Jump to content

Byu devotional talk re: Sin of racism'


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

So the fact that the three founding members of BLM are self avowed Marxists, and one of the formally declared goals of the BLM movement is the disruption of the traditional Judaeo-Christian nuclear family, replacing it with the Marxist goal of “collective parenting,” holds no sway with you with regard to whether or not you can admit the BLM movement is sympathetic to Marxism? Why don’t you be honest with yourself and others and at least admit it’s understandable why some could reasonably conclude BLM is a Marxist oriented movement?

By the way, why would you, as an active and presumably believing Latter-Day Saint, want to make common cause with an organization whose stated goal is replacing the divinely ordained father mother family (the only way for men and women to inherit the fulness of exaltation) with Karl Marx’s destructive perversion of the scripture based family structure?

Perhaps you could explain why you appear to so ardently support BLM when its goal, if achieved, would destroy the work of God and cause him to smite the earth with the terrible curse of divine rejection prophesied by Malachi? Or do you hold the views you do because you believe the Church is is eventually go along with the Marxist redefinition of the traditional nuclear family?

How can I support a crusade for justice when three people who are attached to an organization the movement borrowed a slogan from said something I think went a little far seven years ago but have not said since? And the movement I actually support does not crusade for the destruction of the nuclear family or seek to impose a Marxist regime? It is also worth noting that the actual quote from the website does not saying anything like what you want it to. I wonder how you can oppose the principles of the gospel by bearing false witness the way you are. Shame on you.

As to supporting the movement it is remarkably easy.

If you want to play in this sandbox and whinge about gospel family values how do you support an organization that has chosen an unrepentant serial adulterer as its leader and currently cannot bring itself to condemn an almost 40 year old man who solicits sex from High School students? Is that remarkably easy?

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 3
Link to post

Folks, please take the politics and the BLM stuff out of this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

1.  To the extent that they’re posting the quotes because they believe he has some special authority—sure.  To the extent that they are quoting him because he was right—no dice.  The idea of being judged by the content of one’s character rather than by the color of one’s skin is heady stuff; redistributionists and vengeance-seekers are going to have to engage with the argument, rather than simply memory-holing everyone who made it.

2.  Sure.  Because seeking government aid to compel thieves to disgorge tangible real and personal property stolen within the past sixty months, is the exact. same. thing. as advancing the idea that both morally and legally a child should be acknowledged as being born with an inescapable, unpayable financial obligation to a third party due solely to the skin tones of the parties involved.  :rolleyes:

Again, that is not the objective of the BLM movement. Refusing to take seriously a quest for racial justice because you want to whine about how a mean man once talked about reparations is lunacy. It is almost as if any excuse to not have to deal with the injustice will work. Hence the Van Buren reference. “Can’t help, don’t want to, I have this flimsy unjust reason for not engaging with what you want so we’ll just stick with the status quo.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You knew what would happen when you started the thread.

I also knew that as the originator of the thread I get to decide its scope.  So let's please get back to the topic and away from BLM and politics.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Off topic political posts have been removed rather than closing the thread. If it continues, the poster will be removed.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Can you not distinguish between the BLM organization and the BLM slogan/movement?

In the wake of George Floyd's murder, I attending a couple of marches/protests. They were completely non-violent, though there was some civil disobedience (kneeling in an intersection and blocking traffic for 8 minutes). All the chants and signs were focused on issues of police reform and ending racism. There were a lot of the standard BLM signs (one dude near me had a "Free Tibet" sign, which was odd). I didn't hear anything about communism, marxism, or capitalism.

So you tell me. Did I attend a communist march? Did I support communism? Was I signaling to the proletariats of the world to unite?

Or maybe, just maybe, the marches and protests were about what they were about: black lives matter and policing needs some reform.

We have had a great many peaceful demonstrations for equal justice in this country, and civil disobedience is certainly O.K. -- as long as everyone is ready to be peacefully arrested.  The accompanying ideological assertions may or may not be correct, but Americans have the right to be wrong -- and they often are.

The sole and only issue should be with the violence which has in fact been perpetrated in some cities, and which has continued in some places for months -- many deaths and  injuries resulting.  The woke news media refuse to report on such events, fearing (correctly) that such would bring  BLM and associated organizations into disrepute.

