More LDS Racism on MAD

[_guy sajer]

I do, however, find it, at the very least, curious why good, moral people like Romney do maintain membership in an overtly sexist organization with a racist heritage, and one for which it has never every owned up to or even suggested that it did anything wrong. I can understand why Romney remains in the Mormon Church, I am less understanding as to why he, and other persons of influence and stature, silently acquiesce to the racist legacy and failure to own up to it, and ongoing institutional sexism, and the ingrained bigotry toward homosexuals. If they, and others like them, actually stood up and demanded accountability, I can guarantee you that Mormon Inc. would pay attention, and not discipline them (can you imagine the PR disaster that would be?). Their failure to stand up makes them at least partly responsible/guilty for past racism and ongoing bigotry.

To the dumpster of history we go...as pointed out earlier. This is what I have called in other posts the "statutory rape of the mind".

It is as recent as 30 years that the LDS Church followed a policy of institutional racism. Its leadership has never acknowledged its recently past racism nor accepted any responsibility for it. Its refusal to concede it did anything wrong makes it very much relevant today.

Institutional sexism and bigotry remains engrained in LDS Church policies and culture.

Coggins is an apt example of how believers will tend to rationalize away moral offenses that they would never excuse in any other context. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.)

Romney's, and other LDM members', silence about and acquiescence to institutionalized bigotry and sexism in the Mormon Church makes them, at least in part, complicit in it.

[_antishock8]

Too conclude that Peterson is an anti Semite based on what he wrote is ludicrous.

It's called inductive reasoning, Jason. Mr. Peterson belongs to a prejudicial church. He also belongs to a apocalyptic church. His faith requires a belief that the Jews murdered his god, and that Israel will be destroyed upon His return. That's two strikes against him. Then Mr. Peterson insists the Jews accept the disrespectful practice of baptizing Jews via proxy... Against their wishes. Futhermore he insinuates that if the Jews don't accept the practice they will lose the goodwill of Mormons, the church to which he belongs.

He's already bigoted against the Jews. He doesn't respect their faith because he supports the idea of backdooring them by baptizing them via proxy. He believes they're responsible for killing his god. He believes they will be destroyed in the Apocalypse.

That ain't pro-Semitism, my friend. Not now. Not ever. I suggest you get a little introspective before you start calling others irrational.

[_Jason Bourne]

It's called inductive reasoning, Jason.

No it is not. If it is your conclusion is faulty.

Mr. Peterson belongs to a prejudicial church.

No he does not. But those with axes to grind will see it that way. Did you say prejudicial?

He also belongs to a apocalyptic church.

This is true.

His faith requires a belief that the Jews murdered his god, and that Israel will be destroyed upon His return.

No I do not think that is accurate. I think most of the destruction of Israel is over.

That's two strikes against him. Then Mr. Peterson insists the Jews accept the disrespectful practice of baptizing Jews via proxy... Against their wishes. Futhermore he insinuates that if the Jews don't accept the practice they will lose the goodwill of Mormons, the church to which he belongs.

As noted this is not what he said. But pointing it out further is a waste of time.

He's already bigoted against the Jews

.

Hardly.

He doesn't respect their faith because he supports the idea of backdooring them by baptizing them via proxy. He believes they're responsible for killing his god. He believes they will be destroyed in the Apocalypse.

That ain't pro-Semitism, my friend. Not now. Not ever. I suggest you get a little introspective before you start calling others irrational.

Sorry anti but you are irrational about this as this post demonstrates even more so.

[_antishock8]

It's called inductive reasoning, Jason.

No it is not. If it is your conclusion is faulty.

Oh my god.

Mr. Peterson belongs to a prejudicial church.

No he does not.* But those with axes to grind will see it that way. Did you say prejudicial?

Oh my god twice. A Mormon lying. Color me shocked, and yes I did say "prejudicial".

He also belongs to a apocalyptic church.

This is true.

Oh my dog. You told the truth. Well, good for you!!

His faith requires a belief that the Jews murdered his god, and that Israel will be destroyed upon His return.

