LDS leaders on physician assisted suicide and other topics

[Windseeker]

3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Windseeker, You avoided my question, and then continue to talk about why we should stop talking but racism, but you so realize that you are still talking about it, right?

Hi LP, 

i·de·ol·o·gy

ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/

noun

 

1. 1.

   a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

   "the ideology of republicanism"

   synonyms:

   beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, ethics, morals; More

   •  

      
   •  

      
2. 2.

   archaic

   the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.

 

So to answer your question, ideology is not one individual. 

As regards to racism I'm talking about ending it.

It really comes down to this. Does race matter? I don't think it does. In one singe generation my parents family tree now includes Asian, Hawaiian, Haitian, Hispanic, Native American and not in small portions either. Looking at each of these individuals it's clear they are different races, yet all from the same family. I look at my extended family and it's the same and they are all living in the NW. I live in Florida and people of mixed decent are even stronger here. If you want to see what we will look like in a few more generations, look at Brazil.

I love my family, obviously, I'm sacrificing this entire weekend to watch my energetic half-Haitian nephew. It appears you think I have my head in the sand because I don't think there is systematic racism. I've thought about this allot, because it's very personal. I want my children and nephews and nieces to grow up in a world where it does not matter. 

When they come crying to me because they feel mistreated, the problem is that they were mistreated, the "why" of the issue isn't relevant especially when it's something they are stuck with and can't change. Treating someone poorly because of race is unacceptable and treating someone differently because of race is also unacceptable. 

Those who will mistreat someone because of their race, are a tiny minority and their groups (kkk, black panthers) have been completely marginalized. The vast majority of racist in this country are those that claim to be progressive but still can't see beyond an individuals race and they view every issue thru a racial lens. Most of these individuals are working to solve the problems and don't realize they are the current cause. They are failing dramatically of course.

So I'm all for talking about police shootings, and qualified people being denied jobs or education, or how best to deal with poverty but the race of that individual is meaningless. 

So sure let's talk about abuse and every other topic under the sun. But what difference does it make whether a child is Black, White or Brown who is getting abused. Isn't the abuse the problem? 

The reason race still matters to so many people today is because the body that regulates our daily lives (Government), the things we watch each day (Media), the current events (News), what is being taught i school (Education system) have not found it in their best interest to see beyond it. This has to start with people who identify with their beliefs and nationality and no longer identify as _____-American. They also have to recognize how these entities are trying to control and manipulate them by making them see themselves and others thru a racial lens. It's not easy to do. But eventually the more racially blended we became the more out of step and regressive those who fight for this race or that race will appear.

 

[estradling75]

5 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

There are times that not talking about something may help (I suppose, I can't really think of any), and there are times when it will not.  Can we stop abuse by not talking about it?

You really can't see the difference between abuse and racism?!?... No wonder you have a problem understanding...

Lets break it down... Abuse is a maltreatment of a human being... it is a big deal and we need it to stop.

Racism effectively does not exist unless it is also accompanied by a maltreatment of a human being..  The maltreatment needs to stop irregardless of skin color.  All that bringing up skin color does is reinforce the idea that skin color matters.. That the different colors mean different treatment... That is inherently racist.

Thus abuse can stand alone in its horribleness, however racism can't.   For any kind of effective racism it must be coupled with some other maltreatment. 

Since they are different, different tactics can be used to combat it.  And one of those tactics is to quit bring up skin color and making it an important factor (aka quit talking about it) and instead focus on the maltreatment that happened.

As long a we kept reinforcing the narrative that skin color matters we will never get away from racism

 

[Guest]

Passing along anecdotes in order to warrant an argument is problematic, and most stories grow in the telling.  @Windseeker 's anecdote is an example. It contains some exaggerated and misleading information. I think some of the details are important to think about. No doubt Elder Spencer W. Kimball visited Brazil at least once before he returned to organize the first Stake in 1966. Given the number of members on record (less than 2700) in 1960 compared to the number when he organized the first Stake his assignments to visit Brazil and at least Argentina were not extraordinary. And he certainly wasn't a "young" Apostle in the early 60s as the anecdote leads us to believe. Moreover, incidents reported as demonic possession were not precisely "unprecedented" in Brazil's long history and given it's culture of religions which mixed African worship of various gods in nature with Catholicism. It's more reasonable to say that in his routine visit to Brazil and after conferring with the mission president, Elder Kimball saw the need to counsel the (young) missionaries against inadvertently contributing to the dangers of mixing Brazil's religions (and the results of some of the practices of those religions such as Candomblé, Macumba, etc.) with the pure message the missionaries were charged with presenting--by passing along gossip in some cases and well-intentioned but in the very least intensely personal spiritual experiences in other cases that could only serve to whet curious appetites for the sensational. It's natural that such counsel should be passed along to any Wards or Branches that may have members laboring under false understandings. 

