BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[LA Ute]

Also, there continues to be an important and evolving discussion about race and racism. The meaning of the term 'racism' continues to evolve, and the discussion is enlightening. Having a black president makes this time a particularly valuable moment in the evolution of race relations and our common understanding of the meaning of the word 'racism.' When you lump 'racism' with the term 'fascism,' whose moment of historical relevance has come and gone, you only demonstrate that you haven't taken the time to keep up on an important public social discussion. Race and racism continue to be pressing issues in our times.

Oh, please. I really enjoy this board, Robin, but I don't enjoy lectures. Lots of really smart people see this issue the way I do. No need to condescend. Besides, I am talking about the application of the word "racist" to people who lived 100 years ago, and I suggest it's not very helpful. Agree or disagree, you seem to have missed that.

[RobinFinderson]

"Racist" is a discussion-stopper, like "bigot" or "fascist." All are much over-used and emotion-laden.

I have to disagree with you here. There is no shame in recognizing personal racism and getting rid of it. Not Al Sharpton nor Jesse Jackson is going to destroy anyone who acknowledges that a racist statement was made out of force of habit or ignorance (hell, we continue to live in a racist society, so it is only natural for all of us to pick up some baggage), but that the speaker recognizes the error and is continuing to try to root out racist terms and thinking. Personally, I appreciate when people point out that something I might say or do has a racist aspect. Such criticism helps in the emergence of a better self.

Also, there continues to be an important and evolving discussion about race and racism. The meaning of the term 'racism' continues to evolve, and the discussion is enlightening. Having a black president makes this time a particularly valuable moment in the evolution of race relations and our common understanding of the meaning of the word 'racism.' When you lump 'racism' with the term 'fascism,' whose moment of historical relevance has come and gone, you only demonstrate that you haven't taken the time to keep up on an important public social discussion. Race and racism continue to be pressing issues in our times.

Now, regarding the TooBlue SU debate -- Tooblue, I can understand the desire to bait SU into a defensive snizfit (www.snizfit.com is available. You are welcome.) My preferred SU bait is to belittle his understanding of Nietzsche, or perhaps to disparage Wagner's Ring Cycle. Baiting SU can be fun, and he is generally good humored about it.

What you need to understand is that baiting SU in the way that you are trying to defend is more despicable than the alternative. You wanted to expose SU as a racist? And you did that by repeatedly using a racist term in a way that appeared as if you meant it? Don't defend that! If that is really what you did, that is pretty darn despicable. This is a friendly forum. What you are claiming to have done is sort of like giving a friend some pornography, using your friendly relationship to pressure him to look, and then snapping photos of him looking so that you can prove to the world that he is a creep. Your baiting makes you look worse than if you had actually made an honest mistake. Moreover, nothing that SU did in his responses to you constituted a blatant disregard for or callousness toward sensitive race issues. The closest he got was to recognize that there are lingering ties between racism and educational opportunity in the US. MLK himself made those connections, and a wide array of black leaders recognize that lack of education makes a significant part of the black population more susceptible to some kinds of sophistry. The discussion of this is part of the current public discourse on race, and recognition of these issues does not constitute a form of racism.

After the feud between TB and SU, what I remember most vividly about that old thread is how DDD was shown to have a narrow understanding of the word 'lynching,' and how he embarrassingly used a narrow definition to question other facts in the New Yorker summary. It was a poor ad hominem attack, particularly bad because it was based on a poor understanding of the word 'lynching,' and it made DDD look a bit foolish and defensive. Do you see DDD trying to defend that remark? No. You need to become a student of DDD's posts. You have a lot to learn from DDD.

[LA Ute]

See, this is what I am talking about. Given the context of the times in which these people lived, why do you think it is such a "powerful charge" to think that there was racism involved? On the contrary, to think that none of the prior church leaders were prone to the biases common to their culture and historical era is much more difficult for me to believe.

"Racist" is a discussion-stopper, like "bigot" or "fascist." All are much over-used and emotion-laden. Their modern meaning makes them unsuitable for discussing people who lived over 100 years ago. Abraham Lincoln was a racist, by modern terms, and so were the American Founders. I do not think it adds to any discussion to use those labels. (Note to SU: That's my opinion. It's not a fact, and neither are your opinions.)

[Jeff Lebowski]

The interview LA Ute cited with Elder Holland, Elder Holland used the terms "policy", "practice" and "doctrine" interchangeably with regards to blacks and the priesthood. The lack of uniformity with regards to which term to use appears to be a reflection of Elder Holland's own uncertainty (i.e. 'we don't know') as to the underlying reason(s).

Go back and check post #8 in this thread. Elder Childs was much less equivocal. Clearly there are various opinions among the brethren, even among the Q12. That is why I started the thread.

The "it was policy, not doctrine" line of thinking is a recognition of the fact that there is no clear tie to any kind of revelation at the origin of the ban. Rather, the ban can be traced to folklore which is now disavowed. However, it clearly came to be viewed as doctrine during the period of the ban as evidenced by BRM's book and the resistance to repealing the ban.

[tooblue]

As a Canadian, I was unaware that "visible minority" was a term created by Stats Canada. I thought it was used in the States as well. I've lived here in the US for 12 years now. I've used it since moving here. I hope I didn't confuse anyone with it. I'm pretty sure I haven't offended anyone with it.

I doubt that tooBlue knew it would be offensive. I still don't see how it is offensive. It is certainly accepted in Canada. I don't see any minority groups complaining about it...only a UN committee, and they don't offer any "more appropriate" term.

Not having read the original thread, I didn't get why SU was posting it. My guess was that it was an example of how ridiculous the UN has become and how ridiculous we have gotten with PC terms.

I am an American that lives in Canada. I was fully aware that it is a term the UN has deemed offensive and that is why I used it to bait SeattleUte and expose his bigotry, racism and lack of sophistication. It's a sorted tale. Originally SeattleUte had posted a link to a New Yorker article that suggested blacks* are not smart or sophisticated enough to make an informed decision when voting on Prop 8 in California. This is an opinion SeattleUte continues to stand by.

SeattleUte's latest (not his first) link to the article on Canada.com from 2007 is an effort to paint me as a racist in the hopes his views on the subject will not fully be made known. Interestingly enough, the Canadian government still uses the term.

*I use this term because SeattleUte has ruled it is not offensive

[Jeff Lebowski]

Guys, I am going to be brutally honest here. I really enjoy watching you two go after each other. I think it is interesting. You get to see how people react when they are cornered...which posters rise to the occasion, which ones exit gracefully, which ones go down in flames....that sort of thing.

My problem is that with all the fur flying around, I have honestly lost track of the points you both are making. Would each of you mind succinctly recapping your points thus far. I don't want to read hyperlink or New Yorker articles. I simply want to catch up.

tooblue, i must say that I still feel that SeattleUte's article nailed you to the wall, but unless I am misunderstanding, you are now adopting the stance that you knew all along and were only pretending in an effort to bait SeattleUte? I am open to that, but please flesh it out a bit more because it does sound somewhat sketchy.

SeattleUte...."shiboleths?" really?

Better yet, how about if tooblue and SU start another thread and carry on there? This is not an interesting hijack.

[beefytee]

tooblue, i must say that I still feel that SeattleUte's article nailed you to the wall, but unless I am misunderstanding, you are now adopting the stance that you knew all along and were only pretending in an effort to bait SeattleUte? I am open to that, but please flesh it out a bit more because it does sound somewhat sketchy.

As a Canadian, I was unaware that "visible minority" was a term created by Stats Canada. I thought it was used in the States as well. I've lived here in the US for 12 years now. I've used it since moving here. I hope I didn't confuse anyone with it. I'm pretty sure I haven't offended anyone with it.

I doubt that tooBlue knew it would be offensive. I still don't see how it is offensive. It is certainly accepted in Canada. I don't see any minority groups complaining about it...only a UN committee, and they don't offer any "more appropriate" term.

Not having read the original thread, I didn't get why SU was posting it. My guess was that it was an example of how ridiculous the UN has become and how ridiculous we have gotten with PC terms.

[tooblue]

tooblue, i must say that I still feel that SeattleUte's article nailed you to the wall, but unless I am misunderstanding, you are now adopting the stance that you knew all along and were only pretending in an effort to bait SeattleUte? I am open to that, but please flesh it out a bit more because it does sound somewhat sketchy.

It was covered many moons ago. The thread is out in the open for all to see -- I linked to it, Seattle did not. Seattle is hoping you and others have forgotten. Speaks volumes.

[tooblue]

Right. Like you pretended to be a racist, though you were just kidding to bait me.

Figured it out yet -- you still don't seem not to understand? Now you want to call me a racist in an effort to deflect! Have you done that search yet?

[TripletDaddy]

Guys, I am going to be brutally honest here. I really enjoy watching you two go after each other. I think it is interesting. You get to see how people react when they are cornered...which posters rise to the occasion, which ones exit gracefully, which ones go down in flames....that sort of thing.

My problem is that with all the fur flying around, I have honestly lost track of the points you both are making. Would each of you mind succinctly recapping your points thus far. I don't want to read hyperlink or New Yorker articles. I simply want to catch up.

tooblue, i must say that I still feel that SeattleUte's article nailed you to the wall, but unless I am misunderstanding, you are now adopting the stance that you knew all along and were only pretending in an effort to bait SeattleUte? I am open to that, but please flesh it out a bit more because it does sound somewhat sketchy.

SeattleUte...."shiboleths?" really?

[SeattleUte]

Have you figured out the irony? Someone get this man a Play Bill -- or make him a vin diagram.

Do the search -- it seems to be your favorite form of self-loathing -- you like calling yourself a bitter apostate.

Right. Like you pretended to be a racist, though you were just kidding to bait me.

[tooblue]

Irony, no doubt. The record reflects you were the first to attack character in our exchanges about gay marriage, in the nastiest possible way, which is why I have been unsparing in my exposition of your true character. This is your modus operandi, by the way (search "bitter apostate" here and on CG to remind yourself). Unfortunately, also like North Korea you are hard to ignore though ultimately inconsequential.

Have you figured out the irony? Someone get this man a Play Bill -- or make him a vin diagram.

Do the search -- it seems to be your favorite form of self-loathing -- you like calling yourself a bitter apostate.

[All-American]

Anybody see the South Park episode where Jimmy and Timmy fight? Man, that was funny stuff.

[SeattleUte]

And now comes the denigration. Perfect. Can't attack a man's position so you attempt to attack his character. You should have your own show on FOX news!

Do you get the irony yet -- or do you need a day?

Irony, no doubt. The record reflects you were the first to attack character in our exchanges about gay marriage, in the nastiest possible way, which is why I have been unsparing in my exposition of your true character. This is your modus operandi, by the way (search "bitter apostate" here and on CG to remind yourself). Unfortunately, also like North Korea you are hard to ignore though ultimately inconsequential.

[tooblue]

As an American, and on behalf of America, let me say that you seem more like North Korea than Canadian: Very passe, isolated, disrespected and angry about it, xenoophobic, a spouter of Communist shiboleths, a lover of authoritarianism, and a little scary.

And now comes the denigration. Perfect. Can't attack a man's position so you attempt to attack his character. You should have your own show on FOX news!

Do you get the irony yet -- or do you need a day?