No I do not think that is accurate.* I think most of the destruction of Israel is over.

Oh, back to lying.

That's two strikes against him. Then Mr. Peterson insists the Jews accept the disrespectful practice of baptizing Jews via proxy... Against their wishes. Futhermore he insinuates that if the Jews don't accept the practice they will lose the goodwill of Mormons, the church to which he belongs.

As noted this is not what he said. But pointing it out further is a waste of time.

He's already bigoted against the Jews

.

Hardly.

Excuse me, Jason, but Mr. Peterson thinks the Jews killed his god, are going to be destroyed, should tolerate being disrespected or risk losing Mormon good will... And you want me to believe he's not bigoted?? Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you?

He doesn't respect their faith because he supports the idea of backdooring them by baptizing them via proxy. He believes they're responsible for killing his god. He believes they will be destroyed in the Apocalypse.

That ain't pro-Semitism, my friend. Not now. Not ever. I suggest you get a little introspective before you start calling others irrational.

Sorry anti but you are irrational about this as this post demonstrates even more so.

Mr. Bourne, I guess we'll have to have different opinions. I'm not going to sit here and repeat myself, and I'm not going through the fruitless effort of teaching a Mormon about Mormon "doctrine"... Whatever that is. You have your opinion, and I have mine. I'm right. You're a liar*, and you clearly don't understand your own doctrines... Whatever they may be.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Right, do you also think they understand what learned helplessness is, Coggins? I bet they do! Do they also recognize that there is anger and where it stems from and that some in leadership positions in the community use this anger to rally the community? Why? 'Cause people that feel powerless seek power even if it is at times opposite their best interests.

Go google learned helplessness, Coggins.

Shoo -- off to learn.

The cop out of "learned helplessness" is not only, at its core, racist and stigmatizing in its assumptions about Black people, but will not stand up under critical scrutiny. This is nothing but a traditional leftist trope intended to justify the continuing dependency of a substantial subset of black Americans upon the welfare state and its racial spoils system.

The empirical fact that between two thirds and three quarters of American Blacks are socioeconomically middle class puts the Learned helplessness argument back into the dumpster of left wing shibboleths where it belongs, as does the reality of ever an ever increasing Black presence in corporate America and in successful entrepreneurial positions (the head of Supersoaker is a Black man).

You perhaps should have payed far less attention to what you've heard on CNN and learned in college and done much more of your own thinking and learning.

[_Coggins7]

It is as recent as 30 years that the LDS Church followed a policy of institutional racism.

1. The doctrinal basis upon which the Priesthood ban was based was relative to lineage, not race.

2. "Institutional racism" is an old cultural Marxist nostrum intended to show that racism (or sexism, or classism, or homophobia, or whatever the revolutionary cause de jure is at the moment) is systematically and deeply integrated within societal structures such that it is primary to the self concept of the institution. As with Marxist economic concepts, this ideological construct is more a foil against which leftists can pontificate than a serious, critical analysis of actual conditions. The Priesthood ban could not have been "institutional" in this ideological sense, as it did not extend to other peoples, including Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Pacific Islanders, or any other ethnic group except blacks. But traditional white racism made little distinction between one race and another when prohibiting entrance into the mainstream of society.

Its leadership has never acknowledged its recently past racism nor accepted any responsibility for it. Its refusal to concede it did anything wrong makes it very much relevant today.

That's because there was no "racism", as traditionally understood, involved. Not that some GAs did not have feelings of racial superiority regarding other peoples, while others, like David O' McKay, clearly did not, but the Church's policy was not based upon that variable.

Institutional sexism and bigotry remains engrained in LDS Church policies and culture.

This is an ideological claim, not a strictly objective analytical one. This rises and falls on its merits as a template for understanding LDS culture. Critical inspection will find it wanting, however.

Coggins is an apt example of how believers will tend to rationalize away moral offenses that they would never excuse in any other context. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.)

