DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism? - Part 2

[Avatar4321]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

From the January 1988 Ensign:

Thanks,

-Smac

“We also declare that the gospel of Jesus Christ, restored to his Church in our day, provides the only way to a mortal life of happiness and a fullness of joy forever.”

I think that sums up my point nicely. Thank you

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Quote

From the January 1988 Ensign:

Thanks,

-Smac

“We also declare that the gospel of Jesus Christ, restored to his Church in our day, provides the only way to a mortal life of happiness and a fullness of joy forever.”

I think that sums up my point nicely. Thank you

I happily concur with that.

My point was that we do not have an all-or-nothing situation here.  There are many "righteous" people who are not members of the Church, who are not Christian.  Many of these have had no meaningful access to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Can we really say that they are not on the "righteous path?"

I am reminded here of the story of Emeth from The Last Battle the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series by C.S. Lewis. Emeth is a Calormene character was raised to follow Tash, the antithesis of Aslan, and did so with an emphatic devotion and loyalty. Nevertheless, Emeth manages to travel to Aslan's paradisaical country after the destruction of Narnia, and is welcomed by Aslan. Aslan's words to Emeth, in which he ratifies the good deeds the latter did even under the name of Tash, are as follows: "I take to me the services which thou hast done to Tash {the false God}... if any man swear by him and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me {Christ} that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him."

The implication is that people who reflect a righteous heart are to some degree justified, regardless of misbelief. This is a cornerstone of Christian theology: one party cites the Christian paradigm that faith in Christ alone saves, and the other wants to account for the fate of those born and raised into another faith. There has been extensive commentary on the question. In a letter from 1952, Lewis summarized and explained his position: "I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god, or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. In the parable of the Sheep and Goats those who are saved do not seem to know that they have served Christ."

I think C.S. Lewis was essentially correct in his soteriology, a view which I think is widely shared amongst the Latter-day Saints. While the saving ordinances for the "Emeths" of this world will be necessary (just as they are necessary for those who are raised with an actual knowledge of and testimony of Christ), the countless numbers of God's children who have lived and died on this earth without having had a chance to hear about and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior will nevertheless have the same access to the Restored Gospel and the salvation that comes through it as is available to those of us to are given a chance to hear and accept the Gospel.

In short, if a person is good and decent, he should keep moving forward in what he understands as the best way to serve God and his fellow brothers and sisters.  The Lord will sort things out in the end.

Thanks,

-Smac

d

Edited December 11, 2020 by smac97

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

An important element that you’re leaving out of your thought process on this is that the Constitution of the United States is the only system of government on the earth that’s inspired of God, and that by being loyal to the Constitution of the United States, and loyal to the United States itself, one is being loyal to the designs and will of God. In fact, in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord himself commands his people to to befriend, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. People who think as you do are going to have a tough time convincing patriotic American Latter-Day Saints that they don’t have a sacred responsibility to uphold and defend the United States as a land established by God himself as a bulwark of liberty in a world that’s rapidly throwing away the sacred principle of the God given sovereign rights of men.

The original constitution or the one we have now? God "suffered" the constitution to be established and God allowed it to be established by those he inspired and also clarified as to what it is for (rights and protection of all flesh, that everyone has freedom to act, and that no one should be in bondage to another). Odd that God said that at a time where the Constitution explicitly allowed people to be in explicit bondage to one another. It is not endorsement of the constitution as a whole. It is an endorsement of its necessity in allowing the Church to rise here (and then were only barely tolerated) and only as much as it brings freedom.

I like the Constitution. It is amazing to me that the (to use a software term) alpha version of modern democratic government has endured so long. In many respects it is brilliant. In others it is very lackluster. In a few ways it is just dated. The principles that God wants in it I endorse and I think I am a patriot. I love the stories of the early days even after the shine rubbed off with the reality of the flaws in everything becoming clearer as I learned more. I love the story. A nation rejects monarchy in a slap to the face of Europe. They envision a republic that is not focused on a specific ethnicity. It was flawed at first as often only the middle class and up could vote in many states and bound down with the shame of slavery and the native american genocide and the promise of acceptance limited largely to those of European descent but the kernel was there. It was a beginning. The promise started to broaden. The regressives who wanted slavery to endure were defeated. We take a few steps forward and regularly backslide but the core of the story is beautiful.

That is not nationalism though. Nationalism is a love of nation. Patriotism is a love of ideals. Nationalism is toxic. Flags and pageantry and symbols can be great if they represent ideals. If they are worshipped alone divorced from those ideals then we might as well go back to monarchies or step forward into fascism.

24 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

You don’t want people coming back to the Church because it embraces loyalty to the Kingdom of God?

why not?

Cute.

[Meadowchik]

32 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Christ said there was one “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6

So again, what other righteous path is there?

