Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
wayfarer wrote:
this is the second thread you’ve started here recently that I’m scratching my head upon, asking myself, “How does this relate to staying LDS?”.Better understanding the definition of cult will enable us to defend the church by discussing how it does not fit the definition. Yes we have all seen the anti-mormon sentiment, so lets discuss ways to combat it. If someone calls my church a cult, I will defend it by reiterating the true definition of a cult. For me at least, staying with the church requires being able to defend it.
As for the racist video discussion, something I feel is important. If you don’t care, you don’t have to read it.
Old Timer wrote:I have been very open about my involvement online – in both my general blogging and my work here. Everyone who knows me knows what I do – at least in general, even if not with all the specifics.
That’s admirable. I’ve thought about telling my bishop about all my reservations, but I’m just not sure how it would go. Since they are grooming me to go on a mission, it might appear like I was trying to be defiant, which I’m not.
FWIW, I think it’s more complicated than that. Bear with me. I think you exaggerate history by saying that multiculturalism has always been happening on a large scale. Certainly assimilation hasn’t been happening forever. In Europe, for instance, there are two groups of non-Europeans that lived there for much of it’s history: the Jews, and the Romani people (gypsies). Now even though those two groups lived there for hundreds if not thousands of years, I can definnately tell you they didn’t assimilate. In fact, Europeans didn’t ever really like them being there.
And yes, we have always traded and been in contact with distant peoples. But trade and contact are very different than assimilation. Assimilation would’ve been to let foreigners come back to our home countries, marry our women, and settle down.
You bring up the colonization of North and South America. Two main groups of Europeans instigated long-term settlement in these lands: the English and the Spanish. The #1 difference in the method by which they settled involves their interaction with the natives. The Spanish literally went to town on marrying native women. Hardly any Spanish women were brought over, so Spanish soldiers and sailors resorted to marrying native women. Latinos are decendants of Spanish colonists as well as the Aboriginals. ((The same is true in the Phillipines)) Our English ancestors strictly refrained from allowing intermarriage and specifically brought over Englishmen and Englishwomen, as to ensure the creation of a miniature English society in New England and Canada. This was the foundation of America. Fast forward three hundred years, where would you rather live? The United States and Canada—-OR
Mexico and South America.I’m not saying that the poor conditions of Latin and South America (Oh, AND the Philipines) are the result of multiculturalism and racial assimilation, but I am saying that it is POSSIBLE that they played a role. It is only through FREE SPEECH and close examination of anthropology and history that we can come to an answer about multiculturalism. Today, if someone opposes multiculturalism, everyone screams BLOODY MURDER RACIST. That’s what I have a problem with.
Once again, I may be putting myself in hot water discussing these things, but I believe if you have to ask hard questions if you want real answers.
Old-Timer wrote:The question of the post is if the video is racist. The answer is, “Yes, it is racist.”
The question is whether or not multiculturalism being portrayed as “the great thing that western civilization MUST embrace” by the leftist media is actually good or bad in the long run. The question of the video was just for the purpose of attracting attention. I respect peoples’ opinions that it is racist, but I do think it is a little more complicated.
If nothing else, I only hope it was pointed out that there’s two sides to every story (even racism). I think that fits the description of the mission statement of this website, because we discuss a variety of things related to the gospel, that expand on more than what you just learn at church.
Brian Johnston wrote:
Decline in morality? Really? That can’t possibly be serious. I’ll believe that when I see French women walking around Paris covered up in burqa or hijab.
I thought your sarcasm was funny so thanks, but in my definnition, morality is disrespect for women in any way. So guess what, I don’t think a culture that forces it’s women to wear burqa or hijab is moral. We mormon americans think of immorality as the inappropriate sexualization of women, but we forget that there is another extreme on the far other side of the spectrum that is in fact the over-controlling of women that prevents them from expressing themselves.
Regarding your words Ray, yes I definately agree that throwing around blame is a coward’s approach to any problem. But in order to solve a problem, you have to eradicate the source of the problem. I do believe that the leftist media is responsible for some of America’s problems. I’m not blaming them, I’m accusing them based on evidence. Yes, bad things have always existed, but I truly think they are worse today. For instance, the effects of drugs and pornography have never been as signifigant as they are today. They have grown EXPONENTIALLY within the last century.
