About Geoff B.
Geoff B graduated from Stanford University (class of 1985) and worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. He has held many callings in the Church, but his favorite calling is father and husband. Geoff is active in martial arts and loves hiking and skiing. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.
“The narrative is more important than the truth.” Sadly, and yet certainly, this is an honest assessment.
“Their ultimate objective is to cause a revolution in the church by turning its own membership against its leaders.” Sadly, that is also true — all while pretending to be good members. Aesop and the scriptures call them wolves in sheep’s clothing.
A Boy Scout is expected to be trustworthy,loyal, helpful, and so forth. This is a worthy aspiration for Latter-day Saints, too. Notably, social justice warriors want to destroy the Boy Scouts as well.
Heaven forbid that members of the Church would want social justice! (Unless you define “social justice” to mean something other than the actual words . . .)
The only true social justice would be the United Order, or Enoch’s Zion.
What the progressives call social justice is inversion and annihilation of good. Things like real justice, fairness and charity are their stalking horses. While claiming to seek after “fairness” and “compassion” for certain individuals, they are actually inverting goodness for many many more, enough to change the direction of society.
This sister is starting to see things as does British Dr. Bruce Charlton in his book: (free online, but also in print and Kindle form at Amazon)
In order to be “compassionate” to unwed mothers, we destigmatized out-of-wedlock births, and now it’s a socially acceptable choice, not just an accident. Since then, OOW births now comprise a third of all births, and 70% among African Americans.
In order to be “compassionate” to people in abusive marriages, we’ve destigmatized divorce. Divorce rates skyrocketed.
We destigmatized pre-marital sex, and got the scourge of pronography, and delayed marriage. Declining birth rates are probably partially tied in to that too.
It just occurred to me… If the percentage of babies born OOW is up, and overall birthrate is down, then the birthrate *within* marriage must be WAY down.
Would it be fair to say that all steps the Church has taken to date that correspond to the agenda of the “SJWs” (e.g., ordaining men of African descent to the priesthood, allowing women to speak in General Conference, acknowledging that same-sex attraction per se is not sinful) were inspired but that any additional steps would be a mistake? Or has the Church been making mistakes all along?
LL, that’s a false choice. Faithful, politically conservative members of the church were in favor of all three of those things. Some weren’t, but then again, some progressives weren’t either, until it was fashionable to publicly advertise it.
Strange that you don’t include among your examples the kinds of things liberals advocated for that the church never embraced and which have brought only ruin–the kinds of things Bookslinger mentioned above.
The point here is not which ideologies we should or shouldn’t endorse. The point is that we need to focus on following our leaders, instead of trying to get them to follow us.
I’ve long thought that a progressive Mormon is someone who tacitly says, “This God character is OK, I guess, but I wish he’d get his act together and be as smart as I am.”
LL, you have got that whole concern troll gig DOWN! Ain’t nobody out concern trollin’ you!
Dude, you well know the answer to your questions, at least for faithful Mormons. The test of our times, the true test of following modern-day prophets, is putting away your personal ideology and bending your will to the prophets’ will because they represent the Savior on the Earth. Now the good news for all of us is that the prophets say things that seem to go against just about all modern ideologies. That whole gay marriage and patriarchy thing makes it tough for social justice warriors, I know, but many conservative Mormons don’t seem to be in line with the prophets on immigration and refugees, and most libertarian Mormons have big problems with the Church’s stance against legal pot. So, just about all of us out there need to work on this issue, not just social justice warriors.
What was interesting and convincing for me is how many people don’t realize they are being influenced by cultural Marxism. And I hope people will begin recognizing that. But I also hope that conservative Mormons will be more charitable to immigrants and refugees, and I hope my many libertarian friends will stop criticizing the Church’s stance against legal pot.
For those wanting to understand cultural Marixsm, read “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. This is nothing new or hidden.
Hillary was a devotee of Alinsky. Obama’s mentors Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn were associates of Alinsky, as were Vallerie Jarret’s parents or in-laws, I forget which.
