times in appropriate places, but not my favorite tactics.

threat... you're going to die and find out how wrong you are now if you don't change your mind to get rid of your false ideas!!!

coercion... come on, wouldn't you rather be right than as wrong as you are about that idea???

intimidation... surely you're not incapable of changing your mind to get rid of your false ideas

But, alas, my favorite tactic is the softer approach I use by just asking them to pray to God and to keep praying until God tells them what really is true

[Jared Livesey]

 

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, that didn't take long!

No, it does not take long to see that no fruit is forthcoming - the third time was the charm.

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Welcome to religion. 

Still trying to pound the round peg of BLM into the square hole of "religion," eh?

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think you've made the point I've raised. 

I don't think so.

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The effort is not to convince someone through reason, but to force upon everyone dogma.  Using bullying, threats, coercion and intimidation is the historic hallmark of religious tactics.  

Right.  There is a one-to-one correlation between A) Latter-day Saint missionaries respectfully and quietly and solemnly sharing our beliefs with those who are interested in listening, and B) violent rioters, looters, and mobs thronging and threatening passersby.

Yours is an absurd and unserious point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Quote

Not so.  There is no effort to persuade, either through presentation of "dogma" or "reason."  Instead, they they are trying to bully, threaten, coerce and intimidate.

I hope that non-members reading this board don't think Latter-day Saints are racist and bigoted. 

This is part of the nonsense I find disturbing about BLM and its devotees.  I've said nothing that could reasonably be construed as "racist and bigoted," and yet you accuse me of it anyway.  You've weaponized these things, as BLM does.  To silence and intimidate and coerce.

I'll quote this again, as it seems quite germane: "'Black lives matter' is an unassailable moral truism, calculated to bully people into supporting a radical, revolutionary, anti-order movement."

I'm also reporting you to the mods.  Baseless accusations of bigotry and racism should not be a part of this board.

24 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I joined a BLM protest a couple of blocks from my office.  There were thousands of people there.  I hung out with and got to know a black guy and his wife and chlldren.  I held a "BLM" sign.  I could not imagine that I, nor my new friend, were there to "bully, threaten and intimidate."

Good for you.  Nevertheless, there have been extensive and well-documented instances of BLM bullying, threatening, intimidating, etc.  Resorting to violence.  Looting.  Riots.  Threats.  Coercion.

Again: "I am strongly supportive of peaceful protests, and of using legal means to affect political and social change.  Riots, looting, etc. are extremely destructive and counterproductive."

24 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Knowing the hundreds of years of institutionalized outrage against blacks, and then the resulting carpetbagging federalism after the Civil War to disenfranchise blacks, I have a very sympathetic ear to things like reparations and institutional apologies.  

I have said nothing about "reparations and institutional apologies."  I have, instead, condemned violence, threats of violence, looting, etc. 

And in response you have publicly accused me, whom you've never met, of being a bigot and a racist.

This is how BLM works.  You are attempting to coerce me into silence by publicly defaming my character.  Not cool.

-Smac

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

No, and that's not the topic I was speaking on.

No, and that's not the topic I was speaking on.

That depends on what we mean by "race."  "Ancestral background" is a more verbose equivalent to what I use "race" to mean. Otherwise, I suppose we might type out "the human subspecies of whites of Northern European descent" and "the human subspecies of Sub-Saharan African Blacks," and so on, instead of using the words "whites," "blacks," and so on.

How would you answer the questions I posed?

You mean these?...

Is it possible that government policy on a broader scale has a disproportionately negative effect on black citizens and communities, and yet the government policy on a broader scale be neutral with respect to ancestral background?

Hmm, not sure, considering the intended effect of government policies is to negate discrimination due to skin color.  So to me it seems more likely that discrimination is not due to government policy but is instead due to people behaving badly.

If not, why not?  Coverewd above, I believe.

If so, how does ancestral background become relevant to government policy, or, in other words, why are we talking about race?  Covered above, I believe.

 

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

No, it does not take long to see that no fruit is forthcoming - the third time was the charm.

Funny, I asked my question four times. Is there truly no fruit forthcoming?

[stemelbow]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Still trying to pound the round peg of BLM into the square hole of "religion," eh?

I don't think so.

Right.  There is a one-to-one correlation between A) Latter-day Saint missionaries respectfully and quietly and solemnly sharing our beliefs with those who are interested in listening, and B) violent rioters, looters, and mobs thronging and threatening passersby.

Yours is an absurd and unserious point.

Thanks,

-Smac

My point is not in any way suggesting a Mormon missionary is going to be as aggressive as those BLM folks in the video.  But that's not to say religion has not used such tactics of coercion, intimidation and such in, say, Christianity's history.  Indeed, it's gotten much worse than people getting in another's grill.  But I'm trying to be charitable to religion generally.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Um, no, I believe we appeal to people to use reasoning, too.  Logic and reason AND what the Holy Spirit will tell them.  Come now, said Isaiah as he was inspired to say by the Lord, let us reason together.