In any event I don't accept this anecdote as an effective warrant for me to believe that to essentially "shut up" about the existence of racism is good counsel. The analogy of the missionaries' experiences in Brazil in the 1960s and it's applicability to the issue at hand is weak. @Windseeker asks what we are to learn from the Brazil anecdote. And he rightly tells us that there are some things discussion can't fix. But I say that racism isn't one of those things. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

4 hours ago, Windseeker said:

 It appears you think I have my head in the sand because I don't think there is systematic racism.

@Windseeker, First, I know what ideology means, and I know how to use a dictionary, but thanks for your trouble.  

Second, no I didn't think that you have your head in the sand . . . as you said.  Admittedly, I am skeptical about some of your ideas.  For example, you said something about Obama perpetuating racism.  I disagree strongly that one person, even the US president could have that much power, so I asked for clarification but you ignored me.  You quoted said we should just stop talking about it.  I disagree with that too, but I didn't get the impression from either of those that you doubted that systemic racism existed, more that we have very different ideas about what causes it and what to do about it.  

4 hours ago, Windseeker said:

So I'm all for talking about police shootings, and qualified people being denied jobs or education, or how best to deal with poverty but the race of that individual is meaningless. 

If a person is denied a job he is amply qualified for, and someone with lesser qualifications is given the job instead because the first man is black and the second is white, the race is certainly not meaningless.  And unfortunately, people of color face all kinds of mistreatment from school to jobs and on and on due to their color.  We can't simply ignore that.  That's what I'm trying to say.

@estradling75  I don't have a problem understanding.  I chose my words very carefully.  There are abundant similarities between abuse and systemic racism.  The fact that you disagree doesn't make me automatically the one who is wrong and misguided. Agree to disagree.  I'm done discussing this with you.  

Edited October 22, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Windseeker]

26 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

Passing along anecdotes in order to warrant an argument is problematic, and most stories grow in the telling.  @Windseeker 's anecdote is an example. It contains some exaggerated and misleading information. I think some of the details are important to think about. No doubt Elder Spencer W. Kimball visited Brazil at least once before he returned to organize the first Stake in 1966. Given the number of members on record (less than 2700) in 1960 compared to the number when he organized the first Stake his assignments to visit Brazil and at least Argentina were not extraordinary. And he certainly wasn't a "young" Apostle in the early 60s as the anecdote leads us to believe. Moreover, incidents reported as demonic possession were not precisely "unprecedented" in Brazil's long history and given it's culture of religions which mixed African worship of various gods in nature with Catholicism. It's more reasonable to say that in his routine visit to Brazil and after conferring with the mission president, Elder Kimball saw the need to counsel the (young) missionaries against inadvertently contributing to the dangers of mixing Brazil's religions (and the results of some of the practices of those religions such as Candomblé, Macumba, etc.) with the pure message the missionaries were charged with presenting--by passing along gossip in some cases and well-intentioned but in the very least intensely personal spiritual experiences in other cases that could only serve to whet curious appetites for the sensational. It's natural that such counsel should be passed along to any Wards or Branches that may have members laboring under false understandings. 

In any event I don't accept this anecdote as an effective warrant for me to believe that to essentially "shut up" about the existence of racism is good counsel. The analogy of the missionaries' experiences in Brazil in the 1960s and it's applicability to the issue at hand is weak. @Windseeker asks what we are to learn from the Brazil anecdote. And he rightly tells us that there are some things discussion can't fix. But I say that racism isn't one of those things. 

It's been about 30 years since Windseeker has read those articles so Windseeker was off on the age of Elder Kimball. Windseeker falls on the graces of the good people of this forum and humbly offers his apology.

I believe what Windseeker was trying to convey was that in some cases the dialog itself tends to feed and strengthen the very thing the dialog is trying to abolish.

Windseeker would like UT.starsoper to know it's perfectly ok to disagree with Windseeker. 

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 

If a person is denied a job he is amply qualified for, and someone with lesser qualifications is given the job instead because the first man is black and the second is white, the race is certainly not meaningless.  And unfortunately, people of color face all kinds of mistreatment from school to jobs and on and on due to their color.  We can't simply ignore that.  That's what I'm trying to say.