You can definately control and protect the course of your own lifestyle; the decisions you make and the culture you live. BUT, you owe it to your children and your childrens’ children to at least try and eliminate some of the evil influences that you know will try to persuade them and take advantage of them if they get the chance.
Forgotten_Charity wrote:A melting pot does not mean getting rid of ones own culture. I have several family members who each married outside there race, culture and at times faith. They each respect each other and live dual cultures and in some of them dual faiths together and bringing up the kids.
Yes, it is a beautiful spectacle when family members can coexist with varying views on faith, culture, and ethnic backrounds. But this is just what we see in one lifetime. I think that a melting pot works slowly, but irreversibly. It takes many generations for the full effects of a melting pot to be realized. In my definition, blending is when races of people or cultures or religions of people over time are exposed to new ones, and eventually stop caring about these traditions, because they don’t see the point in being different. i.e. “I accept your culture, and you accept mine, so lets just forget both of our cultures because we’re tired of being different from each other.”
It may not happen in one or two generations, but it will happen eventually. Blending will happen eventually. Theoretically, if the whole world became a melting pot, at some far distant point in time, we would all be the same. We would all be of an ethnic group that is in fact the combination of all ethnic groups. So as dangerous as it sounds, diversity in the long run is actually dependent on homogeny
at leastin some places. To turn the table for theoretic purposes, imagine if I wanted to immigrate to an Asian country, and their government didn’t let me because I’m caucasian, I don’t think I would be offended or deem them racist. Because obviously if I move to their country, I’ll bring with me my Christianity, food, music, and language, and all these things would potentially cause a disturbance in their society. They have a right to defend their heritage for future generations.
When examining white supremecism and its historical affects including everything such as slavery, European imperialism and the holocaust, I can assure you that no one has more bitter resentment and disgust for the horrid things that were done than myself. Better trying to understand the LDS priesthood ban is one of the main reasons I came to this website in the first place. However, I do not think white people are the only ones capable of being racist. I honestly, honestly think that in today’s world there is more racism against white people than by white people. That’s because of the resentment everyone has for us for all that we’ve done.
It seems that everyone has the attitude that we should just be a melting pot. Well, fact is when you blend everything together, cultural differentiation seizes to exist. There is no true diversity in the final outcome of a melting pot society.
In France for instance, ever since so many third world immigrants have come in, there has been a sharp decline in Christianity and morality, as well as appreciation for traditional French culture. I’m not even French, but I’m not going to call any Frenchman a racist if he says they should go back to were they came from. People have a right to defend their heritage.
Yes, it is very offensive and racist to assume that having an all-white country would be an advantage, and dividing people up by race does lead to many problems. But my questions are about whether forced assimilation is just. For instance, I heard a speech given by the former president of France in which he talked about how necessary it was to ensure that French people intermarry with the African and Muslim immigrants in France. He even made some implications that the government should pursue programs to force this. Anyone who questions this is automatically deemed a racist by the liberal media.
The indigenous caucasian French people, as well as most other European people, are being pushed by their government to assimilate with immigrants.
The people are supposed to change the government, the government doesn’t change the people.
Old-Timer wrote:The more modern definition revolves around mind-control, brainwashing and coercion.
I wonder what would be an example of brainwashing?
Old-Timer wrote:alaskaboy, maybe the Jaredites came from Asia. It makes a lot of sense to me when I look at the big picture the Book of Mormon seems to paint and not just at how it’s been interpreted over the years.
Wouldn’t that be richly ironic – if the “principle ancestors” belief was correct but focused on the wrong people?
:ugeek: Well, all we know is that all the indingenous people of the Americas who have been tested so far have mongoloid DNA, not Semitic DNA. That is a simple, untangible fact.
There is a variety of possibilities I’ve derived.
💡 -It’s possible the lamanites killed of the nephites, but were then in turn killed off by others such as perhaps the Aztecs or Incas.
-There were other asiatic tribes that intermixed with the lamanites, whose semitic genes may be recessive and therefore erased.
-DNA testing is B.S.
-By coincedence, maybe no Lamanite descendant has gotten DNA testing done yet.
Well it makes you wonder how we ever got through 9/11. That was nearly 3000 innocent civilians that perished that could’ve been us. Theres always going to be evil people in this world. You must have caution, but caution is different than fear. Fear is what they want you to have. And one way you can just be a force of eliminating violence and contention in this world, is just to be Christlike to everyone you meet, even your enemies.