I am not suggesting that intellectualism and logic have no place, I am suggesting that they are less effective at converting and were not part of our training.  I was trained differently, and I know that you were too. 

I was trained as a missionary to 1) share the word of God, 2) testify of it's truth, and 3) invite other's to pray about it, repent, and follow.  That's it.  That was my mission.  I was never trained in intellectual debate, logic, Bible bashing proficiency, philosophical reason, etc. because that was not our mission. 

Quote

I had only traveled a short time to testify to the people, before I learned this one fact, that you might prove doctrine from the Bible till doomsday, and it would merely convince a people, but would not convert them. You might read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and prove every iota that you advance, and that alone would have no converting influence upon the people. Nothing short of a testimony by the power of the Holy Ghost would bring light and knowledge to them—bring them in their hearts to repentance. Nothing short of that would ever do. You have frequently heard me say that I would rather hear an Elder, either here or in the world, speak only five words accompanied by the power of God, and they would do more good than to hear long sermons without the Spirit. That is true, and we know it (DBY, 330).

Let one go forth who is careful to prove logically all he says by numerous quotations from the revelations, and let another travel with him who can say, by the power of the Holy Ghost, Thus saith the Lord, and tell what the people should believe—what they should do—how they should live, and teach them to yield to the principles of salvation,—though he may not be capable of producing a single logical argument, though he may tremble under a sense of his weakness, cleaving to the Lord for strength, as such men generally do, you will invariably find that the man who testifies by the power of the Holy Ghost will convince and gather many more of the honest and upright than will the merely logical reasoner (DBY, 330).

Debate and argument have not that saving effect that has testifying to the truth as the Lord reveals it to the Elder by the Spirit.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-33?lang=eng

Quote

If our faith is rooted in the sandy soil of reason and logic, it will be swept away by a rising tide driven by the escalating winds of opposition. A faith founded in Jesus Christ and on the rock of revelation will endure through the fiercest storms of life (see Helaman 5:12).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2008/07/coming-to-know-for-ourselves?lang=eng

Quote

 

I still think that it is healthy to ask questions and to pursue answers. However, not having all the answers no longer troubles me. This is because I have chosen to value above all other experiences the many times when I have seen the blessings of the Spirit at work in my life and in the lives of others.

I have come to some important realizations since high school. First, I have learned that faith and intellect are not incompatible. Second, I have come to rely chiefly on spiritual experiences, not intellectual deliberations, as a basis for my testimony. For me, it is the personal experiences of the good fruits of the Spirit that are the most precious, the most difficult to come by, and the most real.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2013/01/faith-and-intellect?lang=eng

 

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by pogi

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My point is not in any way suggesting a Mormon missionary is going to be as aggressive as those BLM folks in the video. 

Um, your "point" has been to characterize BLM as a "religion," and to characterize all religionists as cumulatively culpable for the sins of all religionists everywhere (just as, no doubt, all Japanese are culpable for the Rape of Nanking, all Germans are culpable for the Holocaust, and so on - ain't collective guilt grand?).

I sense you feel you are in a place where you have adopted a worldview - secular humanism - that is morally superior to religions in general, and the Church of Jesus Christ in particular.  I think you are incorrect in that assessment, but I can hardly fault you for thinking your current worldview is superior to that which you have previously abandoned.  To be candid, I admire your effort to find something better, and I hope you continue in that effort.

But I don't think it works to characterize BLM as a religion.  It's not remotely "religious."  It is a sociopolitical movement, heavily marxist in its origins.  

The Church of Jesus Christ sends missionaries to the world to share our beliefs.  You are attempting to equate that to the violence and thuggery associated with BLM (in fact, you've said Christianity is worse than BLM).  I am having a hard time taking that comparison seriously, and not taking it as an attempt to provoke and offend.

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But that's not to say religion has not used such tactics of coercion, intimidation and such in, say, Christianity's history.  Indeed, it's gotten much worse than people getting in another's grill.  But I'm trying to be charitable to religion generally.  

"The point is far more damage has been done, far more deaths have come about because of Christianity, than the damage done and deaths that have come about due to BLM."

This is you being "charitable to religion generally?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

 

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

I was trained as a missionary to 1) share the word of God, 2) testify of it's truth, and 3) invite other's to pray about it, repent, and follow.  That's it.  That was my mission. 

I became a member of the Church shortly after I found out about it but my body was 28 years of age at that time and most people told me I was too old to serve a full-time mission at that age. Better to wait until I could serve a full-time mission with my wife, they said, even though I had not found her yet. I did serve as a stake missionary, though.  The Church still had that program.  We used flip charts and often teamed up with full-time missionaries.  I don't remember much formal training as a missionary for the Church.  I drew a lot upon my experience as a member of another church I had been a member of before I joined the "true" church.

