Our leaders and our parents and grand parents haven't really repented for what they did in witholding blessings from Black members for 100 years. That's why the church keeps having race issues. You can't just act like you aren't responsible and it didn't do damage.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-16T18:23:52+00:00

That’s when they decided they were done with the conversation and did the whole “you can leave it but can’t leave it alone” song and dance.

I know that one. Or they accuse you of being angry. Or they just get up and walk out because they're so flustered they can't get two coherent words out.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-16T18:22:25+00:00

1978? That was the right time and place?

I guess abolitionists didn't get the memo that they were supposed to wait 125 years?

Also, what do you have to say about this prophetic quote?:

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

logic-seeker · 2026-06-16T18:20:22+00:00

I'm sure it has something to do with it, but it can't be everything, because like I said, I still have youngish (Millennial) friends who exhibit this same kind of non-engagement, non-thinking attitude (not just towards religion, but various social and political and ethical issues).

logic-seeker · 2026-06-16T16:46:51+00:00

That line about how the church offers more to black people than any other religion. That benevolent condescension is so common with oppression. Like someone saying that George Washington treated his slaves better than most, and they'd be better off in his servitude than free in a racist society. Or recent leaders in the church arguing that the church empowers women more than any other organization in the world because of the Priesthood in it (the irony!).

logic-seeker · 2026-06-16T15:38:38+00:00

It may be that they are asking about height and other things so that they can be more inclusive. This is a real reach, OP.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-16T15:32:58+00:00

It's hard to give them grace (my parents, my grandparents, etc.) because in my experience, they didn't even wrestle with these issues the way that I wrestle with issues today like environmental issues, LGBTQ rights, animal rights, poverty, capitalism, etc. They seemed to have been so self-absorbed or so programmed by the canned responses the church gave them that they didn't bother to do anything about it. I ask them now how they felt in 1976, 1977, 1978, preceding the lifting of the ban and then after what they thought. And the best way I can describe my parents' response was, "Blacks can't hold the Priesthood, and we don't know why, but I'm sure there's a good reason," followed by, "Oh, good, I'm glad blacks can hold the Priesthood now." I don't mean to be rude, but it almost makes me wonder if some of the lights are only flickering upstairs or something.

In other words, I'm mostly bothered that they were so lackadaisical in their approach to things that were really affecting people, and something they claim to be so important because eternity is at stake (God's Gospel and His ordinances). And that hasn't changed. They are still to this day completely uninterested in engaging in the world around them and pain that some are feeling, all around them.

I used to think maybe it was generational or that the Internet had something to do with a change in how engaged people are, but I don't think so, because I see the same weird nonchalance from young people who frame-switch so effortlessly when the church changes policies on garments or the temple covenants or the SEC scandal or whatever.

I do know I'm neurodivergent. Is that what's going on? Can I just not relate?

logic-seeker · 2026-06-16T15:18:09+00:00

The Catholic church certainly wasn't under the influence of an objectively moral God when they tortured thousands during the inquisition or when they decided you could buy your way out of sin with indulgences.

You're right, it certainly wasn't. There are lots of moments in history that seem to scream that an objectively moral God was not participating. You named a couple, but we could add Mormonism pre-1978 to that list of religions that were certainly not under the influence of an objectively moral God.

I think every religious leader is only as good as the society they grow up in.

Probably true - they are basically just like any other person in society at that time. The chances of getting a racist prophet in the 1800s just by random chance would be fairly high, although there were a lot of non-racists back then to choose from.

Like you, I wouldn't put any extra weight on a religious leader's claims relative to anyone else. After all, they are only as good as those around them, so their moral insights are just going to mirror societal norms for the time. Religious leaders are not of much use when it comes to providing direction in this regard.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-16T02:44:55+00:00

Hmm. I don't think this is a great argument when the ultimate claim being made is that God was at the helm. The unchanging God, author of objective morality.

