Boy, oh boy, did MG 2.0 ever step into a pile of crap with his biases clearly driving him on this one.
One of my favorite things to point out around here is the fact that people make a mountain out of a molehill. If the picture that was posted at the beginning of the thread is an unadulterated clip from the 1st Presidency meeting held in front of cameras while being interviewed...great!
I do think that there were/are better photo clips that could have been used. But...whatever. Big deal.
You folks will look for and try and find anything to suit your purposes in order to make those that are different from you look bad. I'm tempted to suggest that we create a term called, "religious racism", not because of the color of one's skin, but the color of one's religious belief.
I'm tempted to suggest that we create a term called, "religious racism", not because of the color of one's skin, but the color of one's religious belief. : lol:
Good idea. I'm sure the Church would be all in for it, as they've already done it in the past. The Brethren could resurrect the term "white and delightsome" for folks like you. The rest of us would, of course, be cursed with a "skin of blackness."
You all have been doing 'spiritual racism' for a while, now.
I'm tempted to suggest that we create a term called, "religious racism", not because of the color of one's skin, but the color of one's religious belief. : lol:
Good idea. I'm sure the Church would be all in for it, as they've already done it in the past. The Brethren could resurrect the term "white and delightsome" for folks like you. The rest of us would, of course, be cursed with a "skin of blackness."
You all have been doing 'spiritual racism' for a while, now.
I'm referring to those on this board and elsewhere in the anti-Mormon world that practice religious racism.
Good idea. I'm sure the Church would be all in for it, as they've already done it in the past. The Brethren could resurrect the term "white and delightsome" for folks like you. The rest of us would, of course, be cursed with a "skin of blackness."
You all have been doing 'spiritual racism' for a while, now.
I'm referring to those on this board and elsewhere in the anti-Mormon world that practice religious racism.
Regards,
MG
And I'm referring to how it's an old idea that the LDS Church has already codified--even to the extent to expanding the concept to include skin color.
You already practice this, MG. You do it every time you call people out for their sins, or their 'choosing' unbelief.
You are flipping the term back on me to suggest that calling out unbelief or sin is itself a form of religious racism. I think that is a category error. Calling something "sin" or "unbelief" isn't the same as denying someone's humanity or worth because of the framework of their religious convictions.
Religious racism is mocking someone or stereotyping them because of their religious identity. Making a theological judgement, which is what believers might do, is not the same as a personal dismissal.
I'm referring to those on this board and elsewhere in the anti-Mormon world that practice religious racism.
Regards,
MG
And I'm referring to how it's an old idea that the LDS Church has already codified--even to the extent to expanding the concept to include skin color.
What I’m calling “religious racism” isn’t about institutional doctrines from the 19th century, it’s about the way some critics today treat members of the LDS church as intellectually or morally inferior because of their beliefs. Much of the persecution from the very beginning had to do with religious/theological beliefs.
I’m not defending every historical teaching in regards to those things that we may not have all the information for, I’m pointing out a present day pattern. If someone says, “You believe that? You must be deluded,” that’s not theological disagreement, that's religious racism.
And I'm referring to how it's an old idea that the LDS Church has already codified--even to the extent to expanding the concept to include skin color.
What I’m calling “religious racism” isn’t about institutional doctrines from the 19th century, it’s about the way some critics today treat members of the LDS church as intellectually or morally inferior because of their beliefs. Much of the persecution from the very beginning had to do with religious/theological beliefs.
I’m not defending every historical teaching in regards to those things that we may not have all the information for, I’m pointing out a present day pattern. If someone says, “You believe that? You must be deluded,” that’s not theological disagreement, that's religious racism.
Regards,
MG
So how you treated grindael would be an example of you being (what you have now decided to call) “religiously racist”? Or when you labelled people “spiritually autistic” (another made-up offensive and nonsensical term dreamt up by you) was that you being “religiously racist”?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
And I'm referring to how it's an old idea that the LDS Church has already codified--even to the extent to expanding the concept to include skin color.
...the way some critics today treat members of the LDS church as intellectually or morally inferior because of their beliefs...
Regards,
MG
Bingo. Those that adhere to and spout things for which there is no possible verification are intellectually inferior to those that stick to the facts. Beliefs without observable evidence is in intellectual realms like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
...the way some critics today treat members of the LDS church as intellectually or morally inferior because of their beliefs...
Regards,
MG
Bingo. Those that adhere to and spout things for which there is no possible verification are intellectually inferior to those that stick to the facts. Beliefs without observable evidence is in intellectual realms like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
You are doubling down on the very behavior I'm critiquing. It is not fair to state that mocking or dismissing religious belief is justified. Rejecting faith as a valid epistemology is showing a lack of respect for those that live a life of faith/belief. It's also a bit arrogant. Condescending treatment of believers will not strengthen your cause/case.
