Jump to content

The Truth in Black and White


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I am not your secretary, and you should apologize personally.  I think it's a bit silly for someone to apologize for what someone else said or did.  I hope my example helps you to see that.

I apologize for the quoted post.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

People are the entities on this planet who do all of the "talking" and a corporation is not a person, even though silly man-made laws treat and define a corporation as a person. 

And that means that even if a person says a corporation is "talking" or can "talk" it is only the person who says that who is doing the talking. 

Master that concept.

You have not mastered what had been accepted for centuries.  Although a corporation is a fictive entity, it is an entity.  It speaks.  It operates.   Why do you insist upon arguing such an easy principle, and why do I waste my time with your posts?

Link to post
2 hours ago, Analytics said:

According to the publisher of the Star, frankly confessing your own history and coming to terms with it was a moral obligation for them. They did it hoping it would help them move forward and be a better paper. They suggest that other organizations should go through this same process to "get the poison out." According to their line of thinking, to the extent the Church is guilty of similar misdeeds it should apologize not only because it is a moral obligation, but also because doing so will help it heal and move forward and be better. The main people this would benefit is its leaders, members, and the broader community.

Of course an argument can be made that it's better to leave the sins of the past in the past and just move forward without a confession. If the Church continues with that that approach, we can all see the irony in a Church that exhorts its members to confess their sins to the Church isn't willing to confess its own sins to the members.

Maybe.  I don't really know.   I can't see the Church apologizing for the racist comments of prior leaders.  I don't support what they said, nor defend them.  But they're dead and the Church is not.  

In the Reed Smoot hearings, President JF Smith told the Senate he wasn't going to follow the Manifesto-directed agreement with the government because he feared his wives more than God.  That was his personal reaction to the Manifesto.  Contrary to Church doctrine.  I don't see how that would affect the Church today.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You have not mastered what had been accepted for centuries.  Although a corporation is a fictive entity, it is an entity.  It speaks.  It operates.   Why do you insist upon arguing such an easy principle, and why do I waste my time with your posts?

This is just another one of those instances in which each one of us feels in our hearts:  "YOU are wrong and I am right" while we each suppose the other will probably never change his mind.  

Merry Christmas!

Link to post
15 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Maybe.  I don't really know.   I can't see the Church apologizing for the racist comments of prior leaders.  I don't support what they said, nor defend them.  But they're dead and the Church is not.  

In the Reed Smoot hearings, President JF Smith told the Senate he wasn't going to follow the Manifesto-directed agreement with the government because he feared his wives more than God.  That was his personal reaction to the Manifesto.  Contrary to Church doctrine.  I don't see how that would affect the Church today.

I don't think we are merely talking about racist comments made by members of the Church. We are also talking about racist policies, procedures, and doctrines that were instigated by the Church itself.

The point isn't for me to dictate the terms of an acceptable apology and insist that Church jumps through whatever apology hoops I come up with. Rather, the point is for the Church to do its own research into its own past, and to frankly and honestly tell the membership and other stakeholders the truth it discovers. And if it finds that it hasn't lived up to its own ideals, to offer whatever apology it thinks is appropriate. It really isn't about the Church trying to appease me. It is about the Church going through this noble exercise for the betterment of itself and the benefit of its members.

I can't see the Church doing that either, of course, so there isn't much of a point arguing about how it should do something that is so fundamentally against its own nature. My point is to use the Kansas City Star as a case study in a corporate apology. I don't believe anybody was clamoring for the Star to apologize, and it could have apologized without making such a detailed confession and analysis of its own misdeeds. But it chose to do so. It is interesting.

Link to post
42 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't think we are merely talking about racist comments made by members of the Church. We are also talking about racist policies, procedures, and doctrines that were instigated by the Church itself.

The point isn't for me to dictate the terms of an acceptable apology and insist that Church jumps through whatever apology hoops I come up with. Rather, the point is for the Church to do its own research into its own past, and to frankly and honestly tell the membership and other stakeholders the truth it discovers. And if it finds that it hasn't lived up to its own ideals, to offer whatever apology it thinks is appropriate. It really isn't about the Church trying to appease me. It is about the Church going through this noble exercise for the betterment of itself and the benefit of its members.

I can't see the Church doing that either, of course, so there isn't much of a point arguing about how it should do something that is so fundamentally against its own nature. My point is to use the Kansas City Star as a case study in a corporate apology. I don't believe anybody was clamoring for the Star to apologize, and it could have apologized without making such a detailed confession and analysis of its own misdeeds. But it chose to do so. It is interesting.