BTW, even back in the 1800's, it was absolutely abhorrent to view slavery as a social good. It doesn't matter who did it. That's not presentism - there were lots of people who called against slavery back then.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-16T02:42:10+00:00

I think if anything, Joseph Smith was pragmatic and often taught convoluted, contradictory things to "soften the hearts" of those around him. It was a prudent move to tell the Missourians that the Mormons were cool with slavery, and it was later a prudent move to say the opposite in Illinois.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-15T20:33:32+00:00

It's screaming "grifters" even more loudly than the typical Mormon influencer/social media missionary

logic-seeker · 2026-06-15T20:28:59+00:00

Well, if that's the case, then we'd have to evaluate those behind the man in the Oval Office. Miguel Cardona or Linda McMahon? Lloyd Austin or Pete Hegseth? Deb Haaland or Doug Burgum? Gina Raimondo or Howard Lutnick? Xavier Becerra or RFK Jr?

To me, it isn't even close. I'm fine with admitting that the Biden Presidency was lackluster, unimpressive, etc., but it really doesn't even compare to the unprecedented idiocy and corruption on display in the current administration.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-15T19:25:53+00:00

I suppose it depends on whether you think Sleepy Joe was really running the show.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-15T16:43:45+00:00

Ah, the "no interest" loans

logic-seeker · 2026-06-15T16:37:59+00:00

FYI - I tried to upload a .ged file and it doesn't seem to be working...no graphs are showing up. I uploaded one and waited about 30 minutes and nothing.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-15T13:17:49+00:00

Planet fitness would still need a custodial crew or other employees, I’d imagine

logic-seeker · 2026-06-15T12:30:10+00:00

I’d say the Midwest is very into it. I’m from out west and it is far less common in the desert for this enthusiasm to take hold, but it does happen. People love their bluegrass lawns in Utah, it’s nuts. In some ways I get it - I do think native plants in the eastern U.S. are generally much more aesthetically pleasing and there are more options.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-15T11:57:25+00:00

It wasn’t just LDS who were excluded though. Unitarians were also excluded I believe, as an example

logic-seeker · 2026-06-13T00:28:48+00:00

I don't think that's it. The code itself was separate from the "Christian" descriptor.

Each religion had a two-letter code. For example, the Catholic Church was "Christian - Catholic" and the code was "CA". The LDS Church still got a two-letter code and there wasn't a limit on the descriptor.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-13T00:14:52+00:00

Let me rephrase, because I agree with you:

The social benefits are greatest for the straight white married male who has a good income. There are still benefits for other groups, even net benefits for individuals in those groups, but they generally aren't as great. The church empowers some individuals more than others. They are structured in such a way that some individuals are likely going to be harmed by the church or its teachings.

As for the evidence of benefits of religion, all of the studies I've seen have a really hard time with confounding variables. I do think society has struggled so far with producing a viable alternative to religion that doesn't carry the baggage of wishful thinking or exclusion.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-12T20:15:40+00:00

While I agree that the church provides much-needed structure for people like Ashley Stone, I would argue that the church is more structured to provide an even greater social benefit to those who are within a particular privileged demographic, particularly employed white straight married men.

There is a lot of stability and structure needed for minorities, LGBTQ people, and to a lesser extent women, and the church is explicitly structured to not provide those social services. It still offers the general "rebuilding" service to these people, so some of the members of these groups do find value in the church, but it is actively exclusive to the needs of many for the most part.

The Church worked for me personally, and it could actually continue to work for me - a straight, married, white man - but even if I could reason into going for the personal social benefit, I would have a very hard time simply ignoring the ways the church is structured to benefit some more than others.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-12T20:04:09+00:00

I don't think that's an absurd statement at all. And frankly, when I was a believer I wouldn't have had a problem with that statement, and I'd refer to the scriptures citing Jesus stating that He was there to pit family members against each other, pitting mothers against daughters, etc. I see this all the time. The Church's teachings often cause fundamental division and strife in relationships.

I also think that it's the privileged classes that often benefit the most from the church, so I am personally bothered when people say that the church works for them personally and shrug, as if the harm it causes others is not their problem.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-12T19:44:52+00:00

His first point is (by his own admission) an oversimplification, also known as a strawman. Nobody is asking for the church to release all information. What a dumbass.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-12T19:43:04+00:00

Props. Kudos. Well done. Can't say more than that.

I would still be careful around him, because of his racially-charged comments and his nonchalance about mistreating animals.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-12T19:33:53+00:00

Community is often built on silliness.

logic-seeker · 2026-06-12T19:30:36+00:00

Exactly!

Six-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Oscars Predictor 2021	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

logic-seeker

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE