Tuesday, June 15, 2021

I don't think that's what "one another" means



Now, as a certified expert on English grammar -- I think I'll start calling it the grammar -- I know all about reciprocal pronoun constructions such as "one another" and can attest that the "shared vision" referred to in the headline should involve the LDS First Presidency learning from and serving the NAACP leaders and the NAACP leaders learning from and serving the LDS First Presidency. Reading the article, let's see how this will work out in detail.

The Church of Not Mormon Anymore will:
  • give $3 million of tithing money (donated by church members worldwide, about 98.5% of whom are not black Americans) to a college scholarship fund exclusively for "young black students in the United States"
  • provide $250,000 (also from tithing) to pay for black American students to study abroad in Ghana and "learn more about their heritage"
  • donate an additional $6 million of tithing funds to the NAACP to "bring relief to suffering souls in underprivileged [meaning black] areas of the United States"
In exchange for the CJCLDS's spending nearly $10 million on the Advancement of Colored People, the National Association for the same will present the Formerly Mormon Hierarchy with this:

(subject to revocation without notice)

Quite the bargain, don't you think?


Note added: For some reason, this post, with its focus on "race," made me think of a book I read as a very young child. It was about a dragon with a (trigger warning!) speech impediment, who would try to scare off robbers by shouting, "Wace! Wun! Wobbers be done! The tewwible dwagon is here!" It even occurred to me that I should start tagging posts about "anti" racist idiocy with "Wace! Wun! Wobbers be done!"

Then, in a truly bizarre synchronicity, I checked Vox Day's blog and found that the latest post was called "Hunting wacists" -- obviously an allusion to Elmer Fudd, but then he took the "wacist" thing and wan with it.

The problem, of course, is wacism. If only white Americans would stop being so wacist, black men would not have to hunt them and shoot them.

So stop being wacist. Or else.

Oh, by the way, we are reliably informed by Ivy League academics that all whites are inherently wacist. So, you know, good luck with all that not-wacisting. 

PS: avoiding people who are hunting you is also wacist. Nice try.

 Well, now that the sync fairies have spoken I can't very well not use that tag.

11 comments:

Bruce Charlton said...

I wonder if the CJCLDS regards the NAACP as a kind of alcohol-free BLM?

Since convergence (unrepented/ celebrated) always accelerates (because evil feeds upon itself, and has no equilibrium) - I have a strong conviction that these posts are going to get more severe and more frequent.

Francis Berger said...

So the CJCLDS essentially caved in to paying protection money. I guess it's safe to assume that the CJCLDS has now officially joined the ranks of System Christianity.

lolbert said...

From "blacks can't be priests" to "hands up whitey, give all your money to blacks." I vote to go back to "blacks can't be priests."

Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

@Bruce

Yes, I think that’s exactly it.

@Frank

“Protection money” is such a crude way of putting it! “Local shopkeepers and Cosa Nostra announce shared vision to learn from and serve one another.”

@lolbert

Fair enough, but first they have to pay reparations for all those years of blacks being excluded from the (unpaid) priesthood.

Mr. Andrew said...

Depressing to see!

What is the relation to the Prophets? My impression was that they were even higher than the Pope in their closeness-to-God. Is it possible to ignore the Prophets - or focus on more traditional teachings - without apostatizing (like we "traditional" Catholic try to do)?

Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

The CJCLDS recognizes 15 men as living prophets: the three members of First Presidency (featured here) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. "The Prophet" usually refers to the president of the church.

In theory, the Prophet is fallible. However, it is taught that he "will never lead the church astray," and that his authority is higher than any of the dead prophets (i.e. "tradition") or of the scriptures.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

Anyone who openly opposed the First Presidency would be considered apostate and likely end up being excommunicated.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Wm - Any future for the CJCLDS (as a Christian church, I mean - rather than a wholly-"owned" subsidiary of the System bureaucracy) entails some kind of schism - and this would entail discarding some of the current principles/ 'essentials' which render real Christians powerless in face of a corrupt leadership - such as the one you mention.

Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

Yes, but schism has never really worked out well for the Mormons. Schismatics always end up either as polygamists or as Unitarian Universalists.

The current spirit of "follow the leader" certainly needs to be discarded, though. Here's Marion G. Romney (Mitt's first cousin once removed) as quoted in the article I linked:

"I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.'"

Mr. Andrew said...

@Wm -

That attitude is inseparable from the Catholic. I've been told that obedience to the Bishop is more important than the truth. This is mostly used as a tool by subversives (who, really, don't care at all) to beat traditionalists over the head with.

I was told this with regard to masks, for example. The Bishops, of course, only have power to rule on matters of faith, and aren't actually asserting their authority - just repeating secular... so you get the exact System Church we're talking about.

I was sort of close to converting to Mormonism, but it was for the best not because I'd now end up apostate. Traditional Catholics have been fighting the corrupt hierarchy for at least 60 years now...

Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

@Andrew

The good news is that the CJCLDS no longer claims to represent Mormonism, so you can be a Mormon with or without their permission.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Wm "Yes, but schism has never really worked out well for the Mormons."

It depends on the motivation (the real motivation) for schism (as everything spiritual ultimately depends on motivation). Past experience is not of relevance if the motivation is different.

The problem with almost all dissidence in The West is the motivation - e.g. the secular 'right' are against the proper things, but their motivations are nearly always appalling. In the UK the main protests against the birdemic totalitarianism seem to come from young people whose hedonic motivations are being stultified.

I don't think that there are many example from the past of so many churches, being 'led into apostasy by their leaders' by incremental dilution and mission drift.

As you know, I regard Mormonism as having quite extraordinary - unequalled - resources of metaphysics and theology which could have, and could still, sustain a Christian life very different from the CJCLDS.

The historical CJCLDS has picked and chosen among the foundational ideas of Mormonism, almost completely ignoring some aspects - and has greatly emphasized others (church hierarchy, Temples, mission, the 'word of wisdom'; in recent decades use of the Book of Mormon as an instructional scripture, analogous to the 'fundamentalist' Protestant use of the Bible).

But those historical decisions can be revisited (and some incoherent theological errors, inherited from Protestant Trinitarianism and its ex nihilo creation, removed). The extraordinary originality and inspirational beauty of the Mormon understanding of God, reality and Man's role in it, could take centre stage.

e.g. Up until now, 50% of God (i.e. our Mother in Heaven) has been all-but ignored! The creative role of resurrected Man become god, has been discussed almost wholly in terms of the pro-creative (the question of what families actually DO through eternity). The 'animistic' aspect of a pluralistic universe (consisting of many Beings) is (I think) unmentioned.

Did King David torture people with saws and burn them in a brick kiln?

Here is a passage in the King James Version of 2 Samuel that rather arrests one's attention. And David gathered all the people together,...