Obama’s mentors in Chicago were all what was called “Red Diaper Babies”, ie, children of card-carrying communists of the previous generation.
And, btw, if anyone wants to understand the method behind Trump’s supposed madness, ie, his modus operandi, read his “Art of the Deal”. You will read the whole schtick about outrageous first offers, and keeping your opponents off their feet, and “thinking past the sale”.
The whole “and Mexico is going to pay for the wall” bit was “thinking past the sale” because as soon as anyone says “No! We/they are not going to pay for it!” they are -conceding- that it’s going to be built! And that’s the important part, not who pays for it. It’s psychology!
CHarlton’s Thought Prison – the fundamental nature of PC, at the previous link, also is very good in explaining where progressives are taking us.
I think the video subtlety gets one to feel that any message is evil if it originates from a “liberal” or “progressive.” That wrong thinking negates the numerous statements by prophets stating that “we are open to truth of every kind, no matter whence it comes…” –John Taylor JD 1:369. Ezra Taft Benson wasn’t saying the core principles of civil rights were wrong when he said that he felt “Communists were using the civil rights movement to promote revolution” –Apr 1965 GC, as he clarified in Sep 1967 GC, “there is nothing wrong with civil rights; it is what’s being done in the name of civil rights that is alarming.” I’m not quoting this to support civil rights, but to support the idea that I feel it is important to evaluate ideas for their own worth, not because of who said them, at least when there is sufficient data to evaluate the idea on its merits, which sometimes there isn’t. So, while I agree that there are individuals and groups that desire for the Church institution to be eliminated as she suggests, the video makes too many generalizations without any qualification or space for anyone that doesn’t think like she does. There are many individuals who fit the description of Pres. Uchtdorf: Pres. “As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are united in our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God’s commandments. But we are diverse in our social, cultural, and political preferences. The Church thrives when we take advantage of this diversity and encourage each other to develop and use our talents to lift and strengthen our fellow disciples.” – April 2013 GC, The Four Titles. Don’t try and push us out so you can “create every member from a single mold–that each one should look, feel, think, and behave like every other. This would contradict the genius of God…” –Pres Uchtdorf, Ibid.
KarlS, your response is textbook SJW takedown of someone calling out an SJW.
A “red flag” arose when she utilized the old “Frankfurt School” conspiracy. (Sorry, pun intended). I remember this exact same material being used by antisemitic (the Frankfurt School were largely Jewish) and white nationalist organizations 30 years ago. The Cultural Marxism label showed up about around the turn of the century. At least it did in my experience. I was not a fan then. I guess it has reemerged in this decade. How lucky can we be?
So many of the comments that are objecting to the videa are actually perfect illustrations of the video itself.
Here is the problematic strategy:
Take a common and very general moral term that any decent person would accept. Now, redefine it in a very specific and politically loaded sense in order to weaponize it. Finally, claim that anybody who objects to that very specific and politically loaded sense must, as a matter of consequences, also be against the very general moral term that any decent person would accept.
With this strategy in place, it take a strong effort not to demonize any person that disagrees with you!
To be clear:
The claim is not that Mormons should not care about justice. The claim is that Mormon should not allow social theorists to define justice for them. The living prophets define justice for us, not academics, the press or Hollywood.
A rabbit went a little way down a small woodland path, then stopped and turned as if to poke into some bushes on the side.
A serpent further down the path, perceiving it, hissed “Stay on the strait and narrow path!” The rabbit, who was pious, desisted from leaving the path and continued to hop down it.
As it came even with the serpent, the reptile hissed, “Be still, and know that He is God!” The rabbit reverently ceased to move and composed himself for contemplation.
The serpent approached, but fearing that the rabbit would see him and take to flight, hissed, “at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow!” Somewhat perplexed as how best his own rabbit anatomy would allow him to comply with this scripture, of which he had just been reminded, the rabbit settled on prostrating himself to the ground.