I don't think the Church has a clue as to why Brigham Young excluded blacks from the priesthood.   I have spent some time researching the issue along with Dr. Armand Mauss, and have concluded that Brigham Young instituted the policy to try and persaude the Southern states to vote to admit Utah as a state under the Missouri Compromise.  At the time, the territory was under immense pressure for oppressive federal appointees, who would disappear if Utah became a state, and Pres. Young was miserably concealing the practice of plural marriage.  Whatever Pres. Young planned, it didn't work.

Now perhaps the poster known as Ahab can offer his enlightened view of corporate and religous practices at this point to argue that the Church is not an entity at all, and that whatever Pres. Young thought is irrelevant.  Because he's in the City Cemetary. 

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't think the Church has a clue as to why Brigham Young excluded blacks from the priesthood. 

The Church consists of more than... what is it now, 11 million + members?... so the Church has many many people with many different opinions and some members agree with some other member's opinions, too.  And apparently you have no clue...

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

 I have spent some time researching the issue along with Dr. Armand Mauss, and have concluded that Brigham Young ...

You have concluded that someone else thought yada yada.  How very nice of you to conclude what someone else thought.  I have concluded that you are either in agreement with what Brigham Young thought, or you have a different opinion.

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Now perhaps the poster known as Ahab can offer his enlightened view of corporate and religous practices at this point to argue that the Church is not an entity at all, and that whatever Pres. Young thought is irrelevant.  Because he's in the City Cemetary. 

The Church is an entity but as an entity it doesn't say anything.  Ever.  There is no one person who speaks for it as if that person's opinion represents every other member's opinion.  The only way the Church speaks is through it's individual, 11+ million members, or however many people are in "it".  Not even the President or the First Presidency or all of the Lord's apostles speak for the whole Church.  Each person speaks only for his or herself and whoever else is in agreement with what they are saying.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The Church consists of more than... what is it now, 11 million + members?... so the Church has many many people with many different opinions and some members agree with some other member's opinions, too.  And apparently you have no clue...

You have concluded that someone else thought yada yada.  How very nice of you to conclude what someone else thought.  I have concluded that you are either in agreement with what Brigham Young thought, or you have a different opinion.

The Church is an entity but as an entity it doesn't say anything.  Ever.  There is no one person who speaks for it as if that person's opinion represents every other member's opinion.  The only way the Church speaks is through it's individual, 11+ million members, or however many people are in "it".  Not even the President or the First Presidency or all of the Lord's apostles speak for the whole Church.  Each person speaks only for his or herself and whoever else is in agreement with what they are saying.

6a010535ce1cf6970c01bb09eec9d4970d-500wi

  • Like 2
Link to post
11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

6a010535ce1cf6970c01bb09eec9d4970d-500wi

Now apply that common sense what-should-be-obvious-to-everybody-who-uses-common-sense-mentality to someone who thinks the Church (as an entire entity) should apologize for what only some members of the Church said or did.

Yeah.  No.  That wasn't me.

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Now apply that common sense what-should-be-obvious-to-everybody-who-uses-common-sense-mentality to someone who thinks the Church (as an entire entity) should apologize for what only some members of the Church said or did.

Yeah.  No.  That wasn't me.

0152d23b0f2aa8fcc9cc845bb19b958af8995698

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't think the Church has a clue as to why Brigham Young excluded blacks from the priesthood.   I have spent some time researching the issue along with Dr. Armand Mauss, and have concluded that Brigham Young instituted the policy to try and persaude the Southern states to vote to admit Utah as a state under the Missouri Compromise.  At the time, the territory was under immense pressure for oppressive federal appointees, who would disappear if Utah became a state, and Pres. Young was miserably concealing the practice of plural marriage.  Whatever Pres. Young planned, it didn't work.

Now perhaps the poster known as Ahab can offer his enlightened view of corporate and religous practices at this point to argue that the Church is not an entity at all, and that whatever Pres. Young thought is irrelevant.  Because he's in the City Cemetary. 

I would think that for most of the priesthood ban, most apostles believed it was in place because that was the revealed word of the Lord on the issue.

But so what? Nobody necessarily knows the specifics of why the Kansas City Star "disenfranchised, ignored, and scorned generation of black Kansas Citians" in the surprisingly large number of specific ways and incidences that it chronicles. But that didn't prevent it from telling the story of a powerful local business that had done wrong and issuing a heartfelt apology. 

Link to post
9 hours ago, Ahab said:

Try putting yourself in the place of a member of an organization and then suppose someone else in that organization apologizes for something specific someone else did as a member of that organization which the person apologizing did not do.