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

I was never trained in intellectual debate, logic, Bible bashing proficiency, philosophical reason, etc. because that was not our mission. 

I think my evangelical background helps me relate to many members of other churches even though that in itself doesn't convey the convincing power of the Holy Spirit.  But I don't want to lose my ability to reason and use good logic.  I just want to add to it.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

Not surprised. This has become customary for you. Making assertions without any facts or sources to back them up. 

I believe you mean I was countering assertions made without facts or sources. No one called out the original assertion that BLM is always involved with the rioting and vandalism but when I point out that the actual literal membership of BLM the official organization is incredibly small and that makes it impossible for them to be present at all criminal activities and suddenly I am expected to have polled everyone at every protest and/or riot to see if they actually belong to the BLM organization and the burden of proof is suddenly entirely on me when I use a logical argument without explicit proof to counter an irrational argument made with even less proof.

It is facile and stupid to make the protests about vandalism when the reality is more....stark.

 

Pearl clutching over property damage is insulting to everyone involved, vile or benign.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If they are not interested, then why are they trying to?  One of the problems is they are trying to win people over through dogma rather than reason.  

They are trying to win people over. Just not the people in this thread tut-tutting about property damage, imaginary commies subverting whole movements, and making it all about them by talking about how “not racist” they are. The well is too poisoned for people like that to understand that the entire movement is not about them or the “Return of the Soviets” or whatever.

[bluebell]

21 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I can google it as easily as you, have at it.

 

 

As you know, that's not how a call for references works on this board.  The person who makes the statement of fact has to be able to back it up if references are requested.  Or they must withdraw the statement.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nevertheless, there have been extensive and well-documented instances of BLM bullying, threatening, intimidating, etc.  Resorting to violence.  Looting.  Riots.  Threats.  Coercion.

There have also been extensive and well-documented instances of police bullying, threatening, intimidating, etc. Resorting to violence. Looting. Riots. Threats. Coercion.

And those have the backing of official sanction. Since that is why we are in the current situation maybe we should fix that first? Or should we ask the people who are being murdered and oppressed to behave and assure them that we can get to their complaints at some undefined point in the future (meaning never). 

A love of order can be a good thing but a love of order at the expense of justice and humanity is at the heart of fascism.

[Jared Livesey]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Hmm, not sure[.]

Ok, you don't know if it is possible for policies to be racially neutral and to be applied racially neutrally and yet have racially disparate or disproportionate outcomes. 

Would you agree that coercing people upon a basis that you aren't sure of is unjust - or, to put it in more actionable terms - do you want people to coerce you over things that may not exist?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Jared Livesey said:

Ok, you don't know if it is possible for policies to be racially neutral and to be applied racially neutrally and yet have racially disparate or disproportionate outcomes. 

Would you agree that coercing people upon a basis that you aren't sure of is unjust - or, to put it in more actionable terms - do you want people to coerce you over things that may not exist?

You use the word coerce.  I would rather use another word... encourage.  Legislating morality isn't a bad thing in itself, as legislators try to encourage people to do good things.  And not discriminating against someone's skin color would be a good thing.

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is part of the nonsense I find disturbing about BLM and its devotees.  I've said nothing that could reasonably be construed as "racist and bigoted," and yet you accuse me of it anyway.  You've weaponized these things, as BLM does.  To silence and intimidate and coerce.

I'll quote this again, as it seems quite germane: "'Black lives matter' is an unassailable moral truism, calculated to bully people into supporting a radical, revolutionary, anti-order movement."

I'm also reporting you to the mods.  Baseless accusations of bigotry and racism should not be a part of this board.

Good for you.  Nevertheless, there have been extensive and well-documented instances of BLM bullying, threatening, intimidating, etc.  Resorting to violence.  Looting.  Riots.  Threats.  Coercion.

Again: "I am strongly supportive of peaceful protests, and of using legal means to affect political and social change.  Riots, looting, etc. are extremely destructive and counterproductive."

I have said nothing about "reparations and institutional apologies."  I have, instead, condemned violence, threats of violence, looting, etc. 

And in response you have publicly accused me, whom you've never met, of being a bigot and a racist.

This is how BLM works.  You are attempting to coerce me into silence by publicly defaming my character.  Not cool.

-Smac

My remark about bigotry and racism was directed to your post, not to you, and it was not baseless.  Nor am I trying to coerce anybody into silence.  Nor could I with you; you say what you want.  Further, it would be interesting if I were banned for mildly sticking up for the premises of the BLM movement. Nor am I defaming you; I have no idea who you are.  

Nonetheless, I apologize for saying anything that could be conceived as directed to you personally.  My posts react to the message not the person.

