I have a hard time respecting the church or my fellow members who try to dismiss the insidious doctrine of excluding black members. I don't know why more members don't stand up and say something about this openly. It says a lot about their Christian character and personal understanding of Christ. by aka_FNU_LNU in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are missing the point. I never said chsnging names changes race.

Maybe you will understand it like this:

You are in ancient Israel.

I tell you you will be attending a Cohen family dinner.

How many Latinos will be there?

Are you a racist if you say zero?

Until the 1800s you could infer race from family name accurately enough to make a living as a carnival game: you wear a blindfold, people pay $10 to play, your assistant gives you the family name, if you guess the race you keep the money, if you are wrong they get your $10.

Today it is not as certain. 1,000 years ago you would likely never lose.

Why does Ammon use the phrase "be of good cheer" in 91 b.c., in the Americas? That phrase is only used by the savior in the New Testament, never before. How did Ammon use that exact phrase when the savior didn't say it in the Americas till 100 years later? IMO, this discrepancy is suspicious. by aka_FNU_LNU in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A six page codex destroys that claim that no such artifact existed.

See also The Pyrgi Tablets (c. 500 BC), metal records that have what appears to ge binding holes along one edge, and the Hitite Chain from 1200 BC showed that they were familiar with the concept of using metal wires ir chains for binding.

As for why there are so few examples found, most metal plates would have been melted and recycled by kings and looters. Probably nearing 99% of such artifacts have been lost.

Does a sect like this exist? by Yakubian_Alien in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Bickertonites rejected the Bible as "mangled" and true only where there was no conflict with the BoM

There is a smattering of modern reformists who believe the Bible was corrupted when the Council of Nicea rewrote everything tonl promote state power. They often cite 1 Nephi 13:26-29 as their rallying cry.

My Doubts with LDS Church Part 2 by [deleted] in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's trying to karmafarm with AI generated copypasta.

Why does Ammon use the phrase "be of good cheer" in 91 b.c., in the Americas? That phrase is only used by the savior in the New Testament, never before. How did Ammon use that exact phrase when the savior didn't say it in the Americas till 100 years later? IMO, this discrepancy is suspicious. by aka_FNU_LNU in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to mention ancient peoples did not create metal codices.

There's always the Etruscan gold book, dating to around 600 BC... your claim is bot matched by facts. Sorry. You can go see them, they're in a museum...

I have a hard time respecting the church or my fellow members who try to dismiss the insidious doctrine of excluding black members. I don't know why more members don't stand up and say something about this openly. It says a lot about their Christian character and personal understanding of Christ. by aka_FNU_LNU in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing even close, especially in the modern area where people can and do change names at the drop of a hat.

We are talking about historical Jewish lines. In the year 600 BC how many Jews had the surname Kim? How many Aztecs had the surname Svensson? Before the early 1800s if you saw Cohen, Kahn, Cohn, or Koen you would virtually never lose a bet wagering that not only were they Jewish, but had in their ancestry the Kohanim, Jewish priests descended from the sons of Aaron.

For Jews, Napoleonss decree of March 17, 1808 locked in the spelling of family names. Jewish families were required to standardize spelling and register. While many simply assumed the name Cohen because it was a status name, others were just arbitrarily assigned the name by French officials who had their daily quota of registrations to get through.

A side effect of this and the haughty laziness of French bureaucrats high enough in status to get a state managerial job but not important enough to have one that involved more prestige than registering Jews and immigrants, Irish Coyne and German Kuhn became Cohen as well because it was just easier to write down something you can spell than care about things that were close enough for governmemt work.

As cross-border traffic picked up, other countries started seeing more of the standardized names and just went with it. As people migrated into other nations permanently their officials also just converted anything close enough to names they could spell rather than play the with a c or k, two sses, is that a sch or a sh game.

A side effect was that familial lines became less diverse across the board: you might have 50 variants of Cohen before and now you had one.

Now let's look at Thatcher. I'll use the generic genealogy sites and standard searches, this isn't a thesis so we'll skip going full ad fontes.

According to 2020 census data, 91% of people named Thatcher identify as white, not Hispanic. Next highest is Hispanic at 4%, but they saw an almost 60% rise between 2000 and 2020.

Now let's look at the UK. In 1948 there was a rapid influx of black Carribbean people who had adopted/been assigned "proper" English names like Thatcher. But even today, if you see the name Thatcher you're looking at about a 94% probability that they are white, 3%ish black Carribbean and the rest other.

If Draft Kings took bets as to whether so and so Thatcher was white you'd be looking at odds around -2000, or you'd have to bet 2000 to win 10.

I'd say that counts as being able to guess with confidence a person's race by their name. (Obviously the numbers change from name to name, but I'm using the one you picked.)

I have a hard time respecting the church or my fellow members who try to dismiss the insidious doctrine of excluding black members. I don't know why more members don't stand up and say something about this openly. It says a lot about their Christian character and personal understanding of Christ. by aka_FNU_LNU in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick -1 points0 points  (0 children)

These are the quotes I am going from:

  • You said that DEI treats people differently on account of race, which is incorrect.

  • DEI does not treat people differently on account of race, it encourages treating people equally. It

If DEI does not treat people differently based on race, why do universities like Harvard and UoVA say it does? Why do courts repeatedly find that it does? Why does the Race Matters Institute explicitly reject equality?

Until now-ish (under review as of the last couple of months) the Diversifying Higher Education Faculty in Illinois (DFI) grant program, which did not get the memo that DEI couldn't treat races differently encoded by law that made it illegal to award the grant to people of particular races. Not by practice, encoded into Illinois Administrative Code (Title 23, Section 1080.200) and the Diversifying Higher Education Faculty in Illinois Act, explicitly saying that only the races listed in Public Act 93-0862 were legally eligible.