As the serpent approached nearer, the rabbit heard the rustlings and asked himself out loud, Can this be a snake approaching?” The serpent gasped as offended. “How unkind!” it said. “Should you not love your neighbor as yourself?” With that, the serpent struck.
The rabbit, imagining himself engaged in pious exercises when in reality only engaged in folly, died and was eaten.
Moral: The Savior never said, heed your enemies.
“Take a common and very general moral term that any decent person would accept. Now, redefine it in a very specific and politically loaded sense in order to weaponize it.”
Yeah. Stalking horse. The prey sees the horse as just another non-threatening animal, but does not see the hunter standing behind it.
Karl S: Yeah. isn’t it interesting that Obama’s mentor in Hawaii, civil rights poet/activist Uncle Frank, (who got over 40 mentions by name in Obama’s book) (full name Frank Marshall Davis) was a card-carrying communist, and a regular columnist for a communist newspaper. If you follow the links on FMD’s Wikipedia page, you can read his (somewhat redacted) FBI file.
FMD was from Chicago, not originally, but had lived there. He hooked up Obama with his commie friends in Chicago, Ayers/Dohrn and others, and their red diaper babies. FMD was Obama’s Alinsky/Chicago/communist connection. Well that, and Obama’s grandparents were card carrying communists.
So just like communists used civil rights for social revolution, and made major inroads in destroying the social fabric of the US (ie, sexual revolution, oow births, divorce, lowered birth rate), as Pres Benson warned in your quote, their inheritors, the progressives, are using “justice” for further destruction of our institutions.
Sure, nothing wrong with equal civil rights for all races. Nothing wrong with _justice_. That was and is a good thing. But it was also used to mask a lot of other evil that the same people brought us, as Jeff G points out about redeinition. And, insidiously, it took a generation or more for those other evils to even get noticed. So the delay removed the obviousness of the connection.
Old Man, unfortunately a lot of immigrant Jews and their children were seduced by the communist siren song. The Rosenbergs, David Horowitz, and Saul Alinsky come to mind. Fortunately, David Horowitz saw the light.
Academic Mormons are one of the groups within the Church that seem to be most vulnerable to cultural Marxism and those of us who live and worship among them are considered to be backward dupes, often tagged as self righteous and old fashioned when we express concern. As Bookslinger’s little parable depicts, common virtues are used to condemn concern about local policies that encourage erasing boundaries between righteous limits to beliefs and behaviours and permissive attitudes. There is a specific meaning to Social Justice that ‘Hunter’ either does not understand or is too disingenuous to acknowledge.
I’m sorry. i did not make it clear that someone else authored the rabbit and snake parable, “G.”, which is indicated at the link.
Here’s a good example of another SJW working to “change” (read “subvert”) the church from within. You can tell she doesn’t really believe the foundational truth claims of the church.
I suggest bookmarking that. It goes right along with the video in the OP.
A lot of valid points have been posted in support of elements of the video. I see that you all feel very strongly about your positions, but there seems to be no room in this forum for disagreement of any kind with any of her points or conclusions. It’s really hard to have a dialogue with a group who seem to view things primarily in black and white and who appear to judge everyone that way. It comes off as non-empathetic and arrogant and frankly a little hurtful. But, alas, I can’t expect and wouldn’t want you all to express something you don’t really feel. It is a good way to get people to leave your sandbox, though.
One thing about the video that I would push back against is when she says: “The narrative is more important than the truth.”
The more theoretically sophisticated SJW’s would point out that this objection/accusation assumes that truth is a kind of archimedean point that stands outside of all narratives and passes judgement on them. But SJWs do not accept that assumption, but instead believe that claims of truth/falsity are always internal to some narrative or another. As such, the objection/accusation begs most of the question that is at issue.
This isn’t to say that such a sophisticated SJW is right, only that this particular approach wouldn’t ever convince them.
Karl, re black and white vs nuance. Ok, I’ll bite.
