It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:44 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:20 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9639
Location: Kershaw, SC
Given recent developments at the MDD board, in which TBM posters have been savaged, held up to character assassination and moral ridicule by leading members of the FAIR moderator team for supporting and defending the official position of the Church on race and the priesthood ban and for encouraging a philosophical position of coloerblindless and dismissal of race as a meaningful category of human relations that needs not divide and balkanize human beings in there interactions with each other, and for arguing for a view of black people as brothers and sisters of equal value, potential, and possibility with white people, and equally as personally responsible for the their conduct, reaction to life circumstances and conditions, and potential to rise above the challenges presented by mortality as white people or any other people, a few questions are in order.

I would like to put these questions to the mods and the sanctimonious leftists who ran roughshod over my character and motives in lieu of rational, critical discourse and debate, but as I'm sure they do not perceive anyone who disagrees with them as worthy of their condescension, I put this out in public as food for though regarding the future of apologetics and of FAIR as the major face of the apologetic movement in the public sphere.

The Cornel West/Darrick Bell/ H. Rap Brown wing of the apologetic movement that apparently controls discourse at the MDD board will doubtless find all of this deeply "offensive" (that wonderful catch-all value that, for the elite leftist intelligentsia, whether LDS or non-LDS, substitutes for reasoned debate and philosophical substance, but the questions should be asked nonetheless.

1. If the priesthood ban was racist, as this coterie of LDS intellectuals claim, why have the Brethren not admitted to such? Why have the Brethren left it to the neo-orthodox LDS "apologetics" elite to "out" the Brethren here?

2. From whence comes the deep resistance to the concept of colorblindness and the idea that blacks are equal participants in both the rights and duties of a free society?

3. If the Book of Mormon clearly teaches that skin color, among other means, is used by the Lord, among a original core of culturally distinct people, as a marker or symbolic representation of anti-Zionic cultural characteristics, what are the probable consequences of excising this from church teaching without the approval or assent of the Brethren?

4. If the Book of Mormon teaches that any changes in physical appearance designating cultural distance from a Zion culture do not represent innate characteristics but only cultural attributes that are responsive to free agency, why the resistance to those teachings as "racist?" What would count for modern liberal Mormons influenced by secular ideological trends as a legitimate symbolic representation of separation between the Lord's people and a culture hostile to gospel standards?

5. How is a confrontational, oppositional stance to official church teachings justified by LDS "apologists" whose core mission, one would think, is to defend the Church, not just against religious anti-Mormons, but also against secular ideologies and intellectual fashions?

6. How is the intellectual excommunication of other apologists as politically incorrect heretics productive or positive manifestations of the apologetic mission?

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Last edited by Droopy on Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 6:40 pm
Posts: 4642
Location: What does the fox say?
Droop,
the difficulty arises in the assertion that the ban was not racist.

To answer your first point. The brethren assert the ban was not racist. So what? Just because the brethren say it was not racist, does that make it so? Clearly the defining character of who the ban applied to was the possession of black blood, or black ancestors. This was later relaxed in terms of Polynesian vs African black, but it always applied to those of African black blood. For the brethren to now admit that the ban was racist would be paramount to either admitting that god is a racist, or that BY led the church astray. Neither is acceptable to the church as the church's paramount objective these days is protecting its image.

To answer your second. It was taught by the church/brethren for 100+ years that the blacks were inferior. Are you surprised by the resistance? Are you also surprised by the condemnation of this teaching by the newer generation? Some who were never exposed to these ideas, while others would like for it to quietly disappear. How can anyone truly teach that while there was a ban on those of black decent, it was not racist. This assertion strains rationale. So the young excoriate Bott for perpetuating what once was openly taught....... and the church condemns racism, without owning up to its racist past. Who can make sense of it? Not I.

As I don't have time for all of the points let me ramble.

To say that it was a mistake, the institutionalization of the bias of Brigham Young, makes Brigham a racist and the church astray.

