MarginOfError

It seems to me that this level of snark is uncalled for. Consider: You opened a thread titled "BoM is Abolitionist" You started your post with "Critics are so quick to point out the supposedly racist words used in the Book of Mormon" After quoting portions of the Book of Mormon that speak against slavery, you say "People tend to simply gloss over it because of presentism, just as they tend to claim racism based on presentism." You imply the thesis that the Book of Mormon isn't racist because it is abolitionist. For that thesis to hold under scrutiny, racism and abolitionism have to be mutually exclusive. I have no objection to the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is abolitionist. But that alone won't dispel concerns about racism. Perhaps I've interpreted an implication you didn't intend to make. If so, I would be obliged if you would clarify.

It seems fair to point out that "abolitionist" and "racist" are not mutually exclusive terms.

Reminds me of one of my favorite news headlines of all time: Severe sleep apnea sufferers more likely to die http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25952469/ns/health-health_care/t/severe-sleep-apnea-sufferers-more-likely-die/#.XvSdSii6PIU

This question entirely misses the point. Skin color is irrelevant. Any indication in the scriptures that it is may be attributed to either cultural factors (such as dark being paired with filthy, white is paired with purity), or the flaws of man.

No. The Soviets definitely used the Titanium (Search, for instance, Alfa Class submarine). They could afford it, since they had control of some of the richest titanium deposits in the world (in Sibera). There may be differences in characteristics between small, sea exploration submarines and large submarines carrying nuclear reactors and warheads.

I'm pretty sure it isn't just the water, but the mixture of the carbons we deal with. I couldn't tell you the exact chemistry. I'm a math guy, not a chemist. Again, you're in properties that I don't fully understand. My brother served on a boomer and most of what I know I've learned from him.

Fun thing about titanium: We have a super critical water oxidizer (SCWO) reactor at work to treat some toxic byproducts of our primary process. The SCWO sits in a titanium sleeve, and the chemical process reduces the toxic organics into salt water. The process happens inside a titanium sleeve. The process is corrosive enough that we have to replace the 12' long titanium sleeve every 100 hours of operation. Another fun thing about titanium: U.S. Submarines are made from steel. When they descend to their crush depth, the steel compresses and the submarine gets smaller. But upon ascending, the steel expands again into it's original size. U.S. submarines may descend to this crush depth repeatedly. Russian submarines are made from titanium. When the descend to their crush depth, the titanium compresses and the submarine gets smaller. But upon ascending, the titanium does not expand to its original size. Russian submarines may only descend to their crush depth once, and then they can never go that deep again. But the Russian submarine crush depth is much, much deeper than the U.S. submarine crush depth.

Doesn't this just become an epic game of dodgeball at this point?

This seems tone deaf to me. It isn't at all hard for a faithful and well intentioned member of the Church to stumble across some of the verses in the Book of Mormon and generate honest and sincere questions about whether it promotes racial supremacy. You don't have to have ulterior motives for it to happen. And it can be very disturbing to some people when they encounter it. Waving a hand and classifying everyone who sees these issues as having 'ulterior motives' is factually wrong. This is an issue that, like most issues, is best addressed by more information. Furthermore, as demonstrated above, generating the requisite evidence to demonstrate that racial supremacy is rejected by the Book of Mormon required not only a full reading of the Book of Mormon, but cultural context of Israelite custom and religion as well. It's taken me nearly 40 years to come to understand and articulate everything I articulated above. Perhaps we should be a little more charitable when people ask the question and have a real discussion with them* * I'm willing to concede that Queolby may not be one asking in sincerity. But alas, my response was not targeted at him, but at any others who may stumble across it.

I'm partially in agreement with you. Though I'd prefer to take them down and put them in a museum to be contextualized.

