Yuck yuck yuck

[MeloTheJazzKiller]

You the whole damn goof troop.

This thread was about Utah and its racist whites, I simply dropped some facts about Utah. You now try and turn this into a gun violence thread.

What I did here was run about 20 miles in your empty space for a head, lifted my sack and slapped it on your forehead as I ran it down across your eyelids and nose. The sweat dripped across your lips as slapped the shaft hard as hell across your cheek. You now have a permanent JazzFanz mushroom tat to display, be proud.

Once again deflect. And this time with childish insanity that should be studied by every psychologist in the nation.
Bye. I wasted enough time believing you were actually a sentient being.

 

[MCarter]

I

I hate to be “that guy”, but the church is still doing as much harm as it is good when it comes to spreading hate and fear. Look at the recent church failings on gay issues such as the Prop 8 fiasco in California, followed up by inflicting undue pain and distress on Mormon children that come from same sex households.
We could also get into the black priesthood issues that still looms large in church history. Just because the priesthood decision was reversed in 1978 doesn’t mean a switch was magically flipped and everything was suddenly A-Ok for black people living in Utah. I agree with many in here that the racism taking place in Utah is born out of ignorance- quick side note, I didn’t attend school with a black person until Jr. High. That in and of itself set me up for a certain amount of ignorance and blind spots regardless of whether or not I could see that at the time. The fact still remains: Ignorance of the racial issues that have haunted this country since it’s inception is still racism.

I come from a family that is half LDS, half non-LDS and some of the finest people in my life, whom I love dearly are devout members. I really try to give the church the benefit of the doubt whenever I can but I really do feel that the above criticisms are fair and accurate. I don’t think anybody expects the church to be perfect but when you make a post about the church taking a “Very Forward Stance” when it comes to equality, well there’s probably not a very nice way to say it, but that’s just BS. You can’t pick and choose what groups of people you’re going to take a forward stance on while continuing to discriminate against others and then turn around and pat yourself on the back for being progressive.

Gotcha. Well again, I appreciate the time to spell out your thoughts to minimize assumptions the rest of us have to make to understand other’s arguments. With that being said I think there is some very important and subjective words you included that should be addressed.

There is a very important and significant distinction to be made in regards to accepting and endorsing in terms of equality. The LDS church (organization, not necessarily EVERY member) is very accepting. However, accepting is different than endorsing and the church will not endorse everyone’s actions, that would betray any allegiance to morality or their theology (this is true principle for any religion for that matter).

So, in regards to your claim that the church is discriminating against others, it is subjective. The church discriminates against matters of morality as defined in Christian doctrine (found in the Bible and LDS publications). However, the church doesn’t discriminate on sexual orientation, race, nationality, etc. if you’re gay that doesn’t change a thing as a church member. If you are gay and sexually active then that’s significant. If you’re straight it didn’t change a thing. If you’re straight and you’re sexually active outside of marriage that’s a problem (Obviously the church doesn’t recognize gay marriages in the spiritual realm, but the spiritual realm has addressed that for millennium and it would run contrary to foundational doctrine that would bankrupt the theology if it were betrayed).

Even though something is common in society doesn’t mean the church (or any religion) should change to accept that simply because of popularity. Fornication was declared wrong thousands of years ago and it’s very common today, but it’s still wrong if you believe the Christian theology (OT, NT, BM). Acting on gay sexual things was declared wrong thousands of years ago and even if it’s common today if you believe the Christian theology, then it’s still wrong. The LDS church doesn’t persecute people living out of wedlock, or those that are acting on homosexual desires, but it will affirm they are wrong. Everyone is invited to church, but the church does discriminate on morality topics for further spiritual commitments or whatever. But frankly, religions exist (IMO) primarily as moral dispensaries to give direction on how adherents can find purpose in life and understand the world around them. If religions were to take adherence to their own moral principles and throw it all out together, what would theology would they be left with? They’d become a comfort group without the claim to greater purpose and understanding that people strive for.

 

[MCarter]

I'm very aware that the institutional church these days is more racially progressive than many of its members (as becomes clear whenever the Deseret News allows one of its NAACP partners to publish an opinion piece). But it's absolutely the case that it had a role to play in helping to create and perpetuate the racist attitudes of the area that have been slow to dissolve among some. There's plenty of good histories out there that document this.

I also think it's fair to say that the church's unwillingness to fully confront the racism in its own past may (for some) legitimate the larger American unwillingness to fully confront the US's racial past.

I agree that past
church leaders helped to perpetuate racist things, and even with some theological beliefs some leaders promoted I think they increased some racial division but I do not think they created any racism that wasn’t already present in society (especially at that time). So perpetuate? Yes. Advance/enhance? Yes. Create? Disagree.

In regards to addressing it I think they’ve done as good of a job as possible. It’s a very tough and hard subject. For me, I picture someone saying I can’t do something simply because I have blonde hair and white skin, and that would really really hurt. Especially in matters of religion. That’s to the soul kind of hurt for many. But, I doubt the LDS church will ever come forward and say they were misguided in the black priesthood ban if the 1800 and 1900s.

Since the LDS church believes it’s the same exact church that the prophets of the Bible have led throughout millennia, and the same one as when Christ was on the earth, then with that perspective in mind what I’m assuming you are asking ( That the LDS church should say the priesthood ban was false) then that would be to ask them to say that Christ banning the sharing of the gospel to the gentiles was wrong, or that Moses restricting the levitical priesthood to only the Levites was wrong (what about the other 11 tribes). I don’t have answers to these things, my main purpose is just to widen the perspective, the history, and look a little closer at the principles in play here. No matter what you believe it’s so easy to make sweeping generalizations that hurt any segment of society, so I think it’s worthwhile to examine what the principles are, how bullet proof is the logic, and what the repercussions for different views entails. Principles are important, sometimes applications are wrong but if you throw out the associated principle from which the application stemmed then you can find yourself in big logical trouble.