Does that path only exist as membership one specific group?

If so, how is that consistent with Christ's teachings?

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Does that path only exist as membership one specific group?

If so, how is that consistent with Christ's teachings?

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which. leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

I like the idea of a broader salvation and even believe in it but there is evidence backing a strait narrow way.

I would argue that narrow way is the general path of salvation. Elder Scott used to talk a lot about the general plan of salvation and the individual one. The general plan applies to all but it is a small part of it in many ways. The rest is individualized. There was a great line from Joseph Smith who said (I am paraphrasing because I cannot find it) that everyone must be brought into conformity with God's will in their own way. There are laws I have to follow that may not apply to others. If I go too far down this path I will fall into heresy and I already had 911 called on me in another thread for bringing up the danger of heresy.  

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which. leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

I like the idea of a broader salvation and even believe in it but there is evidence backing a strait narrow way.

I would argue that narrow way is the general path of salvation. Elder Scott used to talk a lot about the general plan of salvation and the individual one. The general plan applies to all but it is a small part of it in many ways. The rest is individualized. There was a great line from Joseph Smith who said (I am paraphrasing because I cannot find it) that everyone must be brought into conformity with God's will in their own way. There are laws I have to follow that may not apply to others. If I go too far down this path I will fall into heresy and I already had 911 called on me in another thread for bringing up the danger of heresy.  

What does a narrow gate have to do with membership in one specific group?

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The original constitution or the one we have now? God "suffered" the constitution to be established and God allowed it to be established by those he inspired and also clarified as to what it is for (rights and protection of all flesh, that everyone has freedom to act, and that no one should be in bondage to another). Odd that God said that at a time where the Constitution explicitly allowed people to be in explicit bondage to one another. It is not endorsement of the constitution as a whole. It is an endorsement of its necessity in allowing the Church to rise here (and then were only barely tolerated) and only as much as it brings freedom.

I like the Constitution. It is amazing to me that the (to use a software term) alpha version of modern democratic government has endured so long. In many respects it is brilliant. In others it is very lackluster. In a few ways it is just dated. The principles that God wants in it I endorse and I think I am a patriot. I love the stories of the early days even after the shine rubbed off with the reality of the flaws in everything becoming clearer as I learned more. I love the story. A nation rejects monarchy in a slap to the face of Europe. They envision a republic that is not focused on a specific ethnicity. It was flawed at first as often only the middle class and up could vote in many states and bound down with the shame of slavery and the native american genocide and the promise of acceptance limited largely to those of European descent but the kernel was there. It was a beginning. The promise started to broaden. The regressives who wanted slavery to endure were defeated. We take a few steps forward and regularly backslide but the core of the story is beautiful.

That is not nationalism though. Nationalism is a love of nation. Patriotism is a love of ideals. Nationalism is toxic. Flags and pageantry and symbols can be great if they represent ideals. If they are worshipped alone divorced from those ideals then we might as well go back to monarchies or step forward into fascism.

Cute.

Why is loving the Kingdom of God toxic? Isn’t that what we are supposed to do?

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Does that path only exist as membership one specific group?

If so, how is that consistent with Christ's teachings?

Christ was quite clearly that that way is strait and narrow.

Why don’t you tell me what other righteous path is there? Why do you think we spend so much time doing missionary work and redeeming the dead if there is another righteous way?

someone asked Joseph if only the “Mormons would be saved” and he said yes and many of them will be condemned too unless they repent and follow Christ

 

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Christ was quite clearly that that way is strait and narrow.

Why don’t you tell me what other righteous path is there? Why do you think we spend so much time doing missionary work and redeeming the dead if there is another righteous way?

someone asked Joseph if only the “Mormons would be saved” and he said yes and many of them will be condemned too unless they repent and follow Christ

 

You believe Christ taught that. We do not know. Others believe God taught other things. They do not know either. I am not arguing that people should not believe, but that some humility and respect for others convictions is in order.  

I think that any path where someone is trying to do according to what they know to be good is a righteous path, and that righteousness is a process of learning and correction. I believe (now and when I was believing LDS) that any person working such a process can be valiant and close to God regardless of their knowledge of the church.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Why is loving the Kingdom of God toxic? Isn’t that what we are supposed to do?

I wasn’t talking about the kingdom of God unless you think the United States is the kingdom of God in which case, wow!

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What does a narrow gate have to do with membership in one specific group?

It is highly suggestive of an organization or group you have to find.