I had a back-and-forth with Glen in another thread because I thought he was not being nuanced enough to distinguish faithful historians/authors (who write faithful explications of historical issues with which critics attack us) from the non-believing academics/authors who enshrine doubt and essentially say “you don’t have to believe in the foundational truth claims.”
Elder Ballard added credibility to faithful historians, authors, and teachers in his “Gone are the days…” talk about dealing with honest/sincere questions of history or doctrine.
What this video’s producer did not delve into, at least in this video, was the nuance between well-meaning “useful idiots” who buy into the justice, compassion, and fairness issues, versus the wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing who know that the justice/compassion/fairness stuff is a stalking horse. The wolves KNOW they are redefining terms.
For instance, one of the people behind K Kelly was Nadine Hansen, an avowed non-believer. I suspect Nadine knows the OW thing was to subvert the church all along, a wolf. i don’t know if KK is a useful idiot or a wolf, or if she transitioned from a-to-b at some point. But I bet there are scores of honest and sincere people, who do believe the truth claims of the church, who signed on to the ow website as a matter of misplaced sense of “fairness and compassion”.
If the wolves succeed in re-defining compassion and fairness (as Jeff G pointed out), many people could lose, and likely have lost, their faith in the restored gospel. So far, church authorities have only ex’d KK and JD, as far as I know, over these issues. It has been reported that bishops have been asking people to disassociate (remove their profile) from ow in order to keep or renew their temple rec.
As to the people who formally leave the church over these issues, there are probably both wolves and those who have been deceived.
I’ve been observing the “long march” of progressivism/liberalism/PC since the 70’s. I’ve observed a long enough segment of the trajectory to see where it’s going. The movers and shakers behind it all, such as Alinsky and his devotees, are evil people, Satan’s henchmen, whether they know it or not. Most don’t realize it. The endpoint is anarchy and the destruction of civilized society world wide. It is annihilation of good, and nihilism in general.
( re satan’s henchmen, see http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/02/david-warren-defies-the-empire-of-lies then follow the link there to David Warren’s article. Also see Bruce Charlton’s “Thought Prison”.)
When the Brethren say it’s time to ordain women, I’ll fully support them. And I fully support their current statements and positions.
So when someone questions the Brethren, or church history, or whatever, it’s good to know if it is a sincere and honest question where the person wants to increase his/her understanding of the church’s position, or whether they are _challenging_ the Brethren’s stated position.
Elder Ballard gave a charge to CES instructors to increase the understanding of sincere and honest questioners. He specifically used the qualifiers “sincere” and “honest” (see link i gave in a previous thread). It’s okay to talk about stones, hats, women giving blessings, polygamy, post manifesto polygamy, bla bla bla. As long as we promote _accurate_ and _in context_ information, and not the twisted and sensationalist version of critics. We can admit some Mormons royally screwed up, as in the MMM. But at the same time, all church presidents have been duly called and authorized prophets of God.
Then when responding to people who are _challenging_ the Brethren’s stated position (as opposed to seeking understanding), I think it’s important to know if someone is a usefull idiot or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Idiots can often be educated, though it’s tougher than educating a sincere and honest seeker of understanding.
“Concern trolls” are not sincere seekers of knowledge or understanding, according to my online experience. I understand Geoff’s irritation with them. But they can be used as springboards to educate sincere lurkers who are too shy to ask on their own.
As for me, I was to understand the Brethren, and face the same way they face.
Do _you_ believe the FP and Q12 are duly called and authorized representatives, prophets, seers and revelators of the Lord?
KarlS, you cannot seem to discard the SJW script for countering attacks on the SJ narrative.
Please try to be more creative.
Bookslinger, et al.,
I am nearly positive many of you will agree with me, but I want to note that an amplification of the Communist-Jewish connection was/is an intrinsic part of Nazi/fascist ideology. You’ll likely agree that we need to be careful in playing that card. It requires a nuanced understanding. We will be judged by the company we keep… and the ideas and concepts we utilize which have a horribly tainted pedigree, whether they be racist, nationalist, fascist or Marxist.