 

[Jazzman12]

Gotcha. Well again, I appreciate the time to spell out your thoughts to minimize assumptions the rest of us have to make to understand other’s arguments. With that being said I think there is some very important and subjective words you included that should be addressed.

There is a very important and significant distinction to be made in regards to accepting and endorsing in terms of equality. The LDS church (organization, not necessarily EVERY member) is very accepting. However, accepting is different than endorsing and the church will not endorse everyone’s actions, that would betray any allegiance to morality or their theology (this is true principle for any religion for that matter).

So, in regards to your claim that the church is discriminating against others, it is subjective. The church discriminates against matters of morality as defined in Christian doctrine (found in the Bible and LDS publications). However, the church doesn’t discriminate on sexual orientation, race, nationality, etc. if you’re gay that doesn’t change a thing as a church member. If you are gay and sexually active then that’s significant. If you’re straight it didn’t change a thing. If you’re straight and you’re sexually active outside of marriage that’s a problem (Obviously the church doesn’t recognize gay marriages in the spiritual realm, but the spiritual realm has addressed that for millennium and it would run contrary to foundational doctrine that would bankrupt the theology if it were betrayed).

Even though something is common in society doesn’t mean the church (or any religion) should change to accept that simply because of popularity. Fornication was declared wrong thousands of years ago and it’s very common today, but it’s still wrong if you believe the Christian theology (OT, NT, BM). Acting on gay sexual things was declared wrong thousands of years ago and even if it’s common today if you believe the Christian theology, then it’s still wrong. The LDS church doesn’t persecute people living out of wedlock, or those that are acting on homosexual desires, but it will affirm they are wrong. Everyone is invited to church, but the church does discriminate on morality topics for further spiritual commitments or whatever. But frankly, religions exist (IMO) primarily as moral dispensaries to give direction on how adherents can find purpose in life and understand the world around them. If religions were to take adherence to their own moral principles and throw it all out together, what would theology would they be left with? They’d become a comfort group without the claim to greater purpose and understanding that people strive for.

I obviously touched a nerve but I don’t think I assumed anything. I’m not here to try and change anybody’s opinion on the church. The history is out there and people can decide themselves on what they think of it.

 

[MCarter]

I obviously touched a nerve but I don’t think I assumed anything. I’m not here to try and change anybody’s opinion on the church. The history is out there and people can decide themselves on what they think of it.

Oh for sure on being entitled to opinions dog, haha I’m not trying to come off as aggressive I have all respect for differing opinions, I just like arguing about logic behind peoples opinions if I feel the logic isn’t sound or isn’t factually correct or anything of that nature. No I’ll feelings dude, I even argue logic with people that have the same opinion as me if I feel their logic doesn’t hold up so yeah, just a me thing. Have a good one dog!

 

[TheJedi]

I mean racism is straight up in the Mormon texts. Did they not believe black skin was a curse from God?

A lot of the "original" Mormons (I come from a original Mormon pioneer family)

The racism within the Mormon texts and teaching is a feature not a bug and they focus on it.

Even if they wouldn't outwardly say it, they definitely believe it.

Mix a jack Mormon that believes that kind of stuff with alcohol and a jazz game and the resulting concoction is the comments in game 2.

I feel like a lot of people are trying to play nice, but the Mormon church was one of the most racist brands of Christianity for a really long time...

Many of the Utah followers, especially like the family I come from...

They like their Mormonism "pure."

Which means white a delightsome.

To think there isn't a large contingent of Utah Mormons and Utah Mormon families like this to me in itself screams ignorance.

 

[One Brow]

I don't agree its okay for liberal whites and BLM to burn down some asian guy's store because of it.

Your point is both correct and irrelevant, because there have been no burnings at any BLM events.

 

[Hax0rs]

Your point is both correct and irrelevant, because there have been no burnings at any BLM events.

Is your IQ above 70?

 

[Michaelr]

It's not an either or thing. Yes, it happens everywhere. But it happens in Utah more. Utah also gets a higher blame for things.

Horribly behavior is everywhere I've ever been. But that doesn't excuse it.

Oh ********. It just makes bspn more. Go to a Giants Game in Philly wearing a NY Jersey, You would be lucky to leave with any of your teeth.

 

[One Brow]

Is your IQ above 70?

Yes. More importantly, I'm widely read enough to know the BLM creates events of a specific duration (usually about 3 hours), asking people to protest peacefully throughout. The single BLM event that had violence occurred in Utah.

You can certainly point to antifa that damage property (as well as right-wing provocateurs doing the same), but it's not BLM and doesn't happen at their events.

As to why you choose media source that blame a peaceful black group for the actions of destructive white people, and why you so readily buy into that lie, I will leave that for you to contemplate.

 

[Hax0rs]

As to why you choose media source that blame a peaceful black group for the actions of destructive white people, and why you so readily buy into that lie, I will leave that for you to contemplate.

Wait, is this critical race theory? Blame white conservatives after marxist antifa and BLM burnt down America last summer?

It's gonna be a different summer this year, your boy Chet Hanks let you know.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Wait, is this critical race theory? Blame white conservatives after marxist antifa and BLM burnt down America last summer?

It's gonna be a different summer this year, your boy Chet Hanks let you know.

What's marxist antifa? What does that even mean? Is it the same as cultural marxism and globalists? I don't speak Fox News.