To say that the ban was of divine origin, but that modern revelation cancels out previous FP missives of a doctrinal basis for the ban being based on worthiness in the PE as evidenced by lineage, means that at some point the brethren were led astray, and makes god a racist.

The rub lies in the way the ban was practiced. To say that it was not based on some one possessing "negro blood" is to deny history.

Please delineate the other possible scenarios............


--Edit (as I am not heading out running yet)--

Point 4.
It is imo impossible to separate the idea that god curses people with a skin of darkness and racism. This idea may have been palatable during Joseph Smith's time. This may have even been palatable by the majority of members until a short time ago, and possibly by even a large percentage of the populace of the western world. But now, it is viewed as a racist teaching pure and simple. The idea appearing in the Book of Mormon and "of god" only coincides with the beliefs of the believing. To the skeptic, critic and non believer it is racism.

Point 6.
I have said Mormon Dialogue is a misnomer. There is no dialogue there that runs contrary to the views of the mods. There is little discussion of ideas contrary to the mindset of the apologist. I tackled some of the more popular apologist directly on their misapplication of facts and was immediately banned, even though I did nothing more than show and prove that they had their data in error. I personally attacked no one. I was not critical of the church. I just said your facts are wrong, and asked what was the application of the facts proving. The only reason Kevin is tolerated there is he has academic credentials. I think true discussion is key to the free exchange of ideas, and said exchange leads to growth. The degree of moderation there against any critical discussion is to me, very revealing to the weakness of the espoused positions.

_________________
The ultimate action of a warrior, is to put down his sword.


Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Last edited by SteelHead on Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 13707
Location: Koloburbia
Yeah, Droopy is right. The planation will never be the same now that the MDD moderators have joined the Union. Still for some, old times there will not be forgotten. I guess it is best to look away, look way, look away Droopy Man.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:37 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:01 am
Posts: 5981
Location: Get ready to feel the THUNDER!
I agree with Steelhead. It is just ridiculous to see the lengths that many members (and leaders) of the Church feel they need to go to defend or avoid addressing this topic directly. I am Mormon and fully recognize it was a racist doctrine introduced by BY and have no problem stating it was such. It has no bearing on my faith in God or belief in many truths found in Mormonism. If it discomforts some that feel they should be correct and right because they are members of this Church, so be it. I welcome this problem because it highlights how disingenous they are about this especially when they claim "they don't know" why it happened. It is deceitful and shows a blindness to their own poor assumptions about the Church and the human (and imperfect) nature of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:33 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJhnWgs5 ... ntrinter=1

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:20 am 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
Droopy wrote:
If the priesthood ban was racist, as this coterie of LDS intellectuals claim, why have the Brethren not admitted to such? Why have the Brethren left it to the neo-orthodox LDS "apologetics" elite to "out" the Brethren here?


To his dying day, Charles Ponzi never admitted to committing fraud.

Therefore, he was not a con man.

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:14 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:12 pm
Posts: 5743
Location: Cave
Droopy wrote:
Given recent developments at the MDD board, in which TBM posters have been savaged, held up to character assassination and moral ridicule by leading members of the FAIR moderator team for supporting and defending the official position of the Church...


Yet you still do not believe the Internet Mormon / Chapel Mormon distinction exists?

I agree with your Post Droopy, TBMs should not be censured at MDD for stating the Church's official position. And it's even more hypocritical given these apologists know the ban is doctrine as surely as they know there is but one Hill Cumorah that is found in New York.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:24 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:12 pm
Posts: 5743
Location: Cave
Quote:
The brethren assert the ban was not racist. So what? Just because the brethren say it was not racist, does that make it so? Clearly the defining character of who the ban applied to was the possession of black blood, or black ancestors.


It doesn't make it so, but it does make it official church doctrine, doctrine every moderator at MDD ratifies during their temple interview and also when sustaining the GAs at conference time. It is hypocritical for the mods to berate Droopy and others for accepting what the Church teaches. And even when TBMs hold racist views, it is wrong for moderators to use their moderator powers to silence opinions.