[Duncan]

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

An important element that you’re leaving out of your thought process on this is that the Constitution of the United States is the only system of government on the earth that’s inspired of God, and that by being loyal to the Constitution of the United States, and loyal to the United States itself, one is being loyal to the designs and will of God. In fact, in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord himself commands his people to to befriend, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. People who think as you do are going to have a tough time convincing patriotic American Latter-Day Saints that they don’t have a sacred responsibility to uphold and defend the United States as a land established by God himself as a bulwark of liberty in a world that’s rapidly throwing away the sacred principle of the God given sovereign rights of men.

how do you know that God didn't inspire other Governments? the US owes its existence, for better or worse, to other Governments.

I have never read the constitution and probably most of the Earth's population hasn't either. Are we not conforming to God's will? Why should you read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms anymore than I should read your thing?

[Islander]

On 12/8/2020 at 10:31 AM, bluebell said:

How do we tell the difference between dumb kids being immature (as you describe it) and dumb kids being immature that are actually racist?

I am a ae comer to this thread but here are my two cents.

It is quite simple; there is no excuse for sin. Any and all conduct that is contrary to what is explicitly declared within the Gospel of Christ is sin and cause for repentance. I suggest that adults have no room or license to be "dumb" under no circumstance. 

Issues like this prove, to the world, that we are NOT really that different from the garden variety Christians or even the "world" itself. After all, we are sinful, broken and grossly imperfect human beings in desperate need of repentance and a Savior. The sooner we ALL recognize that the sooner we can drop all debate, contention an politicking which we should abhor and avoid at all cost. The Savior expressed total disregard for the politics of His time. We should do the same and concentrate on the calling to do His work. 

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, Islander said:

I am a ae comer to this thread but here are my two cents.

It is quite simple; there is no excuse for sin. Any and all conduct that is contrary to what is explicitly declared within the Gospel of Christ is sin and cause for repentance. I suggest that adults have no room or license to be "dumb" under no circumstance. 

Issues like this prove, to the world, that we are NOT really that different from the garden variety Christians or even the "world" itself. After all, we are sinful, broken and grossly imperfect human beings in desperate need of repentance and a Savior. The sooner we ALL recognize that the sooner we can drop all debate, contention an politicking which we should abhor and avoid at all cost. The Savior expressed total disregard for the politics of His time. We should do the same and concentrate on the calling to do His work. 

Then why are you here instead of doing that?

[Damien the Leper]

On 12/11/2020 at 6:14 AM, teddyaware said:

An important element that you’re leaving out of your thought process on this is that the Constitution of the United States is the only system of government on the earth that’s inspired of God, and that by being loyal to the Constitution of the United States, and loyal to the United States itself, one is being loyal to the designs and will of God. In fact, in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord himself commands his people to to befriend, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. People who think as you do are going to have a tough time convincing patriotic American Latter-Day Saints that they don’t have a sacred responsibility to uphold and defend the United States as a land established by God himself as a bulwark of liberty in a world that’s rapidly throwing away the sacred principle of the God given sovereign rights of men.

John Adams was 100% inspired when he said the U.S. is in no way founded on the Christian religion.

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

John Adams was 100% inspired when he said the U.S. is in no way founded on the Christian religion.

John Adams was 100% inspired when he said "our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people," and that "it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Thanks,

Smac

[Kenngo1969]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

John Adams was 100% inspired when he said "our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people," and that "it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Thanks,

Smac

I don't want to derail the thread, but I went looking for the quote from President Adams and found this, which I think is interesting.  Thanks to our Catholic friends.   https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/history/misquoting-our-founding-fathers.html

[Dan McClellan]

On 12/8/2020 at 10:30 AM, Ipod Touch said:

"DezNat are White Nationalist!" is just another form of "anyone I disagree with is a racist."

No, it's not.

Quote

"Progress" and "tolerance" are the new civil religion. 

No, they're not. 

Quote

We've spent decades telling people that if they sing along with a rap song that uses the N-word, they are the same as David Duke.

No, we haven't. We've been telling people that using that word is wrong and that you shouldn't do it, but that's a far, far cry from being David Duke. The collapsing of the vast disparity between casual racism and formal and programmatic white supremacy is nothing more than a petty rhetorical ploy intended to make it easier to dismiss concerns for casual racism. The reason is that a lot of folks are comfortable with casual racism and don't like being made to feel like there's anything about their behavior they should change. Rationalizations follow, and white folks gin up these silly rhetorical ploys because they're upset about Black folks having any say in where the lines of racism are drawn. White folks not liking to be made feel like there's anything about their behavior they need to change is also behind the redefinition of "racism" since the Civil Rights Movement as personal prejudice rather than an institutional and structural issue (https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/courses/PSYC-309-clwilkins/week14/Unzueta2008.pdf). We're all just playing identity politics, but some people are more informed about it, and others just expect white identity politics to remain authoritative.

Quote

Are we at all surprised that today's youth are rebelling against this extreme moral panic? 

They're not. They're following the lead of older generations, they're just getting more organized about it. 