When I was teaching Institue, I came across a theory that Mormon was a Lamanite. He identifies as a "descendant of Nephi" in his own writing, but by 300 AD, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have both Lamanite and Nephite heritage. Mormon also features the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, a group of Lamanite converts, very heavily in his abridgement. He also features the people of Limhi, who desired to live among he Nephites, in his abridgement. Whether it is factually correct or not, I don't know. But it was in intriguing thought. And so, when my ward's young men decided to hold a Book of Mormon marathon (they attempted to read the entirety of the Book of Mormon in 24 hours), I decided to participate and that I would try to read and interpret the text from the perspective of Mormon being a Lamanite. I observed something in the process, and will try to explain and quantify it here. In this particular reading, one word started to stand out to me. That word was 'filthy' (and its variants) There are 34 occurrences of 'filth' in the Book of Mormon (via a text search at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17/pg17.txt). These can be categorized into 30 uses (some phrases use the term twice, such as in 'he who filthy shall be filthy still' 10 uses by Nephi 1 use by Isaiah 7 uses by Jacob 3 uses by Alma 2 uses by Mormon quoting/paraphrasing Limhi 1 use by Mormon 2 uses by Moroni In six uses, filthy is used to describe the Lamanites. Once by Nephi, three times by Jacob, once by Enos, and once by Mormon The six uses to describe the Lamanites are what interest me the most. I'm going to go ahead and post all of those verses here: From the context of all of these, it's reasonable to conclude that 'filthy' was a pretty heavy hitting term. Perhaps even close to what we might consider a slur. In the context of Nephi's culture (specifically, cultural Jew from Jerusalem), the word 'filthy' could probably be replaced with 'unclean.' Which was also pretty serious. (See also Alma 32:3 for a pejorative use of 'filthy') Now, let's also consider that there is a certain likelihood that the Lamanites joined forces with other indigenous peoples in the area. These people wouldn't have been Israelites, and so would have been seen as outsiders to the Nephites. Israel wasn't exactly what we would call a tolerant society, so it shouldn't surprise us if there was a touch of racism directed toward those outsiders. As a parallel, consider the relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans--the Samaritans were cultural Jews who intermingled their religion with some of the pagan religions in the area, and they were heavily despised by the 'pure' Jews for it. Most of the references don't make an explicit tie to skin color. Nephi and Mormon both use the term 'dark', which may have reference to skin color. In all honesty, it probably does. It's the references by Enos and Jacob that are really informative though. Enos gives a description of the Lamanites that is broad and perhaps promotes a stereotype of the Lamanites. It's a caricature, and I'm inclined to take it with a grain of salt. In fairness, Nephi was barely old enough to be Enos' grandfather, so the wounds and intercultural strifes between the Nephites and the Lamanites at this point in time are pretty raw still. If you add in unfamiliar cultures from any of the indigenous peoples the Lamanites may have joined, the stereotyping hypothesis becomes a little more plausible. Jacob is the really interesting speaker in all of this, though. He actually goes to great length to separate 'filthiness' from 'skin'. This is important--in one respect, this strengthens the hypothesis that 'filthy' was a type of slur. More importantly, Jacob makes it explicit that 'filthiness' is a spiritual condition, and goes so far as to state that Nephites are the filthier race because their wickedness is greater than that of the Lamanites. In other words, Jacob explicitly rejects the link between skin color and supremacy. Ultimately, the conclusion I've come to at this phase of my study is that there did exist a certain amount of racism and classism among the Nephites against the Lamanites. Mormon himself seemed to harbor some of these biases. In 3 Nephi 2:15-16, he describes converted Lamanites as having their skin become "white like unto the Nephites" and that their sons and daughters became "exceedingly fair." Given Mormon's general reticence to use 'filthy' to describe anything other than a spiritual condition, I'm inclined to believe that he is describing their physical attractiveness. In other words, the Nephite culture and those of Mormon's culture seem to have determined lighter skin to be the standard of beauty. The question that follows that conclusion is "how could prophets of God harbor those biases?" Well, they were still human, and still suffered from the imperfections of man. Moroni explicitly states this. And so if we read the right bits and pieces, it isn't difficult to paint a picture for "white supremacy in the Book of Mormon." However, if you read the broader teachings contained in that scripture, it becomes clear that filthiness--as used by the Book of Mormon authors--is strictly a spiritual condition that is not tied to skin color. Jacob makes that point inarguable. I recommend we follow Moroni's plea. Let us learn to be more wise than they have been and reject racial supremacy. Instead, let's recognize the beautiful truths of the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and all other scripture that teach that all men are children of God and that he desires all of them to return to his presence.

it offensive either way?

