Darron Smith - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SeattleUte · 08-07-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

When did SU become so boring?

Let's see if we can get this thread back on track. Good job hijacking it, apologists.

Dan, I've never heard you express your conviction on the apologize for racism or not issue. Do you have a conviction? Should the LDS Church issue a full apology and repudiation of its racism and racial aparthied? Should it address and repudiate the kooky (mark of Ham) creationist dogma (ripped off from racist Northern European folk tales, and resurrected by the Confederacy in the lead up to the Civil War) that was cited by past prophets and apostles as the rationale?

If so, why? Is it for AA's in general? For LDS AA's? Or the venal or just plain ignorant LDS who say no apology is necessary or the racism was God's will or who just want the past to be swept under the rug and lied about?

Perhaps a more nuanced point: Does the racism in fact continue as there is no coming to terms with the past and the foregoing views remain dominant in the institution?

If you are opposed to a full apology and repudiation, why?

Indy Coug · 08-07-2008, 03:54 PM

What do you personally get out of it if the Church apologizes? Even if they did apologize, you would then parse the hell out of their statement and find all sorts of addendums they need for a revised apology and then harp endlessly about when we think the Church will issue a more exhaustive and complete apology and why we think it is or isn't important to do so.

ERCougar · 08-07-2008, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What do you personally get out of it if the Church apologizes? Even if they did apologize, you would then parse the hell out of their statement and find all sorts of addendums they need for a revised apology and then harp endlessly about when we think the Church will issue a more exhaustive and complete apology and why we think it is or isn't important to do so.

No, I wouldn't.

While I should just leave it at that, I'll cite the MMM apology as backup. I don't even remember the specific wording; I only remember the gesture and I felt like it was a noble one.

Indy Coug · 08-07-2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERCougar

No, I wouldn't.

While I should just leave it at that, I'll cite the MMM apology as backup. I don't even remember the specific wording; I only remember the gesture and I felt like it was a noble one.

But the problem is you're not SU and you operate under a whole different set of motivations and values.

Goatnapper'96 · 08-07-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Let's see if we can get this thread back on track. Good job hijacking it, apologists.

Dan, I've never heard you express your conviction on the apologize for racism or not issue. Do you have a conviction? Should the LDS Church issue a full apology and repudiation of its racism and racial aparthied? Should it address and repudiate the kooky (mark of Ham) creationist dogma (ripped off from racist Northern European folk tales, and resurrected by the Confederacy in the lead up to the Civil War) that was cited by past prophets and apostles as the rationale?

If so, why? Is it for AA's in general? For LDS AA's? Or the venal or just plain ignorant LDS who say no apology is necessary or the racism was God's will or who just want the past to be swept under the rug and lied about?

Perhaps a more nuanced point: Does the racism in fact continue as there is no coming to terms with the past and the foregoing views remain dominant in the institution?

If you are opposed to a full apology and repudiation, why?

Am I the only one seeing the spirit working on SeattleUte? I think his involvement on this board is starting to bring him around.

All-American · 08-07-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Let's see if we can get this thread back on track. Good job hijacking it, apologists.

APOLOGISTS?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Maybe if they apologized the whole house of cards would collapse. That's a good upside, as far as I'm concerned. I bet that's what they're afraid of? Self-immolation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

LDS Church holds the world's record among religions for lacking the courage of its convictions. It's always running scared, always dissembling. In fact, as we've established here, the LDS Church has no doctrine.

You want to talk about running around scared and refusing to apologize, I think we found a likely candidate much closer to home.

How bout this: when you recognize that you were wrong about the church having no doctrine, admit that you make generalizations on Mormon doctrine in spite of having never so much as seen a general conference for decades, and apologize for deliberately mangling the truth, THEN let's talk about the church apologizing. As it is, you make demands of the church from which you apparently consider yourself exempt.

UtahDan · 08-07-2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Let's see if we can get this thread back on track. Good job hijacking it, apologists.

Dan, I've never heard you express your conviction on the apologize for racism or not issue. Do you have a conviction? Should the LDS Church issue a full apology and repudiation of its racism and racial aparthied? Should it address and repudiate the kooky (mark of Ham) creationist dogma (ripped off from racist Northern European folk tales, and resurrected by the Confederacy in the lead up to the Civil War) that was cited by past prophets and apostles as the rationale?

If so, why? Is it for AA's in general? For LDS AA's? Or the venal or just plain ignorant LDS who say no apology is necessary or the racism was God's will or who just want the past to be swept under the rug and lied about?

Perhaps a more nuanced point: Does the racism in fact continue as there is no coming to terms with the past and the foregoing views remain dominant in the institution?

If you are opposed to a full apology and repudiation, why?

Why don't you have a look at what I have already said in this thread and see if that answers your question. What I have said here already should at least be as starting point before I answer that compound and prolix question.

Is there anyone here at this point who doesn't understand the argument you are making? Maybe you really just want to talk SU. But if you seeking converts, don't bother with me. I've internalized what you are saying and it ought to be obvious I'm anything but a mullah.

SeattleUte · 08-07-2008, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Why don't you have a look at what I have already said in this thread and see if that answers your question. What I have said here already should at least be as starting point before I answer that compound and prolix question.

Is there anyone here at this point who doesn't understand the argument you are making? Maybe you really just want to talk SU. But if you seeking converts, don't bother with me. I've internalized what you are saying and it ought to be obvious I'm anything but a mullah.

Nice dodge.

All-American · 08-07-2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Nice dodge.

Speaking of dodges . . .

T Blue · 08-08-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

Speaking of dodges . . .

SU, the king of dodge ball.

08-07-2008, 03:54 PM	#2
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	What do you personally get out of it if the Church apologizes? Even if they did apologize, you would then parse the hell out of their statement and find all sorts of addendums they need for a revised apology and then harp endlessly about when we think the Church will issue a more exhaustive and complete apology and why we think it is or isn't important to do so.