@estradling75  I don't have a problem understanding.  I chose my words very carefully.  There are abundant similarities between abuse and systemic racism.  The fact that you disagree doesn't make me automatically the one who is wrong and misguided. Agree to disagree.  I'm done discussing this with you.  

You say you understand then you continue to aggravate the problem...  You say you choose your words carefully and then you choose words that make the problem worse...

When your actions support your words I will believe you... until then I will not.

 

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

It's been about 30 years since Windseeker has read those articles so Windseeker was off on the age of Elder Kimball. Windseeker falls on the graces of the good people of this forum and humbly offers his apology.

I believe what Windseeker was trying to convey was that in some cases the dialog itself tends to feed and strengthen the very thing the dialog is trying to abolish.

Windseeker would like UT.starsoper to know it's perfectly ok to disagree with Windseeker. 

I appreciate your generosity and goodwill.  I would like to come across as generous toward you, as well.  And in my heart my discussion with you or about your opinion holds absolutely no ill will.  Since you were trying to convey that dialog tends to feed and strengthen that which we wish to abolish, then perhaps you can give me another example where you personally witnessed this phenomenon--one that I might be able to perceive as analogous to the issue at hand. Certainly, I can think of examples such as two lovers fighting and it being better to just leave the thing alone so that feelings can heal, or something like that. But examples such as this (my mention of the fight) are not analogous to racism per se.

[Windseeker]

29 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Windseeker, First, I know what ideology means, and I know how to use a dictionary, but thanks for your trouble.

I apologize, I didn't mean to offend you. I was puzzled when you read my post and asked if I felt one man was responsible for racism. 

I mentioned Obama but I certainly don't feel he is solely responsible for racism in this country. But I do feel he set us back about a decade. I expected too much. Here was a man that could finally put the seal on the coffin of our past and stand as an example to minorities that they have a voice and they too can make it to the highest office in the land. That he could not have obtained that office without the help from all races especially the majority white race. Instead of this he chose to fan the flames of division every chance he had. Whenever someone brought up his opposition as coming from racism rather then ideological differences he could have told the truth and defended his opponents. 

And for the record I do believe Obama to be a moral man. He has set an excellent example as a father and husband.

 

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

If a person is denied a job he is amply qualified for, and someone with lesser qualifications is given the job instead because the first man is black and the second is white, the race is certainly not meaningless.  And unfortunately, people of color face all kinds of mistreatment from school to jobs and on and on due to their color.  We can't simply ignore that.  That's what I'm trying to say.

 I don't believe they face the same obstacles today that they faced 20 years ago. My point is that dwelling on our racial problems has not made them better. Sins of the past become sins of the present without forgiveness. But in the end true forgiveness is what it's going to take to end the conversation. This has not happened and the powers that be and their willing accomplices are doing their best to keep those wounds open for as long as possible.

I'm getting no response from anyone as to what they feel about the Government/Media/Entertainment complex's role is in this. No response as to the power they hold in the conversation. No response to the unfair effect these institutions have on the minds of young Black kids growing up.

 

[Windseeker]

14 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

I appreciate your generosity and goodwill.  I would like to come across as generous toward you, as well.  And in my heart my discussion with you or about your opinion holds absolutely no ill will.  Since you were trying to convey that dialog tends to feed and strengthen that which we wish to abolish, then perhaps you can give me another example where you personally witnessed this phenomenon--one that I might be able to perceive as analogous to the issue at hand. Certainly, I can think of examples such as two lovers fighting and it being better to just leave the thing alone so that feelings can heal, or something like that. But examples such as this (my mention of the fight) are not analogous to racism per se.

Oh..were you talking to me?

I don't mind having a dialogue with you as long as you address me. Not really a fan of being dehumanized and addressed as exhibit 'A'. But evidently some people got a kick out of it...eh MormonGater?

 

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Interesting thought.  I neither agree or disagree, but I do think the two party system is big part of the problem.  I'm often amazed how so many things become political.  For example, the environment, whether or not bees are endangered, the issue of homelessness....all these issues have definite Democrat or Republican views.  But why? I suppose it's because people look to government to deal with these issues, and then it becomes a problem of whose solution is best.  

 

The current 2 party system IS the problem.  They have a higher purpose of defeating the other party in an election more than they are concerned of discussing solutions to the problem.  The issues of the day simply become ammunition in the next political ffootball game.

