- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement Sunday, August 13, 2017: Quote:It is with great sadness and deep concern that we view the violence, conflict and tragedy of recent days in Charlottesville, Virginia. People of any faith, or of no faith at all, should be troubled by the increase of intolerance in both words and actions that we see everywhere.
More than a decade ago, the late Church President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) addressed the topic of racism when speaking to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He powerfully and clearly taught this principle: “No man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ.” For members of the Church, we reaffirm that teaching today and the Savior’s admonition to love our neighbor.
Our prayers are with those who are suffering because of this intolerance and hatred. We pray for peace and for understanding. Above all, we pray that we may treat one another with greater kindness, compassion and goodness.
Some members who support white supremacist ideas used this statement to claim that anyone who criticized white supremacy were not following the Church’s statement above. In response to those claims, the Church issued the following statement today:
Quote:It has been called to our attention that there are some among the various pro-white and white supremacy communities who assert that the Church is neutral toward or in support of their views. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the New Testament, Jesus said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:37-39). The Book of Mormon teaches “all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33).
White supremacist attitudes are morally wrong and sinful, and we condemn them. Church members who promote or pursue a “white culture” or white supremacy agenda are not in harmony with the teachings of the Church.
One of the most well-known, vocal examples of Mormon white supremacy, a woman who calls herself “the purposeful wife” and has issued “the white baby challenge”, then wrote that she no longer could be part of a religion that was racist, implying she was leaving the LDS Church.
I am not a fan of widespread excommunication, but my response to the statements was to hope it leads to excommunication if people continue to spout such radically racist ideas that encourage violence and discrimination. I wouldn’t mind the temple recommend question asking explicitly about affiliation with polygamous and racially-focused supremacist groups. In this specific case, I am happy about her response.
1) This thread is about the overall statements, not just her situation.
2) Do not link to anything she has written. We will not give her a platform in any way.
I’m glad you started this thread Ray. I was going to start one on this very thing later today so thanks for for beating me to the punch! One of the interesting questions I have regarding all of this is whether or not the Church will back up their statement by asking those who publicly perpetuate those attitudes to cease and desist and possibly face church discipline if they refuse. It is interesting to me (and quite sad) that folks such as John Dehlin have been excommunicated for publicly asking difficult questions and supporting positions of doubt in the Church. I see publicly endorsing white supremacist attitudes as infinitely worse than endorsing skeptical positions. If the Church won’t back up their condemnation of these attitudes, especially when certain people use quotes from church leaders and scriptures to back up their statements and make it seem as if the Church supports these viewpoints, then that would be unfortunate.
This is a very good statement. There was a blog just the other day that said the church often issues statements that could be read as supporting several different points of view. I think it is true. The church needs to be clear and not leave room for “wink wink” after reading it. This clarification pretty much does that.
It is good to see that they admit that the previous release was being misread.
I hope they learn to be more clear in future.
But to be clear
I’m a fanboy of Jana Reiss. I love her perspective on things. Quoting myself from the White Baby thread. Quote:Quote:Quote:Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Surely this TR Question would cover nastier political elements? I don’t think their practices are in line with current LDS teachings.Such people bring the church into serious disrepute.
If she’s left… good riddance, at least until she changes her position.
I personally really like John Dehlin. I don’t know if I could’ve “Stayed LDS” without him. It was a sad day when he was excommunicated. While I personally am VERY opposed to any kind of “supremacism”, I feel very hesitant to say that anyone should be punished within the Church solely for holding a specific set of political views. Violence? Yes. Rioting? Yes. Active opposition to the Church? Yes. But holding unpopular beliefs on society and government? That’s where you start getting into dangerous territory.
This is a very sensitive subject, and the wounds are still fresh. There was no justification for the atrocities which happened in Charolettesville. I understand the strong hatred towards the neo-nazis and white-supremisits. But we shouldn’t let hate dictate who we are. “Fight fire with fire, the whole world goes up in smoke.”
gospeltangents wrote:
I’m a fanboy of Jana Reiss. I love her perspective on things.
Jana says that the following project is organized by LDS scholars organizing to help move the church membership away from racist ideas.
http://shouldertothewheel.org/ Quote:On June 8, 1978, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ended the restriction of Black Mormons from priesthood ordination and temple ordinances. June 8, 2018 will mark the fortieth anniversary of this date. As we look forward to and prepare for this milestone, we as LDS people invite our brothers and sisters to join us in reflection on how far we have come and what work we must yet do to understand and love one another and become a Zion people.
We pledge to prepare for the 40th anniversary by taking one or more of the following actions by June 8, 2018 and invite you to join us:
dande48, I understand and respect that. I am not a fan of how often we use excommunication. However, I believe there are some things that are so egregious that they are inexcusable. Preaching white supremacism is one of those things, especially when we have struggled so hard to move away from it. 50-150 years ago? I get it. Now? No. For me, this isn’t an issue of, “If you force out people on the left, you need to force out people on the right.” That has no place in my thinking. I simply see this stance as so abominable that it can’t be tolerated, especially when it causes so much hate and violence.
Old Timer wrote:
For me, this isn’t an issue of, “If you force out people on the left, you need to force out people on the right.” That has no place in my thinking. I simply see this stance as so abominable that it can’t be tolerated, especially when it causes so much hate and violence.