Quote

And how do they rebel?  They use words and say things that they know will cause adults to clutch pearls and cry: Muh Racism!

That's nothing more than a petty and naive rationalization and defense of young white folks arrogating to themselves over and against Black folks the prerogative to decide where the lines of racism are drawn. 

[Dan McClellan]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't want to derail the thread, but I went looking for the quote from President Adams and found this, which I think is interesting.  Thanks to our Catholic friends.   https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/history/misquoting-our-founding-fathers.html

That website's position is quite problematic. 18th-century conceptualizations of "religion" can't just be imported wholesale into 21st-century discourse without any kind of reorientation. They meant very different things. Deists and other rationalists very commonly appealed to "religion," Providence, the Divine, and many other concepts without referring remotely to a biblical and revelatory concept of Christianity. Adams refers to "Providence" in the very letter from which that "moral and religious people" quote is drawn. Adams identified as a Christian through most of his life, but he viewed reason as supreme (a thoroughly deist position), explicitly blamed organized Christianity for many of society's woes, and rejected the divinity of Christ in favor of Unitarianism. People who blithely deploy quotes from the founders about religion in order to defend Christian nationalism don't understand what the founders were saying. Until we make a concerted effort to actually understand them in their contexts, we're just playing naive identity politics.

[Dan McClellan]

On 12/8/2020 at 10:43 AM, Ipod Touch said:

I'm not sure it matters.   People believe all sorts of stupid stuff.  Especially when they are young. 

Differentiating between young adults that are just naive and young adults that are consciously promoting white supremacy absolutely matters. This isn't just "stupid stuff," it's the single largest threat to domestic tranquility our nation faces right now. If we don't teach young adults that participating in white supremacist movements is wrong, they're just going to become adults who participate in white supremacist movements. 

[Dan McClellan]

On 12/8/2020 at 11:07 AM, Ipod Touch said:

There is no legitimate use of the N-word by a Latter-day Saint, or anyone else.

Having said that, I don't think someone who uses the word (especially when young, stupid, and "edgy") is a budding Klan member. 

Nobody said everyone who uses the word is a budding Klan member, but it directly serves the interests of the white supremacist movement to frame anti-racism precisely as "everyone who uses the word is a budding Klan member," or "the same as David Duke." Let's not employ rhetoric that serves the white supremacist agenda. 

[Dan McClellan]

On 12/11/2020 at 11:45 AM, Avatar4321 said:

Why is loving the Kingdom of God toxic?

Because they referred to the Constitution and the United States, and neither are the Kingdom of God.

[Ipod Touch]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

That's nothing more than a petty and naive rationalization and defense of young white folks arrogating to themselves over and against Black folks the prerogative to decide where the lines of racism are drawn.

Ok Boomer

Your pearl clutching illustrates the point.  Absurd moral outrage doesn't help solve the problem of actual racism and actual white supremacy.  Much easier to attack young people than actually do the hard work of trying to address these social ills.  But continue to virtue signal, Dan. 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Ipod Touch

[Ipod Touch]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

Nobody said everyone who uses the word is a budding Klan member

Tell that to the young man who said the N-word in a google document in High School and then lost his admittance to Harvard.  Students claimed his presence on campus would "literally threaten their safety."  That is absolutely insane.

Or tell it to the young lady who was invited up on stage to sing a song with Kendrick Lamar.  The song included the N-word.  Lamar set this girl up and then took the time to publicly shame her for singing the lyrics of his own song!  Get out of here with your nonsense that there isn't absolute moral panic about this.  If we can't differentiate between the jackholes of "Patriot Prayer" using the word, and a young person using the word singing a song or trying to be edgy, we are being incredibly foolish and unnecessarily hurting young people.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-44209141

When I was 20, I opposed gay marriage.  I once told someone "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."  Looking back, I am embarrassed I ever said this.  And I"m just glad moral busy-bodies like yourself weren't around to hear it, and then use it to "cancel" me because I represent a threat to society.  I was a young stupid kid.  I said a stupid thing.  It is disgusting that YOU are willing to destroy the lives of young people because you (absurdly) think that they represent and existential threat.

And you are literally accusing DezNat of being white nationalists because they use a stupid hash tag.  You are accusing young people of being racists and not just young and stupid.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Ipod Touch

[Ipod Touch]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

This isn't just "stupid stuff," it's the single largest threat to domestic tranquility our nation faces right now. If we don't teach young adults that participating in white supremacist movements is wrong, they're just going to become adults who participate in white supremacist movements. 

This is absolute nonsense.

You are illustrating our current moral panic.  A young adult being edgy and saying stupid things isn't "the single largest threat to domestic tranquility."  Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

Give me a break and get out of your bubble.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Ipod Touch