Name anything:

1.) Global warming.  If you believe in man-made global warming the Republicans call you a lemming.  If you are a man-made global warming skeptic the Democrats call you ignorant.  Meanwhile, there is ZERO discussion happening on the matter because the scientific process that is supposed to be the arbiter of discovery is manipulated by both sides to support their narrative.

2.) Abortion.  If you are pro-choice then Republicans call you murderer.  If you are pro-life then Democrats call you anti-women.  Meanwhile, there is ZERO discussion on the Constitutional ramifications of the origins of personhood because both have their pitchforks ready to roast the other.

3.) Energy.  Same thing.  Zero scientific process to determine the real impacts of the Keystone pipeline or fracking as the scientific studies are conducted to support a chosen narrative.

You can go on and on... Immigration, welfare, Social Security, Racism.... the GOVERNMENT IS BROKEN.  It has gotten unbearable in the past 16 years where Congress has screeched to a halt.  The only hope you have of fixing it is to have Trump win.  Trump is the only guy in the past 50 years who is within shouting distance of the Presidency who does not look at any issue through the prism of Republican or Democrat.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Windseeker said:

Oh..were you talking to me?

I don't mind having a dialogue with you as long as you address me. Not really a fan of being dehumanized and addressed as exhibit 'A'. But evidently some people got a kick out of it...eh MormonGater?

 

If you look back and review, you'll see I addressed you directly in my post which shows a time-stamp yesterday at 11:36 a.m. After you didnt respond to me directly I supposed you didn't want to have a dialogue with me.  Later on I still wanted to address your post regarding Brazil because it is near and dear to my heart, and felt I couldn't let your remarks go without my response. So, I focused not upon you but upon what you said. As I've observed so many other people on this forum respond to someone else's remarks by utilizing the @ to produce a clear reference (as in @UT.starscoper or @Windseeker, etc.) I didn't expect you to draw the conclusion of being dehumanized, nor to interpret my post as addressing you personally as exhibit A.  But having learned now that I offended you, I apologize for it.  

[askandanswer]

I‘m finding the whole idea of racism to be a difficult concept to think about. Here are some semi-random thoughts that have occurred to me after reading through bits and pieces of this thread. I’m not committing myself to any position here, I’m just thinking out loud and wondering about a few things. Now that Iv'e written and copied this into the forum, I realise its my longest post ever. Please read with patience. 

If I invite a Tongan friend for dinner and serve him Japanese food, am I being:

a)      Hospitable, because I am sharing a meal with a friend?

b)      Insensitive because I am ignoring his cultural preference for Tongan food?

c)       Colour blind, because I am acting as if his race is not relevant and acting as if he is just the same as me?

If I serve him Tongan food, am I being racist, because I am making assumptions about his food preferences based on his ethnicity?

Was God demonstrating a form of racism when He promised blessings to a certain group of people based solely on their blood lines? Or when He gave His Law to the Jewish people and no others and placed them in a pre-eminent position in relation to their neighbouring cultures and commanded them not to mix with others? We are all children of the same God, but note the differences in how God treated Ishmael and Isaac. (Genesis 17: 16 – 22)

Does the whole concept of American exceptionalism contain elements of some form of racism, whereby some Americans, white, black, brown or yellow or whatever, seem to believe that they are exceptional simply because they are American?

It is sometimes suggested in scripture and prophetic teaching that God gives truth to people in proportion to their ability to handle it and live according to it. This may be true. If it is, it immediately follows that there may be a qualitative difference between those individuals and nations and cultures that have more truth and those that have less. And if such qualitative differences exist, then this may provide a reason for differential treatment.

Why was the gospel restored in America and not in Iceland or Japan or Russia? Probably the political structures and religious environment of America at that time had something to do with it, but possibly so also did the character and nature of the inhabitants of America at that time – some of them were ready for the truth and capable of living it. Joseph Smith, when explaining why so many of the people of England accepted the gospel when the first LDS missionaries arrived, declared that the blood of Joseph (or as it Ephraim?) runs rich in England. Does this imply some sort of difference between people of England and people not of England, or those of the tribe of Ephraim and those not of that tribe? It certainly seems that the extremely limited record we have of the Patriarchal blessings given by Joseph to his 12 sons in Genesis 49 suggests some significant differences between them, and these differences may have been carried down to today. Ephraim seems to have been given a leading role. Does this suggest some sort of positive discrimination in favour of Ephraim? Does it suggest that the those of the tribe of Ephraim are in some way different from those of other tribes?

How much truth is there in the idea, that people who have characteristic A, are more likely to also have characteristics B, C and D and E, and that it is therefore a safe and reasonable generalization, although far from a definite and unchangeable truth, that when meeting a person with characteristic A, to keep in mind that they are also likely to have characteristics B, C D and E, and are therefore likely to behave in a certain way and should therefore be responded to accordingly? How low does the statistical correlation have to be between these characteristics have to be before we can ignore or discard such generalizations  and how high does it have to be before we can accept such generalizations as a reasonable working principle, although still not an absolute truths? If it’s absolutely certain that 90% of people with purple skin behave in a selfish and greedy manner, would it be ok to treat them as selfish and greedy, and if so, would that be racist? It it was only highly likely, rather than absolutely certain, that 90% of purple skinned people were greedy and selfish should we be idealistic and treat them in the same way as non-purple skinned people or should we be practical and treat them as likely to be greedy and selfish? What if the correlation was 80% rather than 90%?

Are there real and substantial differences between individuals, groups, races, countries and cultures? If there are, to what extent might or could or should these differences lead to different types of behaviours or different types of treatment, if at all? What sort of differences, if any, justify differences in treatment? At what point, if any, would or should it be appropriate to label any such differences in treatment as racism.

Just as in this life, there will be enormous variation in the degree of obedience, valiance and commitment to the gospel that we all show, and consequently enormous variation in the exact nature of the final reward we will receive/be allocated to, so it is likely that in the pre-existence, that there was an equally great variation in the degree of commitment and obedience that we showed to God’s plan rather than Satan’s, and that this variation in commitment may have influenced where and when we have ended up in this, our second estate. Perhaps those who were less valiant than others in supporting God’s plan in the pre-existence, have ended up in times and places in this life where they are less likely to have unrestricted access to the fullness of the gospel in this life. This idea is supported by the occasional teaching that the seed of Ephraim were particularly valiant in the preexistence. If there is any truth in this idea, and there might not be, then it supports the idea that there are qualitative differences between people and cultures and that gets back to the question of whether qualitative or substantial differences between people justifies or requires or explains differences in treatment between different groups of people.

After thinking this through my own views are that:

There seems to be some reason to assume that people are not all the same and that real and substantial differences exist between different groups of people and between people of different cultures. This is not saying that some groups are better than others – that is a value judgment that I am not equipped to make – just that they are different from each other. The idea that all people are the same and should therefore all be treated the same is beginning to seem a little speculative and somewhat doubtful. Certainly we are all sons and daughters of God, but my sons and daughters are most definitely not the same as each other and I do not treat them the same although I love them all equally and try to do my best for each of them.

There may be occasions and circumstances when, as a result of these differences, it may be helpful or prudent or sensible to keep these differences in mind when there is interaction between differing peoples or cultures. Exactly how you interact, and exactly how and how much these differences between culture and peoples should be taken into account, and how much it should influence our interactions is an individual matter, in which one should be guided by one’s experience and common sense.

If it has been my experience that many people who possess a certain attribute, whether it be skin colour, height, eye colour, ethnicity or whatever, are also likely to possess certain other attributes, then it seems to be common sense to at least anticipate that when I meet a person with that certain attribute, to expect them to also have those certain other attributes that commonly seem to go with that first attribute. However, I should always keep in mind that this is a convenient, lazy, generalized way of thinking, and that I should be prepared to adjust my views at any time in the light of lived experience.

Most importantly of all, most of this doesn’t matter if we remain focused on living the two great commandments to love God and love our neighbor.

Just a few things to think about …………..

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On October 22, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Windseeker said:

 I don't believe they face the same obstacles today that they faced 20 years ago.

This is likely our main point of disagreement then.  The studies about Blacks and other people of color facing discrimination in schools, employment, and medical treatment are current, they are not 20 years old.  We have current, serious issues.

My opinion is that before we can solve a problem we must first recognize and admit there is a problem.  It's kind of like in AA when the first thing one must do is admit they are an alcoholic.  We can't solve problems we don't even acknowledge to be problems.  And we can't solve problems by ignoring them or not talking about them.  I'm reading, I Am Malala and she quoted the poem by Marin Niemoller.  The one that starts with "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist."

She says, "I knew he was right.  If people were silent, nothing would change."  

About the Government/Media/Entertainment's role...well that depends on who you ask, doesn't it.  Both sides will claim that the media is supporting the opposition.  For example, I'm guessing that you would say that media is perpetuating the problem by highlighting it, focusing on it, reporting it in a biased fashion etc.  The other side will say that the media ignores People of Color unless they are celebrities, famous athletes or criminals.  Ironically some white people have complained that the new show Luke Cage (?) has no white people in it, completely ignoring the fact that for a long time TV has been 90% white.  BLM matter people will say that the media makes a big deal out of riots, but completely ignores all the peaceful protests?  