It’s not so much a matter of “left or right” to me; more a matter of “people I strongly disagree with”. White supremacy is disgraceful, I 100% agree. But there is a lot of hate/violence associated with many political ideologies. You’ve got the cops killed and the riots and looting associated with “black lives matter”. You’ve got the whole fiasco that happened at Evergreen State College. You’ve got the feminist demonstrations at the University of Sydney in response to “the Red Pill”. All reprehensible. Even take a look at the early LDS Church… you’ve got mobs, looting, and the wonton destruction of property which was retaliated against in equal measure. All hate, all disgraceful. If anything, we as the human race, need to move past hate and violence in response to those we disagree with (no matter how strongly).
I agree with almost all of that. That’s one thing about this site I love. It’s okay to disagree about important things.
Also, I love the image of “wonton destruction”. I picture a lot of people standing outside a bad Chinese restaurant and throwing wontons at it until it collapses.
😆 :clap: 
:thumbup: dande48 wrote:
It’s not so much a matter of “left or right” to me; more a matter of “people I strongly disagree with”. White supremacy is disgraceful, I 100% agree. But there is a lot of hate/violence associated with many political ideologies. You’ve got the cops killed and the riots and looting associated with “black lives matter”. You’ve got the whole fiasco that happened at Evergreen State College. You’ve got the feminist demonstrations at the University of Sydney in response to “the Red Pill”. All reprehensible. Even take a look at the early LDS Church… you’ve got mobs, looting, and the wonton destruction of property which was retaliated against in equal measure. All hate, all disgraceful. If anything, we as the human race, need to move past hate and violence in response to those we disagree with (no matter how strongly).
I agree and I have a few things to add.Anyone who tries to justify violence or destruction in the name of any ideology is reprehensible, regardless of the actual ideology. I don’t care whether it’s the KKK, Islamic extremists, Black Lives Matter, social justice warriors, intersectional feminists, communists, Nazis, medieval crusaders, or whatever else. If they can’t play nicely with others and use their beliefs as reason in itself to threaten others, destroy property, and otherwise be complete assholes, they deserve no toleration whatsoever. Not necessarily for their beliefs, but for their actions.
Of course, racial supremacy itself is awful too. It doesn’t matter whether it’s white supremacy, black supremacy, Asian supremacy, or whatever else. It goes against all reason to assume that one race is somehow superior to another. I reject all notions of identity superiority, including ones painted as “oppression.” Race is a skin color with some cultural attachments. It doesn’t fundamentally matter. In the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr., we should be judging others by their actions and their character, not on some superficial identity.
I’m struggling a little to put this in a way that is both logically consistent while condemning two terrible things that are relevant to the white supremacist rally. (It seemed like mental gymnastics to me to condemn actions regardless of ideology, followed by condemning an ideology) I guess it’s this: an ideology informs your actions. White supremacy is bad because it affects one’s character and the way its advocates treat people, not because it suggests racial differences or tries to explain them. I realize this is quite the can of worms to make this distinction and I don’t want to give anyone the wrong impressions. There are some biological and cultural differences that can help to explain, for instance, why we don’t see very many white guys in pro sports or why Asians tend to be very academically successful. I do not make or condone any assertions that these imply any sort of superiority of one race over another.
I’m glad the church took a stand. I’m glad the president took a stand. Nobody should ever tolerate this crap, regardless of which side of the political/cultural spectrum it comes from.
I think I over-complicated this issue… Oh well.
Feiw, generally speaking, I am a pacifist. I make exceptions, however. There is an interesting quote that I can’t find right now. It says something like:
Quote:Non-violent opposition only works when your enemy has a conscience.
In the BofM story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, pacifism worked only once, when some of the Lamanites had a conscience. Once they converted, however, violent protection was necessary. The Third Reich was led by people without consciences, at least when it came to what they were doing to “others”.
I put modern white supremacist, fascist, Nazis in that category. When an entire ideology is based on intentional oppression of other people or peoples, and proponents are willing to kill those others, I cannot oppose violence to keep that from happening.
dande48, I’m glad you spoke up. I had an initial devils advocate reaction as well. Similarly, I think of cases where I’d defend against church leaders stepping in to excommunicate someone and a case like this where I may want church leaders to step in and excommunicate someone. My immediate thought is, “So, nibbler… it’s okay so long as the reasons for the excommunication align with your beliefs.”
It’s sobering but it gives me an opportunity to reevaluate why I feel one group should be disciplined and another should not, and hopefully I come up with more articulate reasons that a simple, “because I agree with it.”
Quote:The Third Reich was led by people without consciences, at least when it came to what they were doing to “others”.
Oh I think some of them did have consciences. Himmler could not stand going to concentration camps, though he was behind a lot of it.
The key here, as with a lot of morality is to play tricks on your conscience. Paint the Jew/Slav/Gypsy as other, dehumanize them, pile on the negative propaganda, do it by increments. You start off with the Jews as people, and end up with devils, by a slow process.
Remember 2 Nephi 26:22
Quote:And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.
This is precisely what happened in Germany. Secret combinations proliferated, became violent in the thirties – some of them were involved in occultism, like some of the Nazis. It started with the flaxen cord, and then before they knew it, they were all tied up and could not escape from it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.