It is typical of the ideologue that he sees moral gravitas in issues that impinge upon his self anointed sense of moral piousness and imputes deep ethical ramifications to certain issues of history or culture in an attempt to float on a judgmental ideological cloud above the objects of his enlightened indignation. This is pure Jacobin stuff folks, and and indication why that revolution failed, and ours succeeded (and the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban, Nicaraguan, and all other similar revolutions have failed as well).

Romney's, and other LDM members', silence about and acquiescence to institutionalized bigotry and sexism
in the Mormon Church makes them, at least in part, complicit in it.

And your evidence of institutionalized bigotry and sexism in the Mormon Church is precisely what?

[_Jason Bourne]

Oh my god.

Who is your God. I did not think you believed in God.

Oh my god twice. A Mormon lying. Color me shocked, and yes I did say "prejudicial".

Two Gods or one? So you agree that when it comes to Mormons you are prejudicial?



.

Oh my dog. You told the truth. Well, good for you!!

Dog or God? And I usually do tell the truth.

His faith requires a belief that the Jews murdered his god, and that Israel will be destroyed upon His return.

No I do not think that is accurate.* I think most of the destruction of Israel is over.

Oh, back to lying.

This comes off your lips awful quickly. I think I know my LDS Doctrine pretty well. In the end times Israel will have it pretty rough but they are not top be destroyed and will be saved by the coming of Jesus. No lies here buster.

That's two strikes against him. Then Mr. Peterson insists the Jews accept the disrespectful practice of baptizing Jews via proxy... Against their wishes. Futhermore he insinuates that if the Jews don't accept the practice they will lose the goodwill of Mormons, the church to which he belongs.

As noted this is not what he said. But pointing it out further is a waste of time.

He's already bigoted against the Jews[

Hardly.

Excuse me, Jason, but Mr. Peterson thinks the Jews killed his god, are going to be destroyed, should tolerate being disrespected or risk losing Mormon good will... And you want me to believe he's not bigoted?? Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you?

He believes some of the Jewish people killed Jesus like, let me see, all Christians not all Jews. So what? That does not make him a bigot. I believe Germans killed some of my relatives in WW1 and 2 but I do not hate all or any Germans. I have shown that he does not believe in an iiminat destyruction of Isreal but even if he did that does not make him a bigot if he and last of all HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE JEW WILL LOSE ALL Mormon GOODWILL ! CAN YOU READ? HE SAID SOME, NOT ALL. SOME Mormons MAY LOSE SOME GOODWILL? It seems to me you are the bigot here, against Mormons and it blinds your ability to comprehend.

Mr. Bourne, I guess we'll have to have different opinions. I'm not going to sit here and repeat myself, and I'm not going through the fruitless effort of teaching a Mormon about Mormon "doctrine"...

I know Mormon doctrien apparently much better than you.

Whatever that is. You have your opinion, and I have mine. I'm right. You're a liar*, and you clearly don't understand your own doctrines... Whatever they may be.

No Anti Shock you are not right and you are the liar here. And a fool for your judgment in this case as well. Go read Guy Sajer post. He is rational about this and you are not.

Tah, tah.

[_Moniker]

Right, do you also think they understand what learned helplessness is, Coggins? I bet they do! Do they also recognize that there is anger and where it stems from and that some in leadership positions in the community use this anger to rally the community? Why? 'Cause people that feel powerless seek power even if it is at times opposite their best interests.

Go google learned helplessness, Coggins.

Shoo -- off to learn.

The cop out of "learned helplessness" is not only, at its core, racist and stigmatizing in its assumptions about Black people, but will not stand up under critical scrutiny. This is nothing but a traditional leftist trope intended to justify the continuing dependency of a substantial subset of black Americans upon the welfare state and its racial spoils system.

The empirical fact that between two thirds and three quarters of American Blacks are socioeconomically middle class, puts the Learned helplessness argument back into the dumpster of left wing shibboleths where it belongs, as the does the reality of ever an ever increasing Black presence in corporate America and in successful entrepreneurial positions (the head of Supersoaker is a Black man).