I think we need to realize that the creator of this film, for whatever reason, has chosen to rely on terminology and borrow ideas/conspiracy theories associated with the radical right.
Are there activists using a variety of tactics to challenge and even attempt to damage the Church. I don’t worry about it. Remember the parable of the wheat and the tares as explained in the D&C?
Jeff G, Thanks for the response.
Bookslinger, Yikes! I appreciate your concern and the time you’ve taken to respond to me. However, is the question at the end of your post as to my personal belief given as a sort of recommend interview to allow me to play in the sandbox? More importantly, will any idea I put forth be judged more from the answer I give to that question or on the merits of the idea? The answer to your question is, Yes.
Now, if I’m understanding you correctly there are three types of people who have ideas: 1) “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” 2) “well meaning useful idiots,” 3) “sincere and honest seekers of understanding.” Using the pejorative
term “idiots” indicates some real frustration on your part. Let me ask you a question, “Is it possible for a sincere and honest seeker of understanding to come up with a conclusion different than your own without being deceived?”
We’re getting off track. The issue for me is this. While I see that there are people with short and long term objectives who are dissatisfied unbelievers at best and sinister manipulators at worst and they are using sophistry to promote their objectives, I don’t think it is right to reject valid Christian and Godly principles they may espouse even amidst their other principles I may not agree with. I think it is right to take good and use it and reject the bad, being aware to not become drawn in and inadvertently supporting the bad. Some might say that it would be best to reject some good if it is going to promote some bad. That’s a sliding scale in both directions with no easy answers. The video characterizes everyone with any idea related to “social justice” as a “social justice warrior” who all seek to destroy the Church institution. That is an unsubstantiated generalization using scare tactics and sensationalism with a dose of conspiracy theory I take issue with.
How we should treat the poor and others who are oppressed (those who SJW’s claim to care about) is clearly stated in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. It’s not difficult to find or understand our obligations when it comes to the poor, sick, afflicted, and needy. The words of modern-day prophets echo these sentiments that we’re obligated to help our fellow man and the church has put programs and people in place to help those in need.
The problem is that those LDS members claim to care about “social justice” go beyond–way beyond–what can be found in the scriptures and words of the prophets. To them social justice is NOT about feeding the hungry or clothing the naked or administering to the sick, or helping the oppressed. Rather, it’s about getting the LDS faith to redefine marriage, ordain women to the priesthood, redefine evil as good, etc. They’re Sherems, Korihors, and Nehors who are looking to devour the flock.
I’ll take LDS members claims of promoting “social justice” seriously when they use their time and effort to feed the hungry or clothe the naked instead of engaging in made-for-media events that do nothing more than promote themselves and whatever pet issue they’re championing.
So it turns out that the woman who put up this video also created another video where she apparently says immigration is bad because it dilutes the white race. I am not going to link to the video, obviously because that is a lot of garbage. So, if you want to completely dismiss the linked video in the OP you have a reason to do so. I certainly would not want to be associated with such “ideas.”
Now, having said that, I don’t want to completely dismiss the idea of cultural Marxism as being an influencing force in current SJW discussions, because it clearly is. And if you see a lot of the crazy behavior on campus these days through the lense that certain academics and campus activists are promoting a bigger ideological clash, it all begins to make a lot more sense to me.
Left-wing Mormons are obviously going to be influenced by societal campus trends, and cultural Marxism is clearly, in my opinion, an influence on their behavior. But I will repeat my comment above that any ideology, from “nationalism” to “libertarianism” to “social justice progressivism” that causes people to stray from the teachings of the prophets is not something faithful Mormons should accept. Any teaching that puts personal ideology before the kingdom of God is not a good idea.
“Hillary was a devotee of Alinsky. Obama’s mentors Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn were associates of Alinsky, as were Vallerie Jarret’s parents or in-laws, I forget which.”