I am not a BLM devotee.  I do not believe that stating support for BLM means that I support a radical, revolutionary, anti-order movement.  I am a libertarian.  I think that freedom is found in the free expression of controversial ideas.  I support the right for somebody (not you) to say bigoted and racist things about BLM as well as for somebody to stick up for the BLM.

I plead for you to consider the fundamental desires of our black brothers to dig themselves out of hundreds of years of institutionalized persecution. Please develop with me and others a Christian magnaminity about the BLM movement. The movement wants to bring all this history to the attention of the white ruling class.  They want to see change in the way police treat them.   I just think this is a decent objective and I support it.  On the other hand, I support the police and in a law and order policy. 

If there is looting, there ought to be punishment for that.  I support that.   

Edited November 10, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[stemelbow]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Um, your "point" has been to characterize BLM as a "religion," and to characterize all religionists as cumulatively culpable for the sins of all religionists everywhere (just as, no doubt, all Japanese are culpable for the Rape of Nanking, all Germans are culpable for the Holocaust, and so on - ain't collective guilt grand?).

No.  

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I sense you feel you are in a place where you have adopted a worldview - secular humanism - that is morally superior to religions in general, and the Church of Jesus Christ in particular.  I think you are incorrect in that assessment, but I can hardly fault you for thinking your current worldview is superior to that which you have previously abandoned.  To be candid, I admire your effort to find something better, and I hope you continue in that effort.

Ok.  Thanks.  

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But I don't think it works to characterize BLM as a religion.  It's not remotely "religious."  It is a sociopolitical movement, heavily marxist in its origins.  

It acts as a religion would be the way I'd put it.  

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church of Jesus Christ sends missionaries to the world to share our beliefs.  You are attempting to equate that to the violence and thuggery associated with BLM (in fact, you've said Christianity is worse than BLM).  I am having a hard time taking that comparison seriously, and not taking it as an attempt to provoke and offend.

I did no such thing.  I pointed out, there was one video here showing how some protestors were demanding, apparently I didn't watch the whole thing, that another person submit to their dogma...and that video was used to denounce BLM.  I simply pointed out religion itself has used similar moves and tactics...indeed religion has used far more threatening and coercive tactics.  Thus, BLM has acted, as demonstrated in the video, as religion has acted.  I have said nothing of Mormon missionaries.  I acknowledge that religion has also not been so hostile, threatening nor coercive, at times.  But again, that is true of BLM activists as well.  

To this point, it is true, I am not buying the comparison in which people are trying to compare the worst of one with the best of another.  It's a stupid comparison.  

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"The point is far more damage has been done, far more deaths have come about because of Christianity, than the damage done and deaths that have come about due to BLM."

This is you being "charitable to religion generally?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course.  Christianity has inspired the killing of far more people than BLM ever has.  I could be less charitable and point out that the comparison of violence in total is so ridiculously incomparable it's about like filling two jars with the number of indiscretions of each and finding the Christian jar full while the BLM jar is in comparison virtually empty, and I mean so virtually empty anything in it would be imperceptible to the human eye in such a comparison.  

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Nevertheless, there have been extensive and well-documented instances of BLM bullying, threatening, intimidating, etc.  Resorting to violence.  Looting.  Riots.  Threats.  Coercion.

There have also been extensive and well-documented instances of police bullying, threatening, intimidating, etc.

And yet nobody is excusing or rationalizing or justifying that behavior.  Instead, such incidents are investigated, punishments are meted out, lawsuits are filed, big settlements are paid out, and so on.

Our society is not winking at or ignoring or justifying police misconduct.  However, some segments of our society are winking at / ignoring / justifying misconduct by BLM, to the tune of $1-2 billion in property damage, dozens of deaths, hundreds of injuries, and so on.

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And those have the backing of official sanction.

No so.  CFR, please.

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Since that is why we are in the current situation maybe we should fix that first?

Respond to my CFR, and then let's talk.

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Or should we ask the people who are being murdered and oppressed to behave and assure them that we can get to their complaints at some undefined point in the future (meaning never). 

If a police officer is involved in a murder or a wrongful death, that should be investigated.  And if guilt/liability is established, punishment and recompense should be forthcoming.  But rioting, looting, and wanton destruction are not part of that process.

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A love of order can be a good thing but a love of order at the expense of justice and humanity is at the heart of fascism.

Ah.  Bob called me a bigot and a racist.  Now I'm a fascist, too.  Because I oppose violent riots, lootings, and killings of innocents.

Boy, I'm really getting a lesson today on how BLM works.

-Smac

[Jared Livesey]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You use the word coerce.  I would rather use another word... encourage.  Legislating morality isn't a bad thing in itself, as legislators try to encourage people to do good things.  And not discriminating against someone's skin color would be a good thing.

I prefer to call things by their true names.  It helps clarify things.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington