Recommended Posts

I was saying earlier that the riots are really about removing the symbols of the old empire and replacing them with new ones.  I was waiting for what the new symbols would be because that would reveal the true agenda.

The first suggestion is upon us already. They've torn down the statue of Francis Scott Key.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=XnRmmYi7iZU&feature=emb_logo

Ever since Kapernick knelt (and really, quite a bit before him) there has been a noticeable movement to end the playing of the Star Spangled Banner as our national anthem because there is one use of the word "slave" in one of the less sung verses.

Now, the first suggestion by Yahoo Music is to replace it with Imagine.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/why-it-might-be-time-to-replace-the-star-spangled-banner-with-a-new-national-anthem-023741108.html

So, we replace a statement of courage under fire and triumph over impossible odds... with a statement of unity under atheism and communism and a complete lack of motivation to do anything useful.

I'll admit that the tune is beautiful in its simplicity and mesmerizing tones.  But the lyrics are absolutely against everything I hold dear.  God, Family, Country.

Evil wrapped up in a package of peace, unity, and love.  I wanna know why there aren't any rainbows, unicorns, and fluffy bunnies.  Oh, wait...

228044508_rainbowunicorn.jpg.a288e53f14c1d92b024dc52f340dd47d.jpg

Now, THAT really is pure evil.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished, thereby perpetrating a foul and corroding blot upon the fair fame of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame.

( Source: Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 302-03)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I was pondering upon current events in light of the Pearl of Great Price a thought struck me.  In the pre-existence a war started between those who supported the Savior's plan and those who tried to push a different plan.  I do not think it there was mortal death involved at the time...so what type of war would it be.

I think it was a war of words, a clash of cultures, and a battle to convince the other side to think or act in a manner supporting their position in any way possible. 

In many ways, I think it was similar to what we are currently seeing occur in the US.  There is probably an active push to change the culture and society in the US, but rather than fighting with guns (yet), it is being fought by protest, riot, and many other means that overall involve words and action, but not the type of bloodshed we normally see in wars. 

That does not mean I do not sympathize with what some of the reasons that those who say they support BLM are protesting.  I think in some cases they have a valid complaint and these things should be addressed.  Police SHOULD serve the public, and in some areas the do not.  There should not be such stupid policies as ticket quotas.  There should not be search and seizure where seizure is pushed by the department so that they can make more money.  There should be things put in place to negate such ideas as they act against the supporting and serving the public. 

On the otherhand, there are many good departments which should probably be praised more and supported more.  The good that officers do should be highlighted in an effort to inspire others to also do as good.

Unfortunately, there are those in the US today that say they want to make changes, but in truth simply want to destroy.  They want to destroy the police, but it is more than just the police, it is anything dealing with the history and culture of the US, or at least that is what seems to be coming out recently.  They are committed to destroy it, or at least some of their leaders are, and they are fighting in everyway they feel they can. 

In this way, I think it is very reflective of how the War in Heaven began.  I think that War that started in Heaven continues today on this earth and there are many things that happen (that hurt, ad sometimes perhaps even kill individuals as we are now mortal) that are extensions of that war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

there has been a noticeable movement to end the playing of the Star Spangled Banner as our national anthem because there is one use of the word "slave" in one of the less sung verses.

It's more than the one word. 

(PS, I'm presenting here the history behind the lines and controversy rather than agreeing with taking down statues).

Here are the lines in question:

Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,

Here is the background behind the verse:

During the battle, American slaves tried to escape to the British ships hoping for freedom from slavery.  In the poem, Francis Scott Key was basically praising the gunning down of the slaves trying to escape slavery.

Just in case people are wondering what all of the fuss is about and why some want to change the anthem.

(Once again, I am only pointing out the history for anyone who might be interested).

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Scott said:

Here is the background behind the verse:

During the battle, American slaves tried to escape to the British ships hoping for freedom from slavery.  In the poem, Francis Scott Key was basically praising the gunning down of the slaves trying to escape slavery.

Just in case people are wondering what all of the fuss is about and why some want to change the anthem.

(Once again, I am only pointing out the history for anyone who might be interested).

Erm . . . Not quite.

Yes, the Brits accepted runaway US slaves.  American southerners lived in fear of the Brits fomenting a slave rebellion—an early draft of the Declaration of Independence simultaneously blamed George III for continuing the slave trade in the colonies, and also for stirring up those same slaves to rebel against their masters.  During the Chesapeake Campaign the British Admiral Cockburn was able to muster a couple of regiments of ex-slaves, units of which had taken part in the sack of Washington, DC the month before the assault on Fort McHenry.  And virtually all Americans scorned the British soldiers as either recently-emancipated slaves (who, as throughout all ancient history, were despised as an uneducated and undisciplined rabble irrespective of race) or paid mercenaries (“hirelings”), whereas the Americans characterized themselves as “freemen . . . stand[ing] between their loved homes and the war’s desolation”.

Yes, the verse contains snobbery (I wouldn’t say “racism” per se, though Key himself was undoubtedly a racist).  No, it does not glorify war crimes.  It is a jingoistic paean to American soldiers who considered themselves to be both better soldiers and motivated by a better cause.

Sure, it’s a little obnoxious—most good patriotic displays are.  But the real problem with “The Star Spangled Banner” is that it enthusiastically endorses the ideas that we are objectively better because we are free and that defensive violence is a natural prerogative of a free people.  It’s easy to miss that point, because we’ve had two generations of generally progressive schoolteachers indoctrinating their pupils with the idea that the song is just about a flag.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Scott said:

It's more than the one word. 

Not really, but I'll listen.

Quote

(PS, I'm presenting here the history behind the lines and controversy rather than agreeing with taking down statues).

Understood.

Quote

Here are the lines in question:

Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,

Yes.

Quote

During the battle, American slaves tried to escape to the British ships hoping for freedom from slavery. 

Some, yes.  But many American slaves (and hirelings) fought on the American side as well.

Quote

In the poem, Francis Scott Key was basically praising the gunning down of the slaves trying to escape slavery.

That is an interpretation with problems.  No one ever asked him.  And he never told anyone about the meaning.

e.g. Was it about those "trying to escape"?  Or was it simply about the entire British army (which were commonly called an army of "hirelings and slaves" because it was mostly true).  They were the enemy after all.

As for the "gunning down..." Should they only fight with nerf pellets?  Where does it refer to those in the act of escaping being "gunned down"?  That's just creative excrement dressed up to look like liberal wokeness.  Where is the proof that this is what was intended?  Words mean something.

Quote

Just in case people are wondering what all of the fuss is about and why some want to change the anthem.

(Once again, I am only pointing out the history for anyone who might be interested).

While that is interesting historical information (albeit biased and incomplete) that really doesn't change what I said.

1. If you take out the word "slave" from that line, is there ANY connection to that historical background that you're talking about?  So, it is just "one word."  Sure, you could make some argument for "hireling".  But that actually refers to hirelings who were not black and not slaves equally.  It really is a generic reference to all hirelings.  In other words, it is raceless.  So, how is that racist?

2. As it stands now, what is racist about the lyrics themselves?  It apparently references accurate historical information.  How is relating accurate historical information somehow racist? 

3. It actually speaks positively about the slave as a thinking, moral person who has struggles and difficult choices to make.  How is that racist?  Is there anything derogatory about it?  Is there some carelessness about it?  Does it praise slavery as an institution?  No, it is actually focusing on their plight.  And you want to call it racist because of that?

4. There were slaves and hirelings on both sides.  Which ones was he referring to?  NO ONE KNOWS.  No one asked.  And he never told anyone.  The phrase "hireling and slave" was a common epithet leveled at the ENTIRE British army.  That they were only fighting because they were hired or bought to do that job.  Whereas (the intent of the song) the American armies had a much nobler cause of defending their homes and families.  But we don't know which he meant.

IN THE END, given the broader context of the song and the history surrounding it, the complaint is only about the use of a single word.  There is no offense in using the word.  It was actually very inclusive to show that they were part of the battle. 

I'd like to point out the contradiction here.  One major complaint from liberals is that we have a cultural denial regarding slavery -- we want to forget slavery ever happened.  We try to brush it under the rug.  But then you want to remove the national anthem because "gasp" we dare mention slavery in our national anthem?  I thought the idea was that we were supposed to be open and honest about our slavery past.

So, are we supposed to admit it happened in proper historical context?  Or are we supposed to erase all memory of it?

SPECIAL NOTE:

Scott, I'd ask you to consider the rest of my OP.  You can point to this one sentence and debate that all you want.  But the grander point I'm making is that the US is about to fall to a rebellion and destroy the Contitution to replace it with a government very similar to what the Russians have right now.  Do you really want that?  I know you said that you don't believe in toppling statues, etc.  But to ignore the rest of my post just so you can argue about a single word (which is what I was originally rolling my eyes at) is missing the forest for the trees.

Don't be so blinded by partisanship as to buy into the idea that the US is done and it is time for a new empire.  Voting for your candidate of choice is one thing.  But to decide to destroy the system altogether?

Quote

Next to being one in worshipping God there is nothing in this world upon which the Church should be more united that in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States.

 -- David O. Mackay

The nation is at a tipping point, and you're arguing about the background of a single word being "offensive".  If it meant getting rid of any and all "protected classes of people" in the law, to preserve the Constitution, would you accept that?

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You can point to this one sentence and debate that all you want

The nation is at a tipping point, and you're arguing about the background of a single word being "offensive".  

To be clear, I'm just pointing out the history of why the verses are controversial and why some want them removed, rather than claiming I'm offended by them.   

A few years ago when the controversy came up, I had to look up what all of the fuss was about.   I thought some might be interested.

Without looking it up, after reading those I had no idea what those lines could be referring to or why some people were offended by them.  So, that's the only reason for bringing it up.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want my take and opinion on the entire issue, here it is, but it is somewhat off topic:

Francis Scott Key was indeed racist at the time (regardless of the anthem) when he penned the poem.  Most Americans at the time were racists, even those opposed to slavery.  

Also, Francis Scott Key didn’t set out to write the national anthem.  He was simply writing a poem of what he saw.  It was only later chosen as the national anthem and put to the music of a British drinking/debauchery song.

So yes, Francis Scott Key was an imperfect human being.

Although he did indeed make racist comments and support slavery throughout much of his life, he also started to change his tune later in life.   He freed several of his slaves.   He was always against abolition though.

So yes, it is history.    

As for my take, it's time for people to move on.  No one today owns slaves.   As far as I know almost no one (I'm sure there are a few out there) in this country supports slavery.   It's over and it's history.

Sure we should still try (I say try because it will never be eliminated completely before the second coming) to eliminate racism through proper means (not burning down businesses or vandalism).

Quote

But the grander point I'm making is that the US is about to fall to a rebellion and destroy the Contitution to replace it with a government very similar to what the Russians have right now.

I don't believe it has come to that, but I don't like the way our country is going.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, is this the beginning of a revolution by socialists?  The change in symbols to seem to say so. BUT...

An alternative is that we're in the middle of the 7 plagues (of Egypt -- sort of).  If so, what parallel would we see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Scott said:

Francis Scott Key was indeed racist at the time (regardless of the anthem) when he penned the poem.  Most Americans at the time were racists, even those opposed to slavery.  

Agreed.  This was never a point of disagreement.  But, I think this is, again, an interesting part of history.  So, it's not all that off topic.

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

Also, Francis Scott Key didn’t set out to write the national anthem.  He was simply writing a poem of what he saw.  It was only later chosen as the national anthem and put to the music of a British drinking/debauchery song.

Agreed.  This was never a point of disagreement.

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

So yes, Francis Scott Key was an imperfect human being.

Agreed.  This was never a point of disagreement.

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

Although he did indeed make racist comments and support slavery throughout much of his life, he also started to change his tune later in life.   He freed several of his slaves. 

Agreed.  This was never a point of disagreement.

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

He was always against abolition though.

You're going to have to cite a source.  I had heard that he just accepted things as they were because that's the way it was.  And he was neither for nor against abolition.

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

As for my take, it's time for people to move on.  No one today owns slaves.   As far as I know almost no one (I'm sure there are a few out there) in this country supports slavery.   It's over and it's history.

Sure we should still try (I say try because it will never be eliminated completely before the second coming) to eliminate racism through proper means (not burning down businesses or vandalism).

I don't believe it has come to that, but I don't like the way our country is going.

Again, I agree.  Notice the bold.  What I believe is that as much as it is possible for a free society prior to the second coming, I think we've gotten about as good as it's going to get.  And I think it's a LOT less than BLM and the race baiters would have us believe.  Yes, it exists.  But the numbers are very low.  Again, we have more deaths from virtually ANYTHING than we have racially motivated deaths from police officers.  I don't know the stats on racially motivated deaths total.  But I imagine they are pretty low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You're going to have to cite a source.  I had heard that he just accepted things as they were because that's the way it was.  And he was neither for nor against abolition.

When you have some time, read through his speeches during the Crandall case, which I believe was his last case before his resignation:

https://www.loc.gov/item/31010419/

These are his own words.  Tell me what you think.  

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 What I believe is that as much as it is possible for a free society prior to the second coming, I think we've gotten about as good as it's going to get.  

I hope that you are wrong.   To me, it seems like were going backward on racial issues rather than foreward.  

If someone asked my 20 years ago about racism, I would have said that was mostly a problem of pervious generations and not this one.  I wouldn't say that today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ether 9

1 And now I, Moroni, proceed with my record. Therefore, behold, it came to pass that because of the secret combinations of Akish and his friends, behold, they did overthrow the kingdom of Omer.

2 Nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons and to his daughters who did not seek his destruction.

3 And the Lord warned Omer in a dream that he should depart out of the land; wherefore Omer departed out of the land with his family, and traveled many days, and came over and passed by the hill of Shim, and came over by the place where the Nephites were destroyed, and from thence eastward, and came to a place which was called Ablom, by the seashore, and there he pitched his tent, and also his sons and his daughters, and all his household, save it were Jared and his family.

...

12 And there began to be a war between the sons of Akish and Akish, which lasted for the space of many years, yea, unto the destruction of nearly all the people of the kingdom, yea, even all, save it were thirty souls, and they who fled with the house of Omer.

13 Wherefore, Omer was restored again to the land of his inheritance.

Share this post


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

Francis Scott Key was indeed racist at the time (regardless of the anthem) when he penned the poem.  Most Americans at the time were racists, even those opposed to slavery. 

If everyone was "racist", then was anyone really racist? This is pure, unadulterated presentism. For a term like "racist" to have any meaning, there must be a viable alternative that people do not choose. What viable alternative to "racist" beliefs existed in 18th and 19th century America that were available to Americans and would justify calling them "racist"? Even abolitionists were "racist" by today's definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scott said:

Sure we should still try (I say try because it will never be eliminated completely before the second coming) to eliminate racism

By today's definition of "racism", the above bolded part is false. God himself is a "racist", by the definition many use today. He created the races, after all. And since the races are demonstrably different, sometimes in performance as well as in appearance, that makes God racist.

I have grown up and spent my whole life decrying racism and believing it to be a plague on our society. As a middle-aged man, I find my opinion changing. I think racism is a political construct. The things I have always considered to be racism can better be classified as hatefulness or stupidity. "Racism", as the term is widely used today, is a political fiction, an excuse to pass legislation and engage in societal deconstruction/reconstruction in a mostly dangerous and dishonest way. It plays off of people's noblest instincts to produce evil. Or does anyone here rationally and objectively accept that the proper response to "white privilege" is for white people to quit calling the police when they're being robbed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
12 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have grown up and spent my whole life decrying racism and believing it to be a plague on our society

I think most of us have, in fairness. I can honestly say that none of my friends are openly racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Vort said:

By today's definition of "racism", the above bolded part is false. God himself is a "racist", by the definition many use today. He created the races, after all. And since the races are demonstrably different, sometimes in performance as well as in appearance, that makes God racist.

I have grown up and spent my whole life decrying racism and believing it to be a plague on our society. As a middle-aged man, I find my opinion changing. I think racism is a political construct. The things I have always considered to be racism can better be classified as hatefulness or stupidity. "Racism", as the term is widely used today, is a political fiction, an excuse to pass legislation and engage in societal deconstruction/reconstruction in a mostly dangerous and dishonest way. It plays off of people's noblest instincts to produce evil. Or does anyone here rationally and objectively accept that the proper response to "white privilege" is for white people to quit calling the police when they're being robbed?

Personally I would call someone racist if they believe that he or she is superior to someone just because of his or her race.

Just acknowledging that races are different isn't racist, at least in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scott said:

Personally I would call someone racist if they believe that he or she is superior to someone just because of his or her race.

Just acknowledging that races are different isn't racist, at least in my opinion.

In the late 1980s, a famous oddsmaker and sports commentator called Jimmy "the Greek" made the following observation: Slaveowners would often treat their slaves as cattle, and sometimes that would lead to them intentionally "breeding" slave children to have the best physical characteristics. That's why today's black men are so overrepresented in sports; they are the modern result of this centuries-past selective breeding.

Is that opinion racist? Because it got Jimmy the Greek fired, never to be rehired until he died eight or so years later.

You can say that his opinion was ignorant. (I think it was.) You can disagree with the historicity of what he claimed were the practices of slaveowners (I don't know whether such things were true or not). But exactly what was "racist" about what he said? Well, according to your blurb above, what he said was "racist" because he claimed that black men were superior athletes just because of their (intentionally genetically selected) race.

Really?

"Racism" is a fake construct, used today to destroy people who fail to toe the PC line sufficiently. Maybe we need to invent a new term for an old idea. Race-based refusal to hire people to do jobs for which race is irrelevant is an example of "classic racism", but that's not what "racism" means today. For example, what about when a company refuses to hire the white guy as a tech because they already have "too many white guys"? Aside from issues of being able to prove whether he was passed over for that reason, today's college set would maintain that that's not racism at all, because, you see, whites have the power. The president is white. Bill Gates is white. Elon Musk is white. Therefore, refusing to hire Joe Blow because he's white is not racist. Great logic, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Scott said:

Personally I would call someone racist if they believe that he or she is superior to someone just because of his or her race.

Just acknowledging that races are different isn't racist, at least in my opinion.

Differing uses of terminology haunt these sorts of discussions.

—The term “racist” is now used to label those who point to cultural differences, not just purported biological/genetic ones.

—“Abolitionism” as it existed in the 1830s was more than simply ending slavery—it was ending slavery through a very particular set of steps, and violence wasn’t off the table.  One could be—as Key seems to have been—against slavery as an institution, while also opposing the methods embraced by the abolitionists of that era.  Forcible abolition of slavery in the states where it already existed, only went mainstream in the US once the slave states had rebelled and instigated the Civil War—at which point the North basically figured “well, we have the band and the cake, so we may as well have the party”.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two kinds of racism.  The first I will call something based in hate.  It is this racism to is ascribed all the bad elements of racism.  The second kind of racism is the realization or recognition of differences.  There is a tendency to lump all racism into one bad evil type but the very realization of the first kind of racism is a type of the second kind. 

Rather than propagate hate because of differences - we ought to learn to love, appreciate and celebrate differences. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
15 minutes ago, Vort said:

Because it got Jimmy the Greek fired, never to be rehired until he died eight or so years later.

 

It shows he lacks intelligence, or common sense. You should know better not to open that door, especially if you are a public figure. No good can come from it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It shows he lacks intelligence, or common sense. You should know better not to open that door, especially if you are a public figure. No good can come from it. 

That is true, but utterly beside the point. There was nothing racist about what he said, not in any reasonable interpretation of the word.

Share this post


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

"Racism" is a fake construct, used today to destroy people who fail to toe the PC line sufficiently.

If it is a fake construct then why have our Church leaders been warning so strogly against it in recent years?  I don't think they would be saying so much about it if the problem really doesn't exist.

As for the rest of the post, I don't see how it is relevant to what I said.

When I say that a racist is someone who believes that he or she is superior to someone just because of his or her race I mean he or she believes that he or she is a superior human being.  I'm talking about thinking a human is superior to another, not a specific trait.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Scott said:

If it is a fake construct then why have our Church leaders been warning so strogly against it in recent years?  I don't think they would be saying so much about it if the problem really doesn't exist.

As for the rest of the post, I don't see how it is relevant to what I said.

When I say that a racist is someone who believes that he or she is superior to someone just because of his or her race I mean he or she believes that he or she is a superior human being.  I'm talking about thinking a human is superior to another, not a specific trait.  

Generally it seems to me that any happy person will believe that they grew up in a "superior" society.  Someone believing they have an advantage in life because of the culture and society in which they were raised - I do not count so much as a problem.  I do consider that to hate someone because of how they were raised is a problem - including if a disadvantaged black person hates a privileged white person - for no other reason than that they were raised differently. 

 

The Traveler

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