Runtu wrote: Kind of funny, though, that they had to find canned testimonies.
Yes, it would have been much more authentic if they could have had someone like GIMR, who could have discussed both the good and the bad when it comes to being black and LDS. I suspect the raw answers would ultimately have suited the best interest of black LDS members, without flecks of PR aaround the edges.
Yeah, it's just standard apologetics with a racial twist. Most apologetics does not acknowledge the bad, only the good, and is heavily salted with PR.
That's just it: What, exactly, do you think the underlying motive is here? As I noted in my OP, I believe the evidence shows that "blacklds.org" is really more about assuaging white Mormon guilt than about genuinely dealing with the Church's racist past. Plus, some of the more dubious tactics---such as the canned testimonies---cast a taint over the entire enterprise, imho.
Mister Scratch wrote:That's just it: What, exactly, do you think the underlying motive is here? As I noted in my OP, I believe the evidence shows that "blacklds.org" is really more about assuaging white Mormon guilt than about genuinely dealing with the Church's racist past. Plus, some of the more dubious tactics---such as the canned testimonies---cast a taint over the entire enterprise, imho.
I think there's a natural defensiveness about this particular issue, mostly because it's one of the doctrines/practices of the church that is entirely indefensible. So, yeah, there might be some guilt at work, but my guess is that this is just another attempt to make lemonade out of a lemon of a doctrine. It's the "See? We aren't racist anymore!" tactic.
The intentions were good? I don't know if we can say that. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. As we've come to expect from apologists, the intentions are usually just to absolve the church of any possible errors, and that doesn't necessarily do much for the victims of those errors.
Apologetics is so fascinating in this regard. The church just can't, ever, be wrong. Discussion with apologists is a lot like having a discussion with one of those guys you might work with who never really makes a mistake and always has an explanation. I'm sure all of you have known people like this. At the most you'll get them to admit that while technically in error, anyone else would have done the same thing.
It's amazing what a sincere apology can do. And you've got to respect those folks out there who are big enough to apologize even when they aren't entirely sure of their guilt. Surely, a big man knows he can't always step outside himself and objectively determine his own part in a conflict.
I wonder how much money the church could save in PR campaigns if it would just own up and apologize? Well, since it's other people's tithing, guess it don't matter too much to them.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Gadianton wrote:The intentions were good? I don't know if we can say that. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. As we've come to expect from apologists, the intentions are usually just to absolve the church of any possible errors, and that doesn't necessarily do much for the victims of those errors.
I agree with this. I would even go so far as to say that it looks like juliann and Scotty Dog Gordon essentially "used" Renee Olson (i.e., they cajoled her into participating, or at least they "bamboozled" her into allowing the use of her name on the "About Us" page; I have a very hard time believing that she she willingly volunteered to be a part of this sick, racist disaster) as a means of giving the whole enterprise a false patina of respectability.
thestyleguy wrote:Has anyone ever seen any white guy in the LDS church with a black wife. I never did in twenty years in Southern California. How about a white woman with a black man. I heard that these couples have been married in the temple which likely caused a small earthquake around Brigham Young's grave. I thought I read a thread where someone mentioned this.
I saw a wedding announcement while at my parents house that was an interracial couple (they attend my parents ward). White hombre, black chica (and damn, she is beautiful… kind of pisses me off that I wasn’t able to woo her before him).
There was also another wedding a while back (maybe a year[?]) that was a white hombre and black chica (and once again... she was a looker. Damn white dudes, takin' all the hotties).
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
Gadianton wrote:I wonder how much money the church could save in PR campaigns if it would just own up and apologize? Well, since it's other people's tithing, guess it don't matter too much to them.
Mister Scratch wrote: I would even go so far as to say that it looks like Juliann and Scotty Dog Gordon essentially "used" Renee Olson (I.e., they cajoled her into participating, or at least they "bamboozled" her into allowing the use of her name on the "About Us" page; I have a very hard time believing that she she willingly volunteered to be a part of this sick, racist disaster) as a means of giving the whole enterprise a false patina of respectability.
I think Renee participated on her own accord. Some years back, they brought her into a thread under the name, Sista Saint, to argue with GIMR about whether Blacks ever had any trouble with their experiences in the Church. Renee said everything was peachy.
Of course its all about the white guilt. I think Scratch's analysis is correct and the fact that highly embarrassing typos and sentence fragments weren't fixed, resulting in poor Brother Myers sounding like an imbecile, speaks to the general uncomfortableness of all involved in the effort.
I read through that website over a year ago and couldn't bring myself to bring it to anyone's attention.
I do think though, Scratch, that you have the wrong Kimball. Its hard with all those interchangable last names and initials (not to mention interchangable racist and misogynistic attitudes) to keep 'em straight. I think its Heber C. Kimball who is the utterer of the marrying wife = buying cow syllogism. I could be wrong, however.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Blixa wrote:I do think though, Scratch, that you have the wrong Kimball. Its hard with all those interchangable last names and initials (not to mention interchangable racist and misogynistic attitudes) to keep 'em straight. I think its Heber C. Kimball who is the utterer of the marrying wife = buying cow syllogism. I could be wrong, however.
And I think it was Heber C. Kimball who actually owned one or more slaves.
Blixa wrote:I do think though, Scratch, that you have the wrong Kimball. Its hard with all those interchangable last names and initials (not to mention interchangable racist and misogynistic attitudes) to keep 'em straight. I think its Heber C. Kimball who is the utterer of the marrying wife = buying cow syllogism. I could be wrong, however.
And I think it was Heber C. Kimball who actually owned one or more slaves.