Sadly he has no end of admirers on the right as well. I don’t quite understand the growth on the right of praising and emulating the tactics of these groups. We have the chief of staff of a purportedly conservative President describing himself as a Leninist and no shortage of people consciously emulating Alinsky.
But we also now find this attitude among many Republican LDS. The Church has made statements about immigration, warning us about being a warlike people, etc. Yet we see many that fear and hate all Islam, all illegal immigrants and refugees, etc. We’ve had some right wing excommunication along with leftists over the past few years. Being a Republican is not a sign you are following the Brethren.
Modern Mormon dissidents who are media darlings are entirely in the mold of the 1842-1844 dissidents who succeeded in killing Joseph Smith and defaming the name of the Mormon Church in a manner that will likely continue for another 175 years.
The dissidents of 1844 were discovered in their conspiracies, and Joseph Smith gave them months to turn away from their plots. When they would not desist, William Law and Austin Cowles were excommunicated. Chauncy Higbee was exposed by publishing the affidavits of his female victims.
The dissidents of 1844 succeeded in killing Joseph Smith and fracturing the Church. But they did not kill the Church.
Today’s dissidents are succeeding in turning away thousands and perhaps millions either from their current Church membership or from considering joining the Church in the first place. But they will not destroy the Church or halt the work that the Church is charged with completing.
In a future day, when every knee bends and every tongue confesses Christ, those who fought Christ and His work will be held to account. They will see the terrible spiritual wounds they inflicted. The tears and pain of those who were severed from the love of God by these dissidents will rise up as witness of what they have done.
Up until that day it will be possible for all to repent and turn away from the pride and arrogance that caused them to fight God and His people. Up until the last moment, their spiritual family (all mankind) will stand ready to embrace them and forgive all. But if they remain unrepentant to the bitter end, they will have squandered the loving compassion of the Christ they spurned.
We are not at that last moment yet. So I will hope for my brothers and sisters who have currently set themselves at odds with God and Christ. But the love of one who encourages a violent and destructive child is not love. So I will love as I would love a child about to fall from a great height or a child about to stick a knife into a brother. Correction does not nullify the love that inspires it. And when Christ and God sit before the two women who claimed before Solomon to love the child, it will be clear which was inspired by true love and which was inspired by a pride willing to let the innocent be killed.
I saw a blog post on T&S recently that suggested that LDS don’t have a core doctrine. My counter is that we do but most LDS cannot articulate it. Because we cannot we line up as Republican Mormons or left-wing Mormons. Because Republicans tend to have more respect for institutional authority, they accidentally line up a little closer to real doctrine but closer is not necessarily close enough.
We are surrounded by persuasive voices, beguiling voices, belittling voices, sophisticated voices, and confusing voices. I might add that these are LOUD voices….Disregard for the commandments has opened the way for what I consider to be the plagues of our day….The scriptures tell us that the adversary is “the founder of all these things”.
Although Jesus twice threw the money-changers and merchants out of the temple, in his day, He did not champion social justice. No doubt, He witnessed many injustices but he sidestepped any ideology or campaign to sweep the Romans out of Israel or to correct perceived and/or internalized inequalities. Said He, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.”
He added, “Came I into the world [to] bear witness of the truth. Everyone that is of the truth, heareth my voice.”
In a world filled with myriad voices, what does that say about where our responsibilities lie as church members who believe that this is His Church?
If Jesus did not champion “social justice,” then why did he advocate for struggling demographics in the human family, like the poor, women, children, Samaritans and lepers? And why is it that the most profound movements of the modern age, such as abolition and the civil rights movement, started in churches or religious institutions? I would suggest that when is touched by the Spirit of Christ, one views the human family with charity. And that should affect our politics.
The problem isn’t that benevolence and charity are politically wrong, they are noble and correct courses of action. The problem is that leftists use “social justice” as a cover for actions which are anything but loving and moral actions, and the political right has made “social justice” an anathema. And that is why the maker of the video in the OP holds ideas so distasteful to many of us. Her political views reject her fellow human beings (immigrants) and she must deal with the dichotomy such a political view holds with her religion. Geoff is correct, any political ideology which causes us to reject any teaching of Christ is not worth holding on to.