Each side is convinced media is against them, so who is right?  For my part, I do not base my opinions solely on what the media attempts to feed me.  I like to get to know real people and talk to them about their views and opinions.  In short, do I blame the media either way?  No.  I think the media is in it for the money and will show whatever they think will be popular with the people.  We are the ones who ultimately shape what the media shows us. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On October 22, 2016 at 0:24 PM, anatess2 said:

 The only hope you have of fixing it is to have Trump win.  Trump is the only guy in the past 50 years who is within shouting distance of the Presidency who does not look at any issue through the prism of Republican or Democrat.

I was with you...totally nodding my head and agreeing until you got to this part.  Clearly we agree on the problem, but disagree on the solution.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

5 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I‘m finding the whole idea of racism to be a difficult concept to think about. Here are some semi-random thoughts that have occurred to me after reading through bits and pieces of this thread. I’m not committing myself to any position here, I’m just thinking out loud and wondering about a few things. Now that Iv'e written and copied this into the forum, I realise its my longest post ever. Please read with patience. 

If I invite a Tongan friend for dinner and serve him Japanese food, am I being:

a)      Hospitable, because I am sharing a meal with a friend?

b)      Insensitive because I am ignoring his cultural preference for Tongan food?

c)       Colour blind, because I am acting as if his race is not relevant and acting as if he is just the same as me?

If I serve him Tongan food, am I being racist, because I am making assumptions about his food preferences based on his ethnicity?

Most importantly of all, most of this doesn’t matter if we remain focused on living the two great commandments to love God and love our neighbor.

Just a few things to think about …………..

No offense intended here, but I feel like this is missing the point.  It doesn't matter to me if you invite your Tongan friend over or not, or what you feed him when he does come over.  You can be friends with whomever you choose and feed them whatever you want.

The scenario I'm concerned about it is more like this:

You are sitting on a bus and a fight breaks out.  It's four on one.  Do you:
a. just sit there and think about how much you love them all and love God . . .
b. turn your head away and ignore it
c. or try to help in some fashion, even if that is just signaling the driver or calling 911 or something.   

I feel that God expects us, if we truly do love our neighbor, to not stand idly by when someone is being mistreated.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Back to the marijuana question...on which I am still undecided...

In a wonderful speech, that Ezra Taft Benson gave as Secretary of State, called The Proper Role of Government (you can easily find it on line if you are so inclined). He said that if you are a farmer, you can not go to your neighbor farmer Brown, and say, "Hey, you have two cows, and Farmer Smith doesn't have any.  So I'm going to take one of your cows and give it to Farmer Smith."  You simply can't do that.  He went on to say that the Government should not use it's collective power to do anything that we as citizens on our own could not do.  

He was speaking of welfare, but lately I've been thinking about how this applies to legalized marijuana and other sticky issues.  I love the author Richard Maybury. He teaches about "common law".  It's been awhile, but if I remember correctly, he said that common law which is supported by the Bible, the Torah and the Quoran is two fold.  First, do nothing to harm others or their property. Second, do all you have agreed to do.  That seems reasonable, but would also mean that the government has no place in making marijuana illegal, or other matters that we, LDS, would have a hard time with.  

I'm also thinking about how King Noah, in the Book of Mormon, was able to lead so many astray because of his wickedness, a reason we don't have a king.  Still it makes me wonder, do people need righteous laws to help them be righteous.  I don't know.  My concern about this though, is whose law do we go by then?  Of course, we know we are right, and so if the government ruled according to LDS ways of understanding everything would be peachy, right?  But what if the tide turned and we had a majority in the government of Muslims and they wanted something very different from what we hold dear.  Or what if the majority were Jewish?  Would you want to live under a government that supports Jewish ideas of right and wrong?  

These are the questions I'm mulling over...always keeping in mind that force was Satan's plan, and that I want to please God by choosing what He wants...if I can just figure out what that is (sometimes it's easier than others).  

[Windseeker]

51 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

This is likely our main point of disagreement then.  The studies about Blacks and other people of color facing discrimination in schools, employment, and medical treatment are current, they are not 20 years old.  We have current, serious issues.

