- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yes, we have imagined our heaven as a heaven for white heterosexual and cisgendered males. I have certainly heard that women’s objections to sharing their husbands in polygamous relationships in heaven are selfish, earth based, concerns that will melt or be purified away by the time we reach the celestial kingdom. Couple this with the idea from LDS scriptures that dark skin was a sign or indicator of the curse and that at some point these groups of people could become “white and delightsome” again. It certainly would seem reasonable from that background that in heaven there are no races and that everyone is white European. (I also had a quick review of our LDS artwork and depictions of the afterlife show lots and lots of white European people) hawkgrrrl wrote:
To put it another way, I think Oaks (like Bedar) is saying that black lives don’t matter, just Christian lives do. And oh, BTW, he’s really just thinking of white Christian churches. Bednar basically said there are no “gay” Church members, just Church members. Well, FYI, there *are* gay Church members, and I’ll believe they are really talking about inclusion and love when we quit preferencing white, cishetero, middle-class, Christian, Utahns, men first.
I think that organizations really hate what I will call “collective bargaining”. The church has the advantage of massive power. If it deals with an individual and does not recognize that individual as a member of any group other than “church member” or child of HF then it retains that power. There is perfect unity because the church has all the power and everyone is obedient to the church hierarchy. When people start to identify themselves as members of other subgroups or communities with potentially different needs (LDS black community, LDS LGBTQ+ Community, etc.) then the church may have to start dealing with those subgroups as groups. The church does not want “collective bargaining.”Quote:I think Oaks (like Bedar) is saying that black lives don’t matter, just Christian lives do.
I am not sure that is a fair statement, given all of its implications and what I know of what he actually has said in his lifetime (as well as our actual theology about who is saved and who can be exalted, even from the most orthodox perspective). It might or might not be true, but it is far too “loaded” for me personally.
Roy wrote:
“The pioneer legacy is a legacy of inclusion,” President Oaks declared.Church leaders have repeatedly challenged Latter-day Saints to gain strength from the example of the pioneers. This includes welcoming new members, ministering to reawaken the faith of those who have strayed and reaching out to current refugees.
Governor Cox of Utah has said that the state of Utah is willing to welcome Afghanistan refugees. I do not always like to see LDS church influence on local politics and I do not know how much influence the church had in this gesture. Still, it is a positive thing. May we always be welcoming to those that have fled their homes in fear, for we too (historical LDS) were refugees and cared for by compassionate strangers.Old-Timer wrote:
Quote:I think Oaks (like Bedar) is saying that black lives don’t matter, just Christian lives do.
I am not sure that is a fair statement, given all of its implications and what I know of what he actually has said in his lifetime (as well as our actual theology about who is saved and who can be exalted, even from the most orthodox perspective). It might or might not be true, but it is far too “loaded” for me personally.
I agree that this “black lives don’t matter” is not fair and far too inflammatory from the evidence we have. I think a more reasonable (but still somewhat speculative) assessment comes from a well known axiom with unique LDS application. “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.” In the LDS doctrine & worldview gender is “an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” I think it is also fair to say that LDS doctrine teaches that heterosexuality is an essential characteristic of at least the mortal and eternal portions of our identity and purpose. My understanding of current LDS doctrine is that race/ethnicity and homosexuality are both parts of the mortal experience that do not continue in the eternal realm. Thus, rather than the statement of “black lives don’t matter,” it might be more accurate of LDS belief to state that “black lives” cease to be a category for Heavenly Father’s children after the mortal probation.
This speculative reasoning is taken from what I understand of LDS doctrine, Elder Bednar’s comment that there are no Gay church members, and President Oak’s recent comments against diversity and towards a definition of inclusion that seems similar to assimilation for the sake of unity.
Yeah, but I get what Hawk is saying here Roy. We know almost nothing about pre-earth and post-earth existence. How do we know gender is eternal? Were our “intelligences” gendered? Why do we assume, as Hawk said, that we all were or will be white? It’s a pretty good assumption the first earthly humans weren’t white based on where they probably lived. How do we know homosexuality is just earthly? I won’t call any of these things doctrine because they’re more like teachings – teachings of men who may very well be wrong because they have no evidence to base it on. DHO’s or DAB’s opinions about gender or sex or race are nothing more than that – opinions. DarkJedi wrote:
I won’t call any of these things doctrine because they’re more like teachings – teachings of men who may very well be wrong because they have no evidence to base it on. DHO’s or DAB’s opinions about gender or sex or race are nothing more than that – opinions.