That's what we're talking about.  Someone apologizing for something someone else did.  That would be like me apologizing for something you said on this message board because we are both members of this board and I did not like what you said.

Oh my.

You think this board is like a board of directors in any way, shape or form?

Link to post
10 hours ago, Analytics said:

It really isn't about the Church trying to appease me. It is about the Church going through this noble exercise for the betterment of itself and the benefit of its members.

No, really, this is specifically about the Church appeasing you. You're the person who so desperately wants the Church to go through this 'noble exercise', as you've chosen to call it, and for reasons very specific to you. I sincerely hope you're not so lacking in self-awareness that you can't see that this entire thread is about what you want ... plus an attempt to subtly shame members into wanting the same thing.

If you haven't noticed, it's mostly not working.

My current ward has three families and one individual (my housemate) who migrated from Africa. I've had this conversation with three of the four; not one of them wants this. The person wanting it is you.

I've had this conversation with at least a dozen other members/households in my very racially and ethnically diverse ward. The only one who wants this is a brother who no longer believes in the Restoration but comes to church each Sunday to support his wife. That's it. Oh, and you.

No doubt you can find a few others like you -- and they'll be vocal -- but the vast majority of Church members aren't, so please don't pretend this isn't all about something you need the Church to do.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 3
Link to post
5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, really, this is specifically about the Church appeasing you. You're the person who so desperately wants the Church to go through this 'noble exercise', as you've chosen to call it, and for reasons very specific to you. I sincerely hope you're not so lacking in self-awareness that you can't see that this entire thread is about what you want ... plus an attempt to subtly shame members into wanting the same thing.

If you haven't noticed, it's mostly not working.

My current ward has three families and one individual (my housemate) who migrated from Africa. I've had this conversation with three of the four; not one of them wants this. The person wanting it is you.

I've had this conversation with at least a dozen other members/households in my very racially and ethnically diverse ward. The only one who wants this is a brother who no longer believes in the Restoration but comes to church each Sunday to support his wife. That's it. Oh, and you.

No doubt you can find a few others like you -- and they'll be vocal -- but the vast majority of Church members aren't, so please don't pretend this isn't all about something you need the Church to do.

Did you read the Kansas City Star article?

Link to post

I think it's a good trend for the media.  Maybe Slate will apologize too for their anti-LDS article in 2016 about Romney:  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/12/a-mormon-president-no-way.html

But I'm not sure what good will come out of the church apologizing for the injustices of most concern to the critics - priesthood ban, polygamy, Nov 2015 policy, and the 1984 BYU football team.  It seems most believing members can accept that God's ways and purposes aren't always understood.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, gopher said:

I think it's a good trend for the media.  Maybe Slate will apologize too for their anti-LDS article in 2016 about Romney:  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/12/a-mormon-president-no-way.html

But I'm not sure what good will come out of the church apologizing for the injustices of most concern to the critics - priesthood ban, polygamy, Nov 2015 policy, and the 1984 BYU football team.  It seems most believing members can accept that God's ways and purposes aren't always understood.

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.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to post
4 hours ago, gopher said:

But I'm not sure what good will come out of the church apologizing for the injustices of most concern to the critics - ...  the 1984 BYU football team.  It seems most believing members can accept that God's ways and purposes aren't always understood.

:D:rofl::D

Link to post
15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my.

You think this board is like a board of directors in any way, shape or form?

directors?  Why did you choose that word?  More like contributors.  And the point I am contributing to the OP is that it would not be appropriate for any of us to apologize for what someone else, other than us, individually, did. Rather presumptuous, actually.

Link to post
6 hours ago, gopher said:

I think it's a good trend for the media.  Maybe Slate will apologize too for their anti-LDS article in 2016 about Romney:  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/12/a-mormon-president-no-way.html

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.

Link to post
6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Did you read the Kansas City Star article?

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.

Link to post
On 12/22/2020 at 11:02 AM, Ahab said:

Try putting yourself in the place of a member of an organization and then suppose someone else in that organization apologizes for something specific someone else did as a member of that organization which the person apologizing did not do.

That's what we're talking about.  Someone apologizing for something someone else did.  That would be like me apologizing for something you said on this message board because we are both members of this board and I did not like what you said.

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

Link to post
17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

directors?  Why did you choose that word?  More like contributors.  And the point I am contributing to the OP is that it would not be appropriate for any of us to apologize for what someone else, other than us, individually, did. Rather presumptuous, actually.

Not at all.  The discussion's context was about a corporation and those on the board.   Go back and check it- it was your statement not mine.  This "board" has nothing to do with a corporate "board".

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...