We need to be thinking about Niccolo Machiavelli and about Realpolitik, instead of masking or denying reality.  High moral and ethical concerns do not motivate those who are violent extremists, whether from the Left or Right.  We need to stop denying that.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

I just listened to Ryan Gabriel's talk. He made some good points and included powerful examples of past racism.

Other parts were not as helpful. Like many other people, he refers to racism as "America's original sin." Near the end of the talk, he states that Christ "took upon himself sin for which he was not responsible. He did so because He loves us. We can do so because we love Him."

I think the articles of faith have something to say about the concept of original sin. And it is blasphemous to suggest that we can take upon ourselves the sins of others as Christ did. 

It's worth knowing that Gabriel is a proponent of Ibram Kendi's book "How to Be an Antiracist," which asserts that current discrimination is the only remedy for past discrimination. In this BYU Kennedy Center discussion, he repeats Kendi's encouragement to view Christ as a radical revolutionary. https://kennedy.byu.edu/events/book-of-the-semester/

Edited by Vellichor
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 4/8/2021 at 7:53 AM, smac97 said:

Here:

The talk is quite good.  A few points:

1. He starts out by comparing 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama with the Haun's Mill massacre.

2. He says that Pres. Nelson has asked us to "lead out" in abandoning "attitudes and actions" about prejudice.

3. He says "there is much to be admired" about the history of the United States, "far more" than he could speak about even if he was given a week to do so.  Then then points to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  He then acknowledges that there have been elements of racial injustice, such as the above-referenced bombing, the "Trail of Tears," hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens with Mexican heritage forced to leave the U.S. during the Great Depression (I was not familiar with this), the WWII internment camps of Japanese-Americans, and more.

4. He then speaks to "what some call 'America's Original Sin': slavery."  He speaks about the wealth generated by this slave labor, the horrible treatment endured by slaves, their lack of rights under the law, their inability to protect themselves and their family members from being separated from each other and sold, and so on.  He says that slavery "was, and is, a sin against the family."  He then talke about post-Civil War "convict leasing" (Wikipedia: "a system of forced penal labor which was historically practiced in the Southern United States and overwhelmingly involved African-American men") and the legal machinations that facilitated it.  He also speaks of lynchings of black people, and how they were often authorized by local government.  He gives an example of a black woman, Mary Turner, who was lynched while 8 months pregnant for publicly speaking against the lynching of her husband on the day prior (Wikipedia article about this is here, though be warned it's pretty awful).

5. He then transitions into how we can find peace by realizing that Jesus Christ "knows the exact pain of each African slave.  Black children who died in dark mines.  Mary Turner, full with child, hanging in agony from Folsom's Bridge," and also the three little boys murdered at Haun's Mill.  He then speaks about the love and mercy and atoning power of the Savior.

6. He then speaks about how our current concepts of "race" and racial groups "was established through a complex history of colonialism, a merging of economic systems along with early misguided attempts to understand human behavioral differences through science."  He then spoke of how 19th century scientists were developing formal structures of taxonomic nomenclatures for the natural world, and then started adapting those principles to "racial categorization" of human societal groups with similar physical traits, and to therefore "attempted to attribute intelligence and behavioral traits to the physical features of various racial groups."  These scientists then posited that the "white" groups were "naturally superior," and that this superiority was then used to justify slavery and other forms of racial oppression.  Very insightful and reasoned stuff, this.

7. At about the 11:11 mark, where he says: "In other words, racism is an idea that a racial heirarchy exists, where certain groups are superior to others.  In the context of the United States, the racial heirarchy places whites at the top and African-Americans and other people of color at the bottom."  He speaks in the present tense, but I think he's referencing a broader historical context.  He then says this heirarchy was rationalized by not just the "scientific" ideas noted above, but also by religious texts.  People then used these "distorted interpretations of holy scripture were used to argue that individuals with African ancestry were destined for servitude, or were somehow lesser children of God."  This is really insightful and useful stuff.

8. He then speaks of changes to these attitudes, including the Montgomery Bus Boycott.  He said many of those who fought for racial equality were deeply religious and Christian, and were comforted by the "blessed are" Beatitudes.