What this shows is how thoroughly threatened the apologists feel on this issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:57 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:03 pm
Posts: 1555
Location: Bancroft Branch, Oshawa Stake, ON, Canada
Gadianton wrote:
Quote:
The brethren assert the ban was not racist. So what? Just because the brethren say it was not racist, does that make it so? Clearly the defining character of who the ban applied to was the possession of black blood, or black ancestors.


It doesn't make it so, but it does make it official church doctrine, doctrine every moderator at MDD ratifies during their temple interview and also when sustaining the GAs at conference time. It is hypocritical for the mods to berate Droopy and others for accepting what the Church teaches. And even when TBMs hold racist views, it is wrong for moderators to use their moderator powers to silence opinions.

What this shows is how thoroughly threatened the apologists feel on this issue.

Gad, don't you know that it is wrong to criticize MDD mods even if the criticism is true?

_________________
NOMinal member
===============
IRL: Malcolm McLean
Bancroft Branch, Oshawa Stake, ON, Canada


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:52 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9639
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Yet you still do not believe the Internet Mormon / Chapel Mormon distinction exists?


This has nothing to do with Shades's artificial Chapel/Internet dichotomy, and everything to do with what appears to be to me a presumptuous sense of intellectual and moral superiority among some of the highly educated, advanced degreed intellectual elite within the apologetics community that has little, if anything to do with the Internet and much more to do with the substantial time they have spent embedded within the cultural and intellectual environment of contemporary academe and, in particular, within elite institutions of higher learning such as Harvard, Brandies, Claremont, and other institutions where the modern tenured Left thoroughly dominates the culture, academic philosophy, and academic content of intellectual life.

Some of them have apparently found this overall environment congenial, have absorbed some fairly substantial elements of the regnant intellectual orthodoxies, and now approach the Church, in some areas, in a spirit of enlightened and "progressive" ark steadying.

Some have also quite clearly imbibed and adopted the pose and style of sanctimonious moral denunciation of principled intellectual disagreement that defines the contemporary tenured Left as well as their counterparts in the mainstream media and the arts.

I began to see sometime back (about the time of the Will Schryver dust up I think) when I was indignantly attacked and finally banned for criticizing and denouncing Angela Davis, that something was amiss. Now, if one is among people, said to be educated, and even highly educated, in America, and one is set upon with anguished cries of moral outrage for attacking Angela Davis (or anyone like her), one is clearly among those who have a worldview and perception of fundamental human issues so vastly different (regardless of whether they are LDS or not) from one's own, that one looks about for some way to orient oneself to where these others are coming from, philosophically. The answer, of course, is the average cultural anthropology, sociology, history, humanities, political science, theology, literature, or, most particularly, any of the many eponymous ideologically grounded "studies" departments of most colleges and universities in the nation, and one is not surprised to find the most extreme and entrenched radicalism in the most elite institutions (and especially the Ivy League).

All the stuff I now see over at MDD trying to attach itself to the Church - feminist concepts, postmodernism, attitudes toward racial issues emanating almost entirely from the Left; socialist/collectivist ideas of economic and social dynamics (and the endless hobby horse of trying to graft these into the UO and LoC), and generally a "neo-orthodox" attitude to the more controversial points of LDS doctrine that attempt a syncretistic blending of Church teachings and other concepts selected from the "progressive" intellectual and political sphere, are all identifiable as classic progressive ideological approaches with an LDS gloss or coloration.

The banmania aimed disproportionately at certain posters, and especially when either no reason is given or the reasons are clearly ad-hoc (new, novel ones seem to appear all the time) is suggestive evidence of the mentalities at work.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Last edited by Droopy on Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:40 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:31 am 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:12 pm
Posts: 5743
Location: Cave
Droopy wrote:
This has nothing to do with Shades's artificial Chapel/Internet dichotomy, and everything to do with what appears to be to me a presumptuous sense of intellectual and moral superiority among some of the highly educated, advanced degreed intellectual elite within the apologetics community that has little, if anything to do with the Internet and much more to do with the substantial time they have spent embedded within the cultural and intellectual environment of contemporary academe


You couldn't agree with Dr. Shades more, and I for one am happy to see you coming around. Remember, Dr. Shades said, "I also acknowledge that Internet Mormonism--at least in its embryonic form--has been around much longer than the Internet itself has."

