GaleG

Changing skin color

Recommended Posts

Guest
On 1/18/2019 at 12:07 PM, MormonGator said:

So I can join a group that advocates putting LDS in concentration camps, threatens interracial couples with physical violence and still be considered a good person?

So, the recent reaction to the video of the Catholic School boys with a Native American is a good example of the pigeon hole mentality that I want to avoid.  When you only get a narrow sliver of information, it is easy to jump to conclusions and start condemning, threatening with violence, and even doxing innocent and unrelated individuals based on nothing but hearsay.

I mentioned my uncle was a great man.  The years of his public life were around 1880 to 1910.  He accomplished a lot of things that would be quite praiseworthy, not the least of which was the founding of my hometown (in America).

I also mentioned that he was a member of the KKK.  Since this was only recently brought to light, I don't know what years he was in that organization.  But I found an interesting tidbit of information from history.

Quote

The Klan was not active during most of the years of the ‘lynching frenzy’ of the late 19th and early 20th century South ... White lynchers in the Jim Crow-era from the 1890s through the 1910s carried on many of the same white supremacist values as the Ku Klux Klan had in the 1860s and 1870s, but it is not accurate to say that the Klan was involved in lynching in the 1890s and early 1900s.

 -- Michael Pfeifer, Historian, City University of New York;

  Author of the book:  Rough Justice: Lynching and American Society, 1847-1947

I find it interesting that he did all this "good stuff" during the era that the KKK was not killing people. 

It could very well be that he simply thought it was an organization dedicated to protecting the way of life that he had come to treasure.  So, he joined.  Then he realized what they were up to and decided that he couldn't really condone what they were doing.  Remember that the Klan didn't have the reputation that it does today.  How would he know?  He was a recent immigrant at the time.  He barely had time to hear about it.

It could be that he only joined in the period when the Klan was changing and trying to be more quiet.  And that's the period where he was doing a lot of good.

We don't know what he was doing with the Klan or why.  This is why I was saying you can't judge every individual using guilt by association with a group, especially when we are introducing a heavy dose of presentism into the equation.

If I found that he (as an individual) actually did condone what we understand about the Klan, then, yes, I'd condemn him.  But until someone can give me proof of that, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and remember all the good he did in his life.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

So, the recent reaction to the video of the Catholic School boys with a Native American is a good example of the pigeon hole mentality that I want to avoid.  When you only get a narrow sliver of information, it is easy to jump to conclusions and start condemning, threatening with violence, and even doxing innocent and unrelated individuals based on nothing but hearsay.

I mentioned my uncle was a great man.  The years of his public life were around 1880 to 1910.  He accomplished a lot of things that would be quite praiseworthy, not the least of which was the founding of my hometown (in America).

I also mentioned that he was a member of the KKK.  Since this was only recently brought to light, I don't know what years he was in that organization.  But I found an interesting tidbit of information from history.

I find it interesting that he did all this "good stuff" during the era that the KKK was not killing people. 

It could very well be that he simply thought it was an organization dedicated to protecting the way of life that he had come to treasure.  So, he joined.  Then he realized what they were up to and decided that he couldn't really condone what they were doing.  Remember that the Klan didn't have the reputation that it does today.  How would he know?  He was a recent immigrant at the time.  He barely had time to hear about it.

It could be that he only joined in the period when the Klan was changing and trying to be more quiet.  And that's the period where he was doing a lot of good.

We don't know what he was doing with the Klan or why.  This is why I was saying you can't judge every individual using guilt by association with a group, especially when we are introducing a heavy dose of presentism into the equation.

If I found that he (as an individual) actually did condone what we understand about the Klan, then, yes, I'd condemn him.  But until someone can give me proof of that, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and remember all the good he did in his life.

Interesting.  I wonder what will turn up in my family history.

On a side note, I answered your PM as best as I could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Interesting.  I wonder what will turn up in my family history.

On a side note, I answered your PM as best as I could.

I read it.  I appreciate it.  We'll see how things develop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 5:53 PM, Fether said:

In the Book of Omni we read the the Mulekite language (originally the same as the Nephite) has become corrupt (Omni 1:17) over about 200 years. How could a language become corrupt if there were no other languages to sway it?

Do you believe the Hebrew language has been corrupted over the last 2000 years?

Thank you,

Gale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, GaleG said:

Do you believe the Hebrew language has been corrupted over the last 2000 years?

