The Truth in Black and White

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This was your answer to someone speaking about a corporate board of directors

A board of directors is a group of people who when they say something are speaking for themselves as individuals whether or not they agree with each other or anyone else.  They do not speak for other people unless other people happen to agree with them.

Just as what you say does not equate to what I say unless what you say is also what I would say myself.  And just as what the apostles of our Lord say does not equate to what other members of the Church say unless what other members of the Church say is also what the apostles of the Lord would say themselves.

So the only way an "entity" speaks is by what the people in that entity say.  ALL of the people in that entity.  Each one of their voices is a voice from that entity.  And that is the only way an entity ever speaks.  Ever.

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yeah.  Someone apologized for what someone else did.  Apparently you are in favor of that kind of thing but I see it as totally irrelevant to how the "someone else" felt or feels about what that "someone else" did.

You could apologize for something I did, for example, and it would be totally irrelevant to how I felt about what I did.  Your apology for me would not equate to an apology from me.  So why would you do it?  I would see it as silly.

Actually, the Kansas City Star apologized for what it had done. Consider the following questions:

1- Is the Kansas Star a thing? Or is it merely a collection of people and it's nonsensical to refer to it as an entity in its own right?

2- If it is an entity in its own right, does that entity do things? For example, if I said, "The Kansas City Star covers the Chiefs," would you object and say, "No, the Kansas City Star can't cover the Chiefs. It can't do anything! Only people do things--not abstract organizations!" Or would you not take issue with the claim that the Kansas City Star can do things, such as "cover the Chiefs"? 

3- If you agree that the Kansas City Star can do things, can we ever make value judgments about what it does? Would it be wrong, for example, for it to knowingly publish hurtful lies?

4- If you agree that we can make value judgments about what the Kansas City Star does, can the Kansas City Star strive to make moral decisions? Can it have values? If so, why can't it apologize when it falls short of its own values?

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Actually, the Kansas City Star apologized for what it had done.

No, someone associated with the Kansas City Star apologized for something someone else associated with the Kansas City Star did.  

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Consider the following questions:

1- Is the Kansas Star a thing? Or is it merely a collection of people and it's nonsensical to refer to it as an entity in its own right?

It is a thing but it doesn't say anything other than what the people associated with it say, and the people associated with it have and may have different opinions and say different things even if that means they don't all agree with each other.

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

2- If it is an entity in its own right, does that entity do things? For example, if I said, "The Kansas City Star covers the Chiefs," would you object and say, "No, the Kansas City Star can't cover the Chiefs. It can't do anything! Only people do things--not abstract organizations!" Or would you not take issue with the claim that the Kansas City Star can do things, such as "cover the Chiefs"? 

The operations of the Kansas City Star (KCS) are carried out by people who work for the KCS as agents of the KCS and the KCS doesn't ever say anything other than what the agents of the KCS say.  Ever.  And they don't all agree with each other.

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

3- If you agree that the Kansas City Star can do things, can we ever make value judgments about what it does? Would it be wrong, for example, for it to knowingly publish hurtful lies?

The people who work for the KCS who say things may sometimes feel the desire to apologize but that doesn't mean the people who work for the KCS who did not say those things should apologize for what others who work for the KCS say.

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

4- If you agree that we can make value judgments about what the Kansas City Star does, can the Kansas City Star strive to make moral decisions? Can it have values? If so, why can't it apologize when it falls short of its own values?

You seem insistent on thinking of the KCS as an entity of only one person but the KCS is not only one person or comprised of only one person.  And the actions of each person should be weighed as the actions of each person who acted.

So, in your OP you simply pointed out someone of the KCS who apologized for something someone else of the KCS did, with no apparent apology from that someone else of the KCS.  And if anyone is going to apologize for what that someone else did, it should be that someone else who did that.  And since that someone else did not apologize, the apology is just an act of silly office politics.

[Analytics]

24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, someone associated with the Kansas City Star apologized for something someone else associated with the Kansas City Star did.  

It is a thing but it doesn't say anything other than what the people associated with it say, and the people associated with it have and may have different opinions and say different things even if that means they don't all agree with each other.

The operations of the Kansas City Star (KCS) are carried out by people who work for the KCS as agents of the KCS and the KCS doesn't ever say anything other than what the agents of the KCS say.  Ever.  And they don't all agree with each other.

The people who work for the KCS who say things may sometimes feel the desire to apologize but that doesn't mean the people who work for the KCS who did not say those things should apologize for what others who work for the KCS say.

You seem insistent on thinking of the KCS as an entity of only one person but the KCS is not only one person or comprised of only one person.  And the actions of each person should be weighed as the actions of each person who acted.

So, in your OP you simply pointed out someone of the KCS who apologized for something someone else of the KCS did, with no apparent apology from that someone else of the KCS.  And if anyone is going to apologize for what that someone else did, it should be that someone else who did that.  And since that someone else did not apologize, the apology is just an act of silly office politics.

If I said, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that children shouldn't be baptized until they are eight," would you respond by saying, "That's nonsense! The Church doesn't teach anything because it can't teach anything! Only people can teach things!" 

[gopher]

22 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

As a long time dedicated Saint, I can say that I don' tthink the Church (i.e., members of the First Presidency from John Taylor forward) understood the reason for the priesthood ban.  Only Brigham Young knew.  I don't think his trusted right hand man, HCK, knew.  Both President McKay and President Kimball searched the church records (or caused that they be searched by archivists) looking for the basis for the ban and couldn't find it.  