Old Man, Great insights! Thanks.
I agree that SJW action is destructive, but I’m struck in the day-to-day at how no unhallowed hand shall stop the work from progressing. Part of what we’re seeing in U.S. politics is rejections of Social Justice (though some of it swings too far the other direction–I’m not pleased to see the Daily Stormer get any attention at all from anyone). But people are noticing, and not everyone’s knuckling under. Unfortunately, many who see it and instinctively recognize the fallacies in Social Justice don’t know what to do with that recognition. It behooves us all to be ready to answer basic doctrinal questions with rational calm.
We can be the lifelines to many many people who are about to find themselves totally unmoored. Within this generation we’re going to see at least one mainline protestant denomination effectively collapse as it tries madly to accommodate Social Justice demands and disintegrates as a result. A schism like that is going to send a lot of “traditionally thinking” people into the wind, and we need to be ready to give them a light to navigate to.
It’s always fun for me to see how an old-school concept like Every Member a Missionary is actually incredibly important, and if we take it seriously we can do an enormous amount of good.
I’m late to the party, but I want to include my two cents.
The video made was very well done, with much research and thoughtfulness expressed.
This ‘movement’ seems to be a pull between the individual’s right and that of a mob which wants to bury that right..
Man’s agency is an eternal law. I plan to use it, with charity and love of God as I see fit.
Here’s some unsolicited advice coming from someone who labels himself as a progressive Mormon, mostly for lack of a better term: Whatever the merits of this woman’s arguments are, avoid like the plague any association with this video or its creator. As Geoff has suggested, this person’s only other known video is one that supports a type of racism that has been denounced in no uncertain terms by the church’s leadership as well as thinking members of both the right and left. Anything you do that associates yourselves with “Mormon Counter Narrative” (the video’s creator), whoever she is, will be damaging to you and potentially to the Church as well.
Even somebody who is very wrong on immigration (as this woman is) can be right on other issues. I know all kinds of progressives who are wrong on lots of issues (ignoring the counsel of the Church on gay marriage and gender issues) but still have a testimony of the Church. They are right on some things and wrong on others. Same with conservatives, libertarians, etc. So, my advice of caution towards this person still stands, but I am not a big fan of our new tendency in society of blacklisting people forever based on (some) opinions that are way off/not politically correct, etc. Don’t get me wrong: from what I hear about the other video on immigration, it is really bad. But the video about cultural Marxism in the Church is not really bad and makes a decent point (imho).
Conservative heresies are more toxic than liberal heresies? Perhaps.
I didn’t find her other video to be outside the pale. Edgy? Yes. Racist? No. For a variety of non-racist reasons, the brethren have encouraged stakes to be established where people live and have discouraged wholesale migration.
The problems I see with the “social justice” war:
It often (exclusively?) promotes coercive methods against the non-compliant
It sets temporal considerations above spiritual ones or outright denies spiritual considerations altogether
It does not accept God’s role in making things right in His own due time.
Gosh, this sounds familiar.
Joel Winter, yes.
–Who decides what is just and what isn’t? Is it just to take money from a poor person who worked hard all of his life and got rich to give it to a middle class guy who is too lazy to work and wants to live off of food stamps? By what standard is that “justice?”
–SJWs emphasize conflict and resentment and covetousness, which is contrary to the Gospel.
–SJWs concentrate on material wealth as the single greatest measuring stick. Again, this is contrary to the Gospel.
–SJWs see the white male as the primary evil in society, whereas God does not look at outward appearance but looks at a person’s soul.
–SJWs emphasize victimhood, which encourages people to find scapegoats rather than work on self-actualization.
–SJWs encourage dependence on the government to build various voting blocks to maintain electoral control; the Gospel emphasizes independence and self-reliance.
I could go on, but I think the point is made.