Thank you,

Gale

*shrug* don’t know enough about Hebrew. I would assume so, but I don’t know.

FolkProphet already slightly moved me away from this example with his comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 7:50 AM, Carborendum said:

The only thing I ask is that you all start eating kim chee.  Or else you're all racists pigs.:P

I can't even tolerate the smell of kim chee.

Oh my, now I'm a deplorable AND a racist pig!  Couldn't I just eat some rice with kikkomann instead?

:-) 

My two cents..... I was always under the assumption that the Lamanites were the fore runners to the First People/American Indians on the American continent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 9:29 PM, Vort said:

For example: The so-called "Priesthood ban" before 1978 was of God. Period. That's my considered opinion, and I'm unlikely to change it unless and until the Church's apostles teach otherwise. I know it's considered "racist" by the world and by "leftist Mormons" (but I repeat myself). So be it. Better to die a believing Latter-day Saint than live as a reed in the wind,, blowing about with every change of societal doctrine and disloyally betraying the truths one has received from God's kingdom.

I am curious how you feel about policy v doctine and if policy can be considered to be "of God." The ban apparently was not by way of revelation but the lifting of it was as stated in Declaration #2.

According to the Gospel Topics Essay on Priesthood ban for Blacks, the church states the ban was not of Doctrine, but of policy. Of course in keeping with LDS tradition all we have to do look back and there are many references to the ban being from God. No mention of policy v doctrine ( at least none I found). I wonder if there is a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ephedra said:

I am curious how you feel about policy v doctine and if policy can be considered to be "of God."

I believe that doctrine (or teaching) refers to the truths of God that he has revealed to us through his prophets. I believe that policy is the way in which any doctrine or set of doctrines is made to apply to a given real-world situation. Yes, policy absolutely can be (and I hope usually is) of God. But policies, by their nature, are more fluid and flexible, adapting to our mortal human situations as needed.

For example, there were solid doctrinal reasons why God re-established plural marriage among his people in the 1830s, difficult though that was for so many. And there were solid doctrinal reasons why he rescinded that commandment in the 1890s, difficult as THAT was for so many. I do not believe God has ever publicly revealed those specific doctrinal reasons, either for giving the commandment or for rescinding it. In the absence of those specific doctrinal reasons, we are left guessing—quoting Jacob as to God's desire to raise up seed unto himself to explain why the commandment was given, and quoting President Woodruff as to what would have happened to the Church if it continued plural marriage to explain why the commandment was withdrawn. But the mere fact that God wanted to raise up seed unto himself doesn't explain the doctrinal basis upon which polygamy was restored; God continues to raise up seed unto himself today, without plural marriage. And the mere fact that the Church would have been weakened or even broken up as an institution had plural marriage continued doesn't explain the doctrinal basis upon which it was withdrawn; the kingdom of God will remain on the earth until Christ comes, with or without the Church as its sponsoring institution*.

*Though to be clear, I do happen to believe quite strongly that the Restored Church is the only vehicle for the kingdom of God in these latter days. So I'm not trying to suggest otherwise.

Having reasons for various policies is not the same as understanding the doctrinal bases for those policies.

Were there doctrinal reasons behind the Priesthood ban of years past? I believe there were, absolutely, no doubt in my mind. What were those doctrinal reasons? I can't say. Others in the past have given their own ideas as to those doctrinal reasons, though the Church has officially disclaimed them all. Perhaps some of them were accurate to one degree or another. Perhaps none of them was accurate to any significant degree. But even if the old ideas were all false, that doesn't mean there were no doctrinal reasons.

In any case, the same God who is powerful to teach us true doctrines without completely explaining why those doctrines are true is also powerful to tell us how to apply those doctrines in current conditions without explaining why the application is such (or why it must change). That we have no official record of God's hand instituting some given policy certainly can't be taken to mean that God's hand wasn't involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McKay prayed for permission to remove the ban in the 1950s.

McKay was specifically told “no”.

If God didn’t own the ban before then, He certainly owned it afterwards.  But I rather suspect He did own it beforehand, too.  Because the primary argument against the divine origin of the ban is that our Uncle Fluffy Deus-ex-Santa Claus would never authorize something so unenlightened.  But if He authorized it in 1950, there’s little reason He couldn’t also have authorized it in 1850.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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