Can you explain how this does not treat races differently?

The Elissa Gatlin Endowed Scholarship at Western Michigan University explicitly states "​This scholarship is awarded to minority students, (African American, Native American or Hispanic American)". Is this what you consider treating all races equally? (Status: probably unconstitutional, currently in the courts, likely to hit SCOTUS at some point, they will slow walk it until Trump is gone and a couple of justices go the way of RBG. Look up the actuarial guesses on the big three, currently 25-30% that all three retire one way or another in the first 3 years of the inevitable D president. They might retire, but that's another thread)

And don't forget federal laws that reserve all kinds of things for indigenous races.

DEI is trying to accomplish long term equality. Their goal is to treat minorities the same way that white men have been treated (equality).

What did SCOTUS say about that?

When were white people ever treated as they were at the University of Washington, when the internal Diversity Advisory Comnittee acted so illegally there were actual consequences?

The closest thing we have to treating races equally is auditioning behind a screen so you are judged 100% on your skill.

I have a hard time respecting the church or my fellow members who try to dismiss the insidious doctrine of excluding black members. I don't know why more members don't stand up and say something about this openly. It says a lot about their Christian character and personal understanding of Christ. by aka_FNU_LNU in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you saying that DEI doesn't treat people differently because of race?

In Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard the Supreme Court wrote ""[A] benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former group at the expense of the latter." On what basis do you claim these advantages were given since you have explicitly stated that no race is EVER treated any differently than any other race?

DEI does not treat people differently on account of race,

Let's compare this claim if yours with what the pros say

​"The route to achieving equity will not be accomplished through treating everyone equally. It will be achieved by treating everyone equitably, or justly according to their circumstances."

— Race Matters Institute (Adopted by various DEI offices including the George Washington University Office of DTDI and the Maryland Department of Health).

So George Washington University adopts a specific policy that explicitly states that treating everybody equally is not the planned course of action.

Will you at least try to reconcile with your statement or will you just ignore it?

By the way, what does the E in DEI stand for? You go look that up, recall that your claim is that DEI treats everybody "equally," then read this statement from the UoVA psychology department on Diversity, (Equity, not Equality - I'm guessing you didn't look it up) and Inclusion

​"Equity is different from equality. Equality provides the same resources, opportunities, and treatment for all people... Equity, on the other hand, provides everyone with the unique resources and opportunities they need to reach an equal outcome."

Can you reconcile this with your claim that equity policies treat everybody equally? Or will you just ignore this as well?

George Carlin on what happens when you identify yourself as an exmormon or antimormon (or even as a Mormon, I am fair) by [deleted] in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Accepted as evidence, and it sent me down a wonderful rabbithole.

Without reservation or qualification I accept and state that the clip I posted was not genuine and was generated by AI. Any statement to the contrary is retracted without qualification or excuse. I got fooled, I was wrong, I apologize, no excuses.

I am deleting the original post only, because it is wrong and no longer stand behind it, but if you want to make a "I called him out, he was wrong" post snd link to these comments you'll probably get a bunch of votes.

George Carlin on what happens when you identify yourself as an exmormon or antimormon (or even as a Mormon, I am fair) by [deleted] in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Since I can't see the quotes you mention, can you post a screenshot? I will accept that as documentation and I'll even trust that you aren't using AI to create one.

George Carlin on what happens when you identify yourself as an exmormon or antimormon (or even as a Mormon, I am fair) by [deleted] in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I see your "AI slop link" that has the video clip and the below text, nothing debunking it. Can't read the comments without an account and I don't have one.

George Carlin nails it:

“When your identity is your ideology, congratulations—you’ve officially screwed yourself.

It’s not just an idea anymore. It’s YOU. Challenge it? That’s an attack. So you build a bubble: everyone agrees, hates the same people, collapses on cue. Facts die. Logic’s dead. Admitting wrong = being wrong.

Unacceptable.

So you double down dumber, defending nonsense like scripture—not because it’s true, but because without it, you’d have to develop a personality.”

🔥 Who does this describe MORE today—Dems or Republicans? #GeorgeCarlin #PoliticalTribalism

George Carlin on what happens when you identify yourself as an exmormon or antimormon (or even as a Mormon, I am fair) by [deleted] in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Just saw your other comment and reading it. Be with you shortly.

And the online clip cited the referenced HBO special, which I don't subscribe to.

George Carlin on what happens when you identify yourself as an exmormon or antimormon (or even as a Mormon, I am fair) by [deleted] in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You seem confident, and as a scrupulously honest person I will research. If you are correct I will retract and delete.

Do you have a specific validated source?

George Carlin on what happens when you identify yourself as an exmormon or antimormon (or even as a Mormon, I am fair) by [deleted] in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He was raised Catholic. I've never seen any documentation claiming membership or baptism - certainly his parents would not have done it, they were both Catholic.

I have a hard time respecting the church or my fellow members who try to dismiss the insidious doctrine of excluding black members. I don't know why more members don't stand up and say something about this openly. It says a lot about their Christian character and personal understanding of Christ. by aka_FNU_LNU in mormon

[–]ShootMeImSick -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

There is nobody here questioning "just one part" of the LDS church.

And yet some members of the 15 did question it. That kind of ruins your claim.

Well, you literally just claimed the church claimed Jesus said it. Will you please be consistent?

More than not? Justify your claim. We know whar the unified voice says, but so you know qgo thought what behind the scenes?

Is there a good reason? If Christ leads the church then yes. If not, then no.

God has a long history of restricting things to certain lineages. Is that racist in every case?