An unfeeling, ruthless machine hell bent on destroying humanity.....I think I'd be offended.

I have had a very recent struggle with this same issue, albeit from the other side of the spectrum. I had advised our bishopric to seek input from the general ward membership on what we could do to help each of them feel comfortable returning to church. Mixed in with the vast majority of thoughtful responses were a few "There's nothing you can do that will make me feel comfortable right now." and a few "people just need to stop being scared and take things back to normal." As you might expect, the "just stop being scared" comments triggered my thoughts of "what a blithering idiot." No sooner had I said that to myself than my mind was filled with this thought: For most of this month, I've been struggling with how to repent and be more charitable toward those with whom I disagree. It's hard. It's really, really hard for me. I don't have solutions. I don't think I've made any progress in my repentance. But know that you aren't alone in your feelings.

If you want the minimal risk of transmission, you can have each household bring their own bread and water. They can hold their emblems at their seats when they are blessed, and then consume them when the prayer is done. After that, sealed, pre-packed containers (as described by @prisonchaplain) are your best bet. If you're willing to tolerate a little more risk, there are countless ways you can manage passing the sacrament. How you manage this is highly dependent on what your goal is. If your goal is to balance minimal disruption with minimal risk, truthfully, careful hand washing (be everyone, not just those handling the sacrament) combined with having adults retrieve emblems for their young children is probably enough. But your risk profile has to include considerations for your congregation. Do you have any immuno-compromised members? How many of your members are elderly? If your goal is to make the ordinance comfortable for as many as possible, then you may find yourself making more alterations. My bishop made the decision that we would make every reasonable effort to make sacrament meeting as free-from-worry for as many people as possible. The process we settled on was that, for the bread, a single oyster cracker is being poured into a sacrament cup placed in a water tray where only ever other space is used. Those who pass the emblems will carry a second tray to collect the used cups. Similarly, for water, only ever other space is used in the tray, and a second tray is carried to collect the cups. Parents are being asked to retrieve cups for their young children. When developing your plan, remember that you have a great deal of flexibility. Scripturally, the only requirements for the ordinance are that 1) the priest kneels when saying the prayer, and 2) the words of the prayer are said exactly as recorded in Moroni/D&C (substituting the word 'water' for 'wine'). Everything beyond that is cultural/policy/whatever. (some of it is great symbolism, and I would be reticent to give it up forever, but we can survive for a period of time without it)

@carlimac, want to try again?

I have to admit that I am confused by some of the logic presented here. Today's youth have fewer of the characteristics that I value in the previous generation's youth, therefore they must not be among the more valiant souls....(paraphrased, I didn't take the effort to make a full and concise statement) What isn't considered, however, is the possibility that the trait's of today's youth are the very manifestation of their valiance. It's sloppy of me to do this, but I'm going to make claims without evidence, so consider it anecdotal. By and large, the youth today seem to be more empathetic, comfortable with nuance and complexity, and more prone to value social improvement over personal wealth. What if their willingness and determination to tear down long standing social norms is their valiance in action? What if their unwillingness to accept racial animus (for example) in scripture as divinely-directed is a sign of their valiance? In other words, we're often quick to judge others (including other generations) for their unrighteousness for no other reason than they have different values or priorities than we do. I would submit that doing so is a dangerous business if you don't fully understand what makes those people tick, and are unwilling to question whether your own perspectives might need some adjustment. Another perspective you can put on this all is to consider that the people that were the target of that "most valiant souls" comment are the very people that raised today's youth. So if today's youth really are so much worse, then it seems that it would be the fault of those most valiant souls for raising a bunch of screw ups. So before we go railing on how not-valiant today's youth are, maybe we should question whether those valiant ones were really as valiant as we thought, seeing as they obviously screwed up their most noble calling so badly......