I think you have hit on something important though. While it's implied that the roots of Internet Mormonism are academic, Shades does not flesh this out, and that perhaps is a deficiency in his exposition. Certainly, there is no necessary connection between the internet and Internet Mormonism as it predates the internet itself. But you are wrong to say that the internet has little, if anything to do with the rise of these self-anointed, star-bellied Sneetches. If it weren't for the internet, the academic Mormonism you speak of would be a smaller, more scattered movement that barely reached the domain of the "folk Mormons." The internet is where average church members began to encounter criticisms of the church based on history with any significant numbers and the internet is where the academic elite have come head-to-head with not only critics, but average members, either to convert them, or to contradict them and use degrees and higher learning as a weapon. If it weren't for the internet, a lone, self-studied student of Mormonism, politics, and history from the south wouldn't be in the situation that you are in now.

There's one more thing, Droopy. Your own intellectual interests are pretty narrow within Mormon territory. The corrections to ancient history apologists make probably don't matter much to you one way or another, as politics and the philosophy of man is what resonates with you. But it's all more of the same program, Droopy, the same liberal academic attitude that worries Mormon folk beliefs are embarrassing in the light of modern scholarship also worries Mormon folk beliefs are unfashionable within the liberal social beliefs of the vast majority of modern scholars.

I'm not trying to be rude here dude, but this situation is a little bit your fault. You should have seen it coming. You can take the scholar out of the academy, but you can't take the academy out of the scholar. You, and many others, turn a blind eye to the apologists in general when it comes to commentary on ancient scripture and Mormon history, but aren't prepared to pay the price when their years of conditioning surface in other areas. It's all part of the same package.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:25 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9639
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
You couldn't agree with Dr. Shades more, and I for one am happy to see you coming around.


But I'm not coming around to Shades's view, which is itself, as I have always maintained, a manifestation of exactly the same left-leaning intellectual snobbery now being manifest at the MDD. The Internet/Chapel Mormon dichotomy is purely artificial, in my view. The demarcation line isn't Internet/Chapel. Nor is it more educated/less educated. The demarcation line here is cultural and, from this, ideological (political-philosophical) and has to do with two generations, the Baby Boomers and post-boomers (Gen-X), and their resistance to or absorption of certain of the generational intellectual fashions, vogues, attitudes and tendencies of their age.

Having been so deeply enmeshed within the elite academic world for so long, some of these people have allowed themselves to be influenced by the reigning concepts and attitudinal features of what is called "political correctness," and, as is usually the case with those who do, have come to see the various theories and conceptual models of human experience with which they deal as inarguable truths or gnostic insights that, from within an LDS version of this phenomenon, are virtually co-equal with the gospel in truth value and importance, and the Church as being in need, as with the present race gab-fest over at the MDD, of their enlightened criticism and steadying hand ("Let's apologize and move forward...")

Quote:
I think you have hit on something important though. While it's implied that the roots of Internet Mormonism are academic, Shades does not flesh this out, and that perhaps is a deficiency in his exposition.


I think the roots of the Internet Mormon message board, chat, social networking, and email list world is the Internet. There are loads of anti-intellectual people on the Internet, as well as plenty of intellectually substantive material and discourse. The Internet increases exposure and facilitates study and dissemination as never before, but before the Internet their were books, and the same people (or kinds of people) were saying the same things back then as they are now.

For example, I was well aware of most of the current topics in anti-Mormon criticism back in the late seventies (save for some of the secular liberal/leftist ones, which hadn't really arisen then, to a great degree) and read as widely as I could on the subjects (especially Nibely). That makes me both a "chapel" Mormon and an intellectual Mormon, but there was no Internet to facilitate the dissemination my or anyone else's ideas.