My opinion is that before we can solve a problem we must first recognize and admit there is a problem.  It's kind of like in AA when the first thing one must do is admit they are an alcoholic.  We can't solve problems we don't even acknowledge to be problems.  And we can't solve problems by ignoring them or not talking about them.  I'm reading, I Am Malala and she quoted the poem by Marin Niemoller.  The one that starts with "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist."

She says, "I knew he was right.  If people were silent, nothing would change."  

About the Government/Media/Entertainment's role...well that depends on who you ask, doesn't it.  Both sides will claim that the media is supporting the opposition.  For example, I'm guessing that you would say that media is perpetuating the problem by highlighting it, focusing on it, reporting it in a biased fashion etc.  The other side will say that the media ignores People of Color unless they are celebrities, famous athletes or criminals.  Ironically some white people have complained that the new show Luke Cage (?) has no white people in it, completely ignoring the fact that for a long time TV has been 90% white.  BLM matter people will say that the media makes a big deal out of riots, but completely ignores all the peaceful protests?  

Each side is convinced media is against them, so who is right?  For my part, I do not base my opinions solely on what the media attempts to feed me.  I like to get to know real people and talk to them about their views and opinions.  In short, do I blame the media either way?  No.  I think the media is in it for the money and will show whatever they think will be popular with the people.  We are the ones who ultimately shape what the media shows us. 

What studies? Who is discriminating? 

Aren't there laws against discrimination? Give me some names of people who turned Blacks away from their school, or employers who denied a qualified black person or the name of a Hospital that denied medical treatment to a black person because of his race. 

It's become too acceptable to throw around the word discrimination without any concrete evidence. It's very simple find out whose doing this and pull their accreditation or fine them or pull their license to practice medicine. 

I think my argument has been grossly misconstrued and it's not without any failed effort on my part with my poor explanations and examples. 

So to be clear..hopefully.... I'm all for discussing and finding a solution. So there is no need to argue the need for discussion. But it needs to be based on facts not chasing ghosts.

My point is that we place a disgusting amount of emphasis on race. When we, (us, the Government, Media, etc..) start emphasizing character instead of race, we will see an improvement in race relations and a major step toward ending discrimination. As characters starts to matter again, we will see an improvement in communities where crime, single households, and ignorance dominate. 

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I was with you...totally nodding my head and agreeing until you got to this part.  Clearly we agree on the problem, but disagree on the solution.  

Name some other candidate within shouting distance of the White House that can do it.  And, bonus question... give me a reason why Trump is not the guy who can do it.

Edited October 24, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Back to the marijuana question...on which I am still undecided...

In a wonderful speech, that Ezra Taft Benson gave as Secretary of State, called The Proper Role of Government (you can easily find it on line if you are so inclined). He said that if you are a farmer, you can not go to your neighbor farmer Brown, and say, "Hey, you have two cows, and Farmer Smith doesn't have any.  So I'm going to take one of your cows and give it to Farmer Smith."  You simply can't do that.  He went on to say that the Government should not use it's collective power to do anything that we as citizens on our own could not do.  

He was speaking of welfare, but lately I've been thinking about how this applies to legalized marijuana and other sticky issues.  I love the author Richard Maybury. He teaches about "common law".  It's been awhile, but if I remember correctly, he said that common law which is supported by the Bible, the Torah and the Quoran is two fold.  First, do nothing to harm others or their property. Second, do all you have agreed to do.  That seems reasonable, but would also mean that the government has no place in making marijuana illegal, or other matters that we, LDS, would have a hard time with.  

I'm also thinking about how King Noah, in the Book of Mormon, was able to lead so many astray because of his wickedness, a reason we don't have a king.  Still it makes me wonder, do people need righteous laws to help them be righteous.  I don't know.  My concern about this though, is whose law do we go by then?  Of course, we know we are right, and so if the government ruled according to LDS ways of understanding everything would be peachy, right?  But what if the tide turned and we had a majority in the government of Muslims and they wanted something very different from what we hold dear.  Or what if the majority were Jewish?  Would you want to live under a government that supports Jewish ideas of right and wrong?  

These are the questions I'm mulling over...always keeping in mind that force was Satan's plan, and that I want to please God by choosing what He wants...if I can just figure out what that is (sometimes it's easier than others).  

There's a reason we vote for policies.  You hear it everyday in this election cycle - Vote your Conscience.  Except that the people I hear this from use it to vote Romney over Gingrich because Romney is an upstanding person while Gingrich is adulterous.  But when it comes to voting FOR policies, it seems like they are incapable of pushing their conscience in the direction of actionable governance.  So people for small government vote big-government Romney over small-government Gingrich.