Noooo..... learned helplessness makes no judgment calls on its own. It recognizes that people believe they are victims, believe they are not capable of helping themselves, believe they are at the mercy of others, and essentially believe they are incapable of changing their own destinies. Behaviors that actually hurt the community are embraced because of this phenomenon. Do you think that just because one recognizes what learned helplessness is that this in some way says it's "okay", Coggins? I've actually read McWhorter's book Losing the Race: Self Sabotage in America (Hint LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE BOOK YOU NUMBSKULL!) and he discusses the victim mentality and learned helplessness in DETAIL!!!

What the hell are you rambling on about???

You perhaps should have payed far less attention to what you've heard on CNN and learned in college and done much more of your own thinking and learning.

You should read a book or two.

[_asbestosman]

Antishock8,

About whether the Jews killed God, I'd have to say no. My quibble is with the definite article the making it appear that all Jews are guilty of killing Jesus. I strongly disagree. Indeed, I would argue that Jesus Himself was Jewish. Rather I think it would be accurate to state that some Jews killed Jesus. To blame all Jews for killing God is just plain stupid. It's like saying that all white men are guilty of enslaving blacks when in fact many white men tried to free slaves and many even died in part for that reason (although that does not mean blacks didn't suffer more or that they aren't discriminated against).

[_Coggins7]

Noooo..... learned helplessness makes no judgment calls on its own. It recognizes that people believe they are victims, believe they are not capable of helping themselves, believe they are at the mercy of others, and essentially believe they are incapable of changing their own destinies. Behaviors that actually hurt the community are embraced because of this phenomenon. Do you think that just because one recognizes what learned helplessness is that this in some way says it's "okay", Coggins? I've actually read McWhorter's book Losing the Race: Self Sabotage in America (Hint LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE BOOK YOU NUMBSKULL!) and he discusses the victim mentality and learned helplessness in DETAIL!!!

Nice try. McWhorter supports my philosophy here completely. My perspective encompasses McWhorter's core thesis, that, as he himslef as pointed out, "In my own experience, as well as in what I saw of the students I taught, the truth was otherwise: the problem, plainly, was not one of socioeconomic status—most of my black students were in fact middle-class—but of culture, and lowered standards
were likely to preserve and even intensify that problem, not to ameliorate it"

Indeed, the black popular culture's acceptance and glorification of welfare underclass culture (inner city street culture) is a substantive example of just this self sabotage, as well as a reaction to it.

John McWhorter had been in the forefront of a critique of the cult of victimolgy that is key in understanding the disproportionate social pathologies afflicting American Blacks. You seem to be arguing passed me here and not to really have understood McWhorter's argument.

McWhorter's argument is no different than my own (which I'm not sure you understand). Black Americans have three major cultural problems, the concept of pervasive, institutionalized racism (the cult of victimization), cultural separatism, and anti-intellectualism (which leads to the tribalistic mentality of many blacks toward whites, Jews, and Asian immigrants). As McWhorter said in an interview with Reason Magazine:

Since the 1960s, black Americans have been encouraged to work under the misperception that residual racism is an obstacle to advancement. Racism remains in America, but in most cases, it is not an obstacle to people being the best that they can be. There is a cult of victimology that claims we remain victims on some cosmic level until there is no racism in any white person's heart or any instances of discrimination of any kind. That leads to a sense that being black is a thing apart from being a human being in the United States. That's what I call the cult of separatism, and the sense that black people are subject to different rules and the sense that black people are germane to certain subjects and not to others.

The separatism finally leads to the anti-intellectualism, a cultural disconnect from the school endeavor. Anti-intellectualism is, of course, an American problem. But with black people, there is a sense that knowledge for knowledge's sake is a "white" thing. Therefore, you're not culturally authentic as a black if you engage in it. This is why African-American students, regardless of class, tend to not do as well as others do on tests and in grades.

I don't think you understand either McWhorter's arguments or mine.

And why focus on McWhorter? Have you read critical analysis by Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steel, or Ward Connerly as well as McWhorter?

McWhorter has also spoken to the malingn influence of Hip Hop culture as well on a number of occasions.

What the hell are you rambling on about???

That was my question to you.