So the Internet facilitates, but its never created a Chapel/Intenet type of Mormon, which I really think is intended to mean one of the following:

TBM/neo-orthodox/New Order Mormon

And, following upon or in consequence of the above:

Conservative/liberal/progressive Mormon (across most issues, social, cultural, and economic).

Quote:
Certainly, there is no necessary connection between the internet and Internet Mormonism as it predates the internet itself. But you are wrong to say that the internet has little, if anything to do with the rise of these self-anointed, star-bellied Sneetches.


It does in the sense that they (and I) have real time forums, such as message boards, to disseminate and develop their philosophies at length and in continual tension with opposing philosophies. In that sense, I would have to agree with you.

Quote:
If it weren't for the internet, the academic Mormonism you speak of would be a smaller, more scattered movement that barely reached the domain of the "folk Mormons."


(Not sure who the "folk Mormons" are) Again, I have no problem with "academic" Mormonism if all you mean by that is "Mormons who are academics" and who do apologetic thinking and work. That's great, and I'm all for it. My problem is that there should even be thought to be a separate caste or class of Mormons called "academic" Mormons at all, a class apart that tends to an assumption that "academic" Mormons, besides knowing much more than the average Mormon about certain specialized subjects (which they most certainly do), also know much more about the proper interpretations of LDS doctrine than the average educated Mormon - including the Brethren themselves - know, which they most certainly may not.

Quote:
The internet is where average church members began to encounter criticisms of the church based on history with any significant numbers and the internet is where the academic elite have come head-to-head with not only critics, but average members, either to convert them, or to contradict them and use degrees and higher learning as a weapon. If it weren't for the internet, a lone, self-studied student of Mormonism, politics, and history from the south wouldn't be in the situation that you are in now.


Note (hopefully for the last time): I'm not from the South. I was born and raised in Washington State, spent most of my youth in San Diego, several years in Minnesota, Maryland, and ten years in central Florida (which is the South, but very cosmopolitan in nature, unless you get way out into the sticks).

I'm a born and bread westerner, and always will be so.

Now, as I said, the Internet just facilitates. I had the same gospel interests (the Dead Sea Scrolls, Psueodpigrapha, early Christian texts and movements, the history of Christianity, comparative religion, myth and folklore, archeology etc.), long before the Internet came around. The present focus on political philosophy and gospel questions only arose a bit over ten years ago when I first began computing and came online. It really hit hard when I encountered the late Marc Schindler on the old FAIR email list, someone who, despite his substantive apologetic work in certain areas, was what I would call a man of the Chomsky Left. I had been studying and doing nearly continual reading in the areas of politics, political philosophy, and philosophy generally, long before that time, but the intersection between contemporary politics and the gospel, and the infusion of various secular concepts into gospel teachings, were all new to me.

We clashed and clashed hard, and that was the first time I realized that there was a small sub-group of academically trained intellectuals within the Church that had absorbed, and absorbed deeply, in some cases, philosophies severely at odds with gospel teachings. David Bokovoy (who is a far, far nicer person than Bro. Schindler was, at least as he presented himself on line) is another case in point

Quote:
I'm not trying to be rude here dude, but this situation is a little bit your fault. You should have seen it coming.


No, I did see it coming, but I'm not going to remain silent. For the life of me, however, I actually don't know why I was banned this time, save for my position on the issue per se. I flamed nobody.

Believe me, I am not making the slightest common cause with any critics here. While this is a more open forum, its also a forum where that openness is all too often abused and gamed by demagogues and bigots who's purposes and philosophy are as opposed to mine as I am to "neo-orthodoxy."

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 2875
Droopy wrote:

1. If the priesthood ban was racist, as this coterie of LDS intellectuals claim, why have the Brethren not admitted to such?


To admit it would be bad business for many reasons.
1) It opens the brethren up to more questioning of their (old-white-male) power.
2) It risks alienating and losing the tithing dollars of hardcores like you.


Quote:
2. From whence comes the deep resistance to the concept of colorblindness and the idea that blacks are equal participants in both the rights and duties of a free society?