What does that mean or imply?

1.  Some things are done in the church without revelation, and may be mistakes.  OR

2.  All things are done in the church by revelation where the President of the Church is involved, and he doesn't make mistakes OR

3.  Some things done by the President of the Church are mistakes, as he is just a man and we don't claim infalliability.  That, thus, casts considerable doubt over all actions by the President of the Church.

Interesting thoughts, thanks.

Since we are left to speculate, it seems believing members can be confident in speculating that the priesthood ban was approved by God at least to some degree.  It's hard to believe He would allow His prophets to disobey Him for over a hundred years until the ban was lifted.  I'm sure at least one of the prophets would have been swallowed by a whale for disobeying Him.

I live in an area with lots of black members (so, obviously NOT Utah), but I haven't heard them talk much about the ban.  Maybe it's because they don't have time to think about it since they are too busy serving as Stake Presidents, Bishops, EQ Presidents, etc.  It's a brilliant move by the church to keep them distracted from joining the mostly white people that constantly complain about the ban.

Also, since you misspelled "infallibility" in your post, I will no longer assume you are infallible in your postings.

[gopher]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why? Does anyone still like him enough now to bother? I mean, I still like him a little but there aren’t many of us.

The article wasn't about liking him.  The author said he wouldn't vote for Romney because he was a Mormon.

"I wouldn’t vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism."

"Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I don’t want him running the country."

I'm disappointed church members didn't show how much hurt and pain the article caused by setting fires to cars, looting stores, and attacking law enforcement.  Couldn't someone at least have pushed over a trash can in protest?  I'm sure the church ran Book of Mormon ads on Slate instead.  That's why the church will never join the list of preferred oppressed minority groups.

[gopher]

21 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Some of us are still bitter that they were declared national champions with such a weak schedule (they only played one ranked team during the season).  Fortunately, that injustice will likely never occur again.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/21/2020 at 6:06 AM, Analytics said:

I would suggest that in general, you shouldn't demand an apology from somebody as a condition of forgiving them, much less as a condition for not harboring resentment and ill will.

The Kansas City Star offered a great apology because it wasn't done in an effort to appease outside forces--black or white--that were upset it had done wrong and were threatening to harm it economically if it didn't bend to their demands. Rather, it came from within.

If you were to come visit me in Kansas City, I'd show you Ward Parkway and the Plaza and the beautiful parts on the city that J.C. Nichols built. You'd sense the reverence I actually feel for him and that part of his legacy. But I'd also take you across Troost and show you where Henry Perry and Arthur Bryant started the American BBQ craze. I'd take you to the Negro League baseball museum. We'd go to the Blue Room and hear world class jazz, and then go over to the American Jazz Museum and learn how Kansas City is right up there with Chicago and New Orleans as one of the cradles of this sophisticated music. 

My point is that for generations, the [white] readers of the Kansas City Star were barely aware of the rich culture that was taking place on the other half of the city, much less in a position to appreciate it. So not only were black people hurt by how the Kansas City Star reported the news, its white readers were hurt too. The Star's apology shined light on the fact that a big group of the victims didn't even know they were victims. By apologizing, it educated the world about how it fell short of its own values, and enriched its readers by doing so.

How do you know it “came from within”? I submit it is not possible at this juncture to know what political forces they were responding/pandering to. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

Some of us are still bitter that they were declared national champions with such a weak schedule (they only played one ranked team during the season).  Fortunately, that injustice will likely never occur again.

As I recall, LaVell  Edwards had a pretty good response to such griping back then. He said (paraphrasing here), We won all our games. What do you expect from us? 

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

If I said, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that children shouldn't be baptized until they are eight," would you respond by saying, "That's nonsense! The Church doesn't teach anything because it can't teach anything! Only people can teach things!" 

I would probably let it go unless I was trying to explain why that statement didn't make good sense as the "appropriate" thing to say, such as I am trying to explain to you now in this thread about whether or not a form of speech is appropriate, while understanding how it actually works.  And I will try to explain this to you again now:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an entity consisting of 11 million + people and there are some members who do NOT teach that children shouldn't be baptized until they are eight (I'm guessing you mean 8 years old), so whether or not you would agree with those people, I will now ask you this question:  Does it seem right to you that some one individual person is presuming to state what 11 million + members of that Church teach?  Imagine for a moment that one or more of those members did not teach that.  Can you now tell me what would be the appropriate thing to say?  I'm thinking something like:  Most of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach that children shouldn't be baptized until they are eight years old, I think THAT would be a true statement and an appropriate thing to say.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, gopher said:

The article wasn't about liking him.  The author said he wouldn't vote for Romney because he was a Mormon.

"I wouldn’t vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism."

"Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I don’t want him running the country."

I'm disappointed church members didn't show how much hurt and pain the article caused by setting fires to cars, looting stores, and attacking law enforcement.  Couldn't someone at least have pushed over a trash can in protest?  I'm sure the church ran Book of Mormon ads on Slate instead.  That's why the church will never join the list of preferred oppressed minority groups.

Yes, some people not wanting to elect one of your group to the highest office in the land is definitely analogous to having members of your group extrajudicially murdered by law enforcement.

If only there were some similar instances in our history of enduring government persecution as a people so that we could show sympathy. I wish, and I know this is oddly specific, that my great-great grandfather had been involved in literally leading a group of armed men to ambush and burn US army wagons in an act of defiance against government persecution. If only..........alas.