I'm going to say this with the caveat that I am not going to engage further in this line of discussion as it falls outside the scope of this thread. I agree that I don't see it happen often. But the threat is there. Which also leads to all sorts of shenanigans and outright corruption to inflate scores to stay above the federally mandated thresholds. Honestly, it was a system I never really liked, but I understand the premise. As far as what to do about it....(shrug)...see Colirio's comment about broader societal issues. We've got lots or problems, and the solutions may not be the same. Again, if you look at the current event as a single incident*, then cutting budgets doesn't make sense. If you view it through a lens of a history of events, it starts to make sense that maybe a change in tactics is desirable. Whether or not you agree depends on whether you prefer preparing the police force to restore order or whether you prefer shifting their culture into better relations with black communities. * Keep in mind that by and large, the black community will tell you that these types of events are not new. What is new is that they are being recorded. Sure. But funding of what? Funding for more riot control equipment? funding for more overtime? funding for more community policing? If the mayor of LA can approve the size of the police budget but has limited ability to control what it is spent on*, then how else is he supposed to persuade the police department to spend their budget in line with his priorities? * I don't know the structure of these things for LA. I'm hypothesizing that if the mayor could direct what the money is spent on, then he'd do so.

I won't contest that there are broad societal issues that need to be addressed. Motivating police forces to deescalate is not a magic cure, but could be a valid and effective part of an broader strategy.

I'm not sure your belief that police aren't getting the same treatment as the schools is as solid as you think. To begin, the idea of cutting police budgets to encourage a move away from aggressive policing is new enough that I've only heard it discussed in theory in the past couple of years, and LAPD is the first force I'm aware of to actually do it. By and large, police budgets have been increasing. As far as schools, keep in mind that schools that under perform get less money from federal resources. So this new trend with police forces may be more consistent than you are thinking. Lastly, if it were demonstrated that increasing school budgets resulted in a physically more aggressive teaching force, do you really think we'd keep increasing those budgets? That is, the terms of comparison may not be completely equal.

so let me be clear...you've been hearing those ideas tossed around for decades.....but police budgets have generally been increasing for decades.... and things aren't getting any better.....so your proposal is to do more of the same?

It is, indeed, a matter of perspective. The militarization of the police force is one aspect of a policing system that has become increasingly confrontational, especially over the past two decades. (see sources below) There's still some work to be done in this field of research, but my impression is that police aggression has been increasing. Some of that may be related to militarization, and some may be related to qualified immunity, and some may be related to the move away from community policing. Underlying all of those effects, minority communities, and especially black communities, have a very long standing, tense relationship with law enforcement. This tension is a couple of hundred years old, and encompasses the fact that, pre-abolition, any white person could stop a black person and demand proof that they weren't a slave; it encompasses the Jim Crow era; it encompasses lynching and harassment that were ignored by racist law enforcement officers. The reality is that police treat black people differently. This is most starkly reflected in what white parents teach their children about interacting with the police versus what black parents teach their children about interacting with the police. so yes, if you look at this from the perspective of this is one incident that needs to be brought under control, then it is ludicrous to cut the budget. On the other hand, if you see this as just the most recent in a long line of incidents, then you begin to realize that this also won't be the last one. If we keep doing what we have been doing--increase the budget and continue amping up the crowd control--then it's quite likely that the next one will just be bigger. Reducing the budget, then, can be interpreted as a step toward deescalating tensions. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2018/07/05/evidence-suggests-the-militarization-of-police-forces-leads-to-more-civilian-deaths/ https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/08/21/militarization-police-fails-enhance-safety-may-harm-police-reputation https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2015/spring/aclu-militarization-of-police/ https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/security-military/militarization-police-reduce-crime-research/

One concern among those seeking law enforcement reform has been the militarization of police forces. Reducing a police force's budget is a tactic that, as I understand it, is premised on the idea that if police forces aren't able to escalate their tools, they will have to develop new (and ideally less confrontational) methods of maintaining order. in other words, the budget reduction forces the police force to consider what its priorities are. If they want to keep buying the militaristic equipment, they'll have to make cuts somewhere else, such as training, salaries, personnel, etc.

I don't think that was meant in a "I object to mask wearing" kind of way. More like a "I would be physically uncomfortable wearing a mask for that long." I'm not looking forward to wearing a mask that long either. I will do it, but I won't pretend to enjoy it. Then again, depending on what my ward decides to do, I may just refuse to go. We have a few yahoos in our ward that are adamant this is all a conspiracy, and I can see them deliberately not wearing masks and touching every surface in sight just to make a point. Hopefully I'll be able to talk my bishopric into a moderate approach to reopening (one has already floated the idea that we could fully open right now if we wanted to).