For you a colorless society is one that is washed clean of ethnic culture. Colorless=white.
For the rest of us, we wish to retain praisworthy differences in culture, and at least recognize the defacto presence of race as a social reality -incuding the reality of ongoing prejudice and marginalization. Equality in rights ans value is not the same as cultural homogeneity.


Quote:
3. If the Book of Mormon clearly teaches that skin color, among other means, is used by the Lord, among a original core of culturally distinct people, as a marker or symbolic representation of anti-Zionic cultural characteristics, what are the probable consequences of excising this from church teaching without the approval or assent of the Brethren?

The Book of Mormon has racist undercurrents. Any more questions?
Test Question: Since paleontolgy has the probable origin of modern man in Africa, isn't it more likely that whiteness is the "mark"? A priori, why should dark skin be the mark and not white skin??? Do you think white skin is "normal" while black skin is the deviation in need of a theological just so story???
Your assumptions are showing.

Quote:
4. If the Book of Mormon teaches that any changes in physical appearance designating cultural distance from a Zion culture do not represent innate characteristics but only cultural attributes that are responsive to free agency, why the resistance to those teachings as "racist?" What would count for modern liberal Mormons influenced by secular ideological trends as a legitimate symbolic representation of separation between the Lord's people and a culture hostile to gospel standards?

Zion culture? LOL Umm I smell it again.

Quote:
5. How is a confrontational, oppositional stance to official church teachings justified by LDS "apologists" whose core mission, one would think, is to defend the Church, not just against religious anti-Mormons, but also against secular ideologies and intellectual fashions?

Commitment to the truth. If the church can't take it, then it isn't worth it.

Quote:
6. How is the intellectual excommunication of other apologists as politically incorrect heretics productive or positive manifestations of the apologetic mission?

How is intellectual excommunication of sunstone heretics productive?

On the other side of the coin; How is the intellectual excommunication of old timey racists like David Duke from the conservative mainstream productive?
(It is!)

The short answer is that they are trying to eradicate the vestiges of an old stinky disease from the church they love.

_________________
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:19 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 17942
Since the internet/chapel Mormon dichotomy doesn't exist, perhaps the SLDS/chapel Mormon dichotomy does.

_________________
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9639
Location: Kershaw, SC
Take a look at this, and then prepare for a Droopy drubbing:

Quote:
2. From whence comes the deep resistance to the concept of colorblindness and the idea that blacks are equal participants in both the rights and duties of a free society?


You answered:

Quote:
For you a colorless society is one that is washed clean of ethnic culture. Colorless=white.


This finally and permanently puts you on my short list of moral and intellectual arachnids who lie in wait in their (rather coarsely) spun webs and pounce when they think the politically correct winds are blowing away from them and that the intellectual gas they pass will fly into the faces of their intended targets.

This is so intellectually and morally vacuous that its actually hard finding the words to describe it. The very fact that nowhere, ever, have I ever said or implied anything even marginally resembling what you have ascribed to me places you well within the ranks of the politically correct witchfinders who's job is to burn the witches, not engage opposing views in a civil marketplace of ideas. This leads me to believe that you are doing nothing more than wallowing, as is typical for leftists of your ilk, in their own public moral pomposity, thinking that in doing so they have been excused from engaging in reasoned argument.

You could not possibly have derived such ideas from anything I've ever written on racial issues, and especially recently at either the MDD or here, which also leads me to believe you either haven't read what I've written, or if you have, have consciously made a decision to misrepresent it (as was recently done to me by several LDS posters at the MDD).

I asked from whence comes the deep resistance to the concept of a colorblind, race irrelevant society, and you can't answer the question. That itself begs for further scrutiny.

Quote:
For the rest of us, we wish to retain praisworthy differences in culture,


Don't try to change the subject and don't equivocate. We're not discussing culture here, but race.

Quote:
and at least recognize the defacto presence of race as a social reality -including the reality of ongoing prejudice and marginalization.


Except there is nary a particle of empirical evidence of such "ongoing prejudice and marginalization," in any broad or collective sense, in American society, at least moving from the white majority to minorities, and hasn't been for quite sometime.

Quote:
Equality in rights ans value is not the same as cultural homogeneity.


Who's talking about "cultural homogeneity?" Come back to this discussion when you're reasonably lucid, Tarski. But I think I'm just about done with you, permanently.

Quote:
On the other side of the coin; How is the intellectual excommunication of old timey racists like David Duke from the conservative mainstream productive?
(It is!)


I want to have some sport with you now, so I'll ask for three CFRs here, the first being the David Duke was ever a part of the "conservative mainstream." Second, that David Duke could ever possibly be associated with modern conservatism, and thirdly, that the philosophy of the Ku Klux Klan is a part of the modern conservative intellectual/political movement, and is not in fact a revolutionary movement aimed at the overthrow of the constitution and the institution of a totalitarian, feudal social order entirely incompatible with conservative (i.e., classic liberal/Judeo-Christian) values and beliefs.

Have fun making it up as you go along, Tarski. It should be a wild ride.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:55 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 13707
Location: Koloburbia
Droopy wrote:


... the first being the David Duke was ever a part of the "conservative mainstream." Second, that David Duke could ever possibly be associated with modern conservatism, ...


Duke probably bought his sheets from some Ma and Pa storefront. No designer patterns for that guy.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:18 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 2875
Droopy wrote:

I asked from whence comes the deep resistance to the concept of a colorblind, race irrelevant society.


Ask any president of the Mormon church prior to SWK.



I will pretend the question wasn't just a rhetorical set up and answer by saying that I am all for a colorblind society (at least if taken correctly) but I don't want to get there by pretending (or by pretending to be there). Maybe pretending works for testimonies but it won't work with race.


I am also all for a society where people are not divided religion. How about we be blind to creed too? How about a religion irrelevant society?

Can we abolish both race and creed?

Can we seek a society where both race and creed mean nothing?
Is there a world where we never hear anyone say "I am black" or "I am Mormon" or "he/she is black" or "he/she is a Mormon"?

How about a gender blind society??

Is that the world you want? Perhaps you can bully everyone into pretending it is already here.

Well, I am not holding my breath. In the meantime members of different races, genders, will suffer prejudice and so it is for members of certain religions.

Anyone who denies that racial prejudice plays a huge role in society is utterly blind and a fool.


Quote:
... the first being the David Duke was ever a part of the "conservative mainstream." Second, that David Duke could ever possibly be associated with modern conservatism, ...

Even now the excomminication from the party continues in you by these very words. LOL


Newsflash: You don't get to decide for other Mormons what it means to be Mormon.
Ditto conservatism.

_________________
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:36 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9639
Location: Kershaw, SC
Tarski wrote:
Droopy wrote:

I asked from whence comes the deep resistance to the concept of a colorblind, race irrelevant society.


Ask any president of the Mormon church prior to SWK.



Answer the question. From whence, on the Left, comes this deep resistance (the SWK remark is a red herring. Stop dancing).

Quote:
I will pretend the question wasn't just a rhetorical set up


Its a serious question. And I'll ask the same thing of Juliann, Nehor, and anyone else who is of the "race matters" school.

Quote:
and answer by saying that I am all for a colorblind society (at least if taken correctly) but I don't want to get there by pretending (or by pretending to be there). Maybe pretending works for testimonies but it won't work with race.


Now, I'll just go ahead and get on the treadmill, I guess, and ask again, answer the question.

Quote:
I am also all for a society where people are not divided religion. How about we be blind to creed too? How about a religion irrelevant society?


What is the possible relevance or logical analogy to the question of race?

Quote:
Can we abolish both race and creed? Can we seek a society where both race and creed mean nothing?