I think that you are correct. I also feel that sometimes opinions grow into teachings then calcify into doctrines. The sentence in the Family Proclamation about gender being eternal is a really big step into making it doctrine.Tying this back to the comments of President Oaks. I think that he is saying that the church rejects the idea that diversity creates strength – the strength of the church is in unity (that seems to be superimposed over and overrides differences).
I feel that he is also stating that it shouldn’t matter that the upper ranks of the church leadership are pretty much all older white dudes. Sort of like saying that racial representation doesn’t matter in religious settings because Jesus represents all of us through the atonement.
DarkJedi wrote:
It’s a pretty good assumption the first earthly humans weren’t white based on where they probably lived.
It would be pretty cool to have a version of the temple video where Adam and Eve are played by dark skinned actors. Not for the purpose of teaching that Adam and Eve were necessarily dark skinned but rather that we do not know that they weren’t dark skinned and it shouldn’t matter anyway – right?Old Timer: Quote:I am not sure that is a fair statement, given all of its implications and what I know of what he actually has said in his lifetime (as well as our actual theology about who is saved and who can be exalted, even from the most orthodox perspective). It might or might not be true, but it is far too “loaded” for me personally.
OK, see if you agree with this revision. Black lives matter, but only so long as white property rights are preserved (that’s related to Nelson’s remarks that used much stronger language to condemn property damage from looting than to protest the slaughter of black people by the police). And the narratives we listen to are always from a white perspective. The black people who live like white Christians are going to be heard more than the rest.
This was a salient OP on this subject from Andrew S at W&T:
https://wheatandtares.org/2020/06/02/plausible-deniability-the-lds-churchs-statement-on-racism-and-looting/ Roy:
Quote:I think that organizations really hate what I will call “collective bargaining”. The church has the advantage of massive power. If it deals with an individual and does not recognize that individual as a member of any group other than “church member” or child of HF then it retains that power. There is perfect unity because the church has all the power and everyone is obedient to the church hierarchy. When people start to identify themselves as members of other subgroups or communities with potentially different needs (LDS black community, LDS LGBTQ+ Community, etc.) then the church may have to start dealing with those subgroups as groups. The church does not want “collective bargaining.”
Yes, excellent points, all.
No. I think it is overly broad and not reflective of their actual feelings and beliefs. This is not the place to continue this discussion. Peace.
hawkgrrrl wrote:To put it another way, I think Oaks (like Bedar) is saying that black lives don’t matter, just Christian lives do. And oh, BTW, he’s really just thinking of white Christian churches. Bednar basically said there are no “gay” Church members, just Church members. Well, FYI, there *are* gay Church members, and I’ll believe they are really talking about inclusion and love when we quit preferencing white, cishetero, middle-class, Christian, Utahns, men first.
There’s always going to be conflict between ‘unity’ and ‘diversity.’ People will habitually project what they themselves see themselves as into the future, into some ‘heaven’ state or however they imagine it, with no basis for it other than wishful thinking. And there’s always that dichotomy between inclusion and people’s natural inclination to be around others who ‘look like themselves’ / think like themselves. It’s very difficult to handle both sides of the dichotomy.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
OK, see if you agree with this revision. Black lives matter, but only so long as white property rights are preserved (that’s related to Nelson’s remarks that used much stronger language to condemn property damage from looting than to protest the slaughter of black people by the police). And the narratives we listen to are always from a white perspective. The black people who live like white Christians are going to be heard more than the rest.Property rights are people’s rights. Property is meaningless or nonexistent without people. Believe it or not, even black people like to preserve their property rights.
Limhah wrote:
There’s always going to be conflict between ‘unity’ and ‘diversity.’ People will habitually project what they themselves see themselves as into the future, into some ‘heaven’ state or however they imagine it, with no basis for it other than wishful thinking. And there’s always that dichotomy between inclusion and people’s natural inclination to be around others who ‘look like themselves’ / think like themselves. It’s very difficult to handle both sides of the dichotomy.
Yes, I agree. I do feel that division and divisiveness have gone crazy in the U.S. lately. I would not mind to have a little more unity in those areas – while still celebrating diversity. Differences do not necessarily mean divisiveness. To me it would make so much more sense if President Oaks had said “[Divisiveness]: At a time when [divisiveness] is earnestly sought and greatly praised, the Restored Church opposes … [divisiveness] in its organization and composition. We are all children of God and that is our most important characteristic. We need to unite in love.”
Instead President Oaks states that the church “opposes” diversity, thus seemingly perpetuating divisiveness.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.