Yes, this country is founded on Judeo-Christian principles.  But, it is a representative democracy.  Each individual votes their principles and the one who has more influence on their representatives get to see those principles applied to governance.  So, you ask, what if the majority becomes Jewish or Muslim?  Then you get to work in the same manner that Jewish and Muslim people today do so as a voting bloc.

So, as a Christian, you need to really ask yourself - do you really believe that Christian principles is the path to joy?  If yes, then you will have faith that the Light of Christ in every other person - including Jews and Muslims - will come to the same conclusion.

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@Windseeker you're kidding, right? 

First you ask me what studies, what discrimination? Didn't you read my two posts to JAG at the beginning of the race discussion where I shared that with links? 

Then after illustrating that you clearly do not understand my position, you say I don't understand yours ,and not for lack of trying on your part....implying that I'm trying to twist your words. I'm not by the way. That's why I tried to ask you questions to clarify your position. Then I attempted to restate your position to be sure I understood.

So it seems that neither of us is understanding the other. I think my position would be more clear though if you just read my ealier posts to JAG. That was the beginning  (for me at least) of this conversation. It's crucial to understanding my position.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Name some other candidate within shouting distance of the White House that can do it.  And, bonus question... give me a reason why Trump is not the guy who can do it.

Thanks for the invitation, but I think we have enough threads here about Trump. I don't want to turn this into another one.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

52 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, as a Christian, you need to really ask yourself - do you really believe that Christian principles is the path to joy?  

For me it's not that simple. I'm trying to decide what the proper role of government is. In order to vote my conscience I want to know that.

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

For me it's not that simple. I'm trying to decide what the proper role of government is. In order to vote my conscience I want to know that.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134?lang=eng

its laid out in all 12 verses

 

 

[Windseeker]

14 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Windseeker you're kidding, right? 

First you ask me what studies, what discrimination? Didn't you read my two posts to JAG at the beginning of the race discussion where I shared that with links? 

Then after illustrating that you clearly do not understand my position, you say I don't understand yours ,and not for lack of trying on your part....implying that I'm trying to twist your words. I'm not by the way. That's why I tried to ask you questions to clarify your position. Then I attempted to restate your position to be sure I understood.

So it seems that neither of us is understanding the other. I think my position would be more clear though if you just read my ealier posts to JAG. That was the beginning  (for me at least) of this conversation. It's crucial to understanding my position.

Sorry LP, 

You misunderstood what I said. I don't really have time to explain. I was disparaging myself not you. So just chalk it up to my poor communication (no sarcasm there). 

I'm going to bow out because I just don't have time to spend arguing about arguing or to perfect my communication. I just don't have time to explain clear enough, which is no ones fault but my own. 

I respect you and hope you know that I, like you, and every person on this board wants to see an end to discrimination and racism. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I‘m finding the whole idea of racism to be a difficult concept to think about. Here are some semi-random thoughts that have occurred to me after reading through bits and pieces of this thread. I’m not committing myself to any position here, I’m just thinking out loud and wondering about a few things. Now that Iv'e written and copied this into the forum, I realise its my longest post ever. Please read with patience. 

If I invite a Tongan friend for dinner and serve him Japanese food, am I being:

a)      Hospitable, because I am sharing a meal with a friend?

b)      Insensitive because I am ignoring his cultural preference for Tongan food?

c)       Colour blind, because I am acting as if his race is not relevant and acting as if he is just the same as me?

If I serve him Tongan food, am I being racist, because I am making assumptions about his food preferences based on his ethnicity?

...

 

You remarks are interesting. And since your post was so long, as you said, I'll focus only upon the questions above at least for now but I'll try to be as thoughtful. What I understand is that you and the other person are *friends* and not merely acquaintances, which to me is significant. I should think that as friends you both would be past some of the issues that mere acquaintances confront. I would think that as friends you already have a pretty good idea whether Japanese food offends, or whether he is above taking offense at food of varying ethnic origins. Knowing that your friend *prefers* Tongan food it would be a friendlier gesture to serve Tongan food.  (Your second and fourth questions seem to conflict because one suggests to me that he indeed prefers Tongan food while the fourth questions makes it sound as if you are only making an assumption.) But in the end I would believe that if you are friends (for me the ideal is friends the way small children are friends) you are indeed color-blind, a good thing. As a general matter of inviting people for dinner, it seems like a good idea to invite them and ask them what they would enjoy. Then take their answer at face value.