Why would one want to abolish "creed?" Given the definition of the term "creed" ("A system of belief, principles, or opinions") this would be tantamount to abolishing all distinctions in thought, belief, philosophy, ethics, religion, philosophy of science, political philosophy...everything. This would include the abolishing of the entire philosophy and ethical theory behind the civil rights movement and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Would you care to rethink this relativist negation of all bodies of thought and principle (which would have to include the very concept of negating them itself) and talk sense?

Being genetically black and choosing to be a member of a certain religious organization and accept its teachings is about as apples/oranges as one can get, Tarski.

Quote:
How about a gender blind society??


Gender differences involve real and empirically observable average differences in certain attributes, both physical and mental (tendencies, biases, emphasis/de-emphasis in the cognitive sphere, and very real physical differences morphologically/biochemically) Having dark skin does not (and those real differences are as discernible between black men and woman as among white men and woman).

Quote:
Is that the world you want? Perhaps you can bully everyone into pretending it is already here.


What world do I want? You haven't elucidated or made an argument for anything yet clarify what "world" you think that is or why you think I support it (whatever it is). You're raving. I asked for clear answers and this is apparently the best you can do?

Quote:
Well, I am not holding my breath. In the meantime members of different races, genders, will suffer prejudice and so it is for members of certain religions.


Yes, they will, just as leftists such as yourself will continue to hold power in various capacities, dominate the institutions of society, and continue to cripple, stunt, debase, and destroy human beings wherever they have influence. But we don't have to tolerate or live under those conditions either. We could come "up from liberalism," as Buckley once put it. Will we? Doubtful, but we could make better choices, just as each of us can choose to be colorblind in our own affairs, and attempt to teach others to be so.

But, if all of us were colerblind, what would become of the race hustlers? What would become of the poverty industry? What would become of Charles Ogletree, Bell Hooks, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Leonard Jefferies, Derrick Bell, Benjamin Chavis etc.?

Quote:
Anyone who denies that racial prejudice plays a huge role in society is utterly blind and a fool.


They would indeed, and since I've never denied or argued that racial prejudice plays no role in society, please get the ritual burning of strawmen out of the way, if you real feel the need to burn them, and then come back and discuss the actual issues I've raised at the MDD and here.

Quote:
... the first being the David Duke was ever a part of the "conservative mainstream." Second, that David Duke could ever possibly be associated with modern conservatism, ...Even now the excomminication from the party continues in you by these very words. LOL

Newsflash: You don't get to decide for other Mormons what it means to be Mormon.
Ditto conservatism.


Thanks for the swerving evasive maneuver there, Tarski, showing exactly what I already knew to be the case, ie., you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and cannot support your claims here. But not to worry, they're so bizarre that no one could support them. Welcome yourself to the leftist club. You're not alone.

Stop the Chris Matthews imitation and act like a serious intellectual for once. You might actually find you enjoy it.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:00 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 9932
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
bcspace wrote:
Since the internet/chapel Mormon dichotomy doesn't exist, . . .

Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of planet earth, a temporal baptism by immersion, like the Lord's mouthpieces have taught us?

A. Yes
B. No

_________________
"Apparently it takes LDS Inc. about 5 to 10 years to forget how much it hurt the last time it shot itself in the foot."

--Brother of Jerry, Recovery from Mormonism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:28 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18141
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Darth J wrote:
Droopy wrote:
If the priesthood ban was racist, as this coterie of LDS intellectuals claim, why have the Brethren not admitted to such? Why have the Brethren left it to the neo-orthodox LDS "apologetics" elite to "out" the Brethren here?


To his dying day, Charles Ponzi never admitted to committing fraud.

Therefore, he was not a con man.


Neither did Joseph Smith.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:16 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9639
Location: Kershaw, SC
Darth J wrote:
Droopy wrote:
If the priesthood ban was racist, as this coterie of LDS intellectuals claim, why have the Brethren not admitted to such? Why have the Brethren left it to the neo-orthodox LDS "apologetics" elite to "out" the Brethren here?


To his dying day, Charles Ponzi never admitted to committing fraud.

Therefore, he was not a con man.


Quote:
Neither did Joseph Smith.


And I suppose, neither will you, before your next TR interview.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group