9. He spoke of Martin Luther King, but also of other less well known champions of the Civil Rights Era.

10. "Because of the humble and holy sacrifices of previous generations of all races and ethnicities, we have made strides in the United States concerning racial equality.  He points to the current Congressional makeup consists of almost 1/4 of members who belong to racial minorities.  He nevertheless notes that "racism remains a destructive force in our society."  He says that racism, amounting to notions of racial superiority, which is a form of pride.  "The adversary uses pride, intrinsic to racism, to attempt to distort a foundational tenet of the Plan of Salvation that we are all equal spirit children of heavenly parents.  He twists this foundational tenet with racism to falsely claim that there are racial groups that are inherently different, and that certain racial groups are are better than others."  He says the "fruits" of these sentiments are hatred, of our fellow man, and ultimately of God.  He then quotes General Authorities as condemning these things as sinful.

I'm out of time, but I encourage you to listen to this talk.  I think it's important and substantive and helpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting about the pride.  I never thought of that, but I agree.

  • Like 1
Link to post

I love when conversation goes here and there most of the time, but smac has asked this to stay on topic.  I think there is much to be gained from that.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

 

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I shouldn't even have chimed in in the first place. I'm out.

The depth of the problems with your post is bottomless.  And I'm a conservative guy.  May God grant peace and grace to the friends in my stake to help them see that centuries of Black struggles, the official and unofficial oppression, and the lack of access their children have had to success.  I want my friends to experience love, wisdom and sympathy when it comes to race relations.  I remember my sainted mother, who was raised in Texas, struggle with racial sympathies, so I can see how my wishes are difficult to fulfill.  God came to Peter in Acts and told him that the Gospel would be taught to all races, nations and creeds.  Paul reprimanded Peter for not living up to this mandate when Peter refused to eat with non-Jews.  I am still living to see the day of God's vision to Peter..

 

Edited by Bob Crockett
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

How wide the divide.

Link to post
20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

As if trained Marxists would hesitate to embrace the anti family tenets of Karl Marx; and as if you don’t realize the official BLM statement on the disruption of the the tradition nuclear family isn’t deliberately sugarcoated to make it easier for the poison to go down.

Meanwhile as you speak of complexity, naivety and ‘misguided rhetoric’, the traditional God required family (just in case you forgot) is being severely undermined, mocked and degraded by today’s pervasive radical feminist culture, the same evil philosophy that informs the beliefs and practices of the leaders of BLM. it’s already gotten so bad that only 30% of black children are born into homes with stay-at-home fathers. In addition, traditional marriage is becoming more and more passé and ‘obsolete’ in a world that’s ripening in iniquity at an ever accelerating pace. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” 

It’s amazing to me how utterly blind a member of the Church must have to be to not be able to discern the painfully obvious signs of the times as encroaching wickedness is sweeping over the world like a great tsunami right before their eyes. 

 

Progress is a good thing.  Clinging to misogyny  and patriarchy based on thousands of years old books of "scripture" is foolish.  Humans have and are progressing. Also imposing your so called "This is God's will" on others is rather evil. Live your life how you wish. Allow other the same. As for the "encroaching wickedness is sweeping over the world" well I am sad that you have such a negative view of the what is going on in the world. In spite of all our problems more humans in the world have a better life than ever before. The fact that more people die from complications from eating too much food than starve to death is just one of many indications  There are more. Go read some stuff by Stephen Pinker. It will help you very much so.

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Why?

Because it shows how racist the church policy was on race/ priesthood in a very unvarnished way. Also illustrates how the policy was actually doctrine as opposed to just men being men as the current dogma would have one believe. 

 

the talk conveniently avoids the role the church played in perpetuating that racism within its ranks. It needs to be talked about OPENLY. 
 

my own brother was taught to only teach blacks in brazil if they could not find anyone else to talk to... better yet do nothing instead of teaching them. That is pretty darn racist if you ask pretty much anyone except perhaps an apologist at FAIR.

Link to post
3 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

That is pretty darn racist if you ask pretty much anyone except perhaps an apologist at FAIR.

I don’t think you know many apologists at FAIR. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
18 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t think you know many apologists at FAIR. 

I don't think you know (m)any apologists at FAIR.

There!  Fixed it! ;) [In fact, I might just take out the "m" altogether!]

P.S.: Secondclass Citzen - In any event, I'm sure Brother Gabriel, since he is completely incapable of speaking for himself, greatly appreciates your desire to take umbrage on his behalf.  Have you let him know of your tremendous sacrifice for him?

 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to post

Ken, is your PS to me or someone else.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

Ken, is your PS to me or someone else.

To Secondclass Citizen.  Sorry for any confusion.  I have edited the post to reflect that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...