BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[SeattleUte]

I'm not lying. I willingly admit that I used it to bait you and expose your ignorance and bigotry for what it is. I used the term in the EXACT manner as outlined by any article you wish to link to … you notice I’m not shrinking from my behavior.

You come here to this thread and others under the guise of someone who is enlightened and cosmopolitan. Yet, it took you more than a day to figure out you were being baited because you are so blinded by your loathing of the LDS church. So bravo for finally figuring it out, but I only look pitiful because of the company I keep here and you are the chief pit.

Again, you have a choice: admit you were ignorant of the racist connotation when you used the term, or that you knowingly used a racist term repeatedly as you argued against gay marriage. No one believes you were just "pretending" to be a racist to "bait" me.

Let me suggest you opt for the first choice; I can put your mind at ease that you are alone in your belief that familiarity with "visible minority" is a sine qua non of comsomopolitanism or an educated person.

Even if we suspend belief and take you at your word, let me ask you this. Would it be okay for a white Mormon person from Canada to repeatedly use the N-word as he argued against gay marriage, even if in his own heated little mind he did not intend to be racist but only to use it as a rhetorical device?

[tooblue]

Again, you have a choice: admit you were ignorant of the racist connotation when you used the term, or that you knowingly used a racist term repeatedly as you argued against gay marriage. No one believes you were just "pretending" to be a racist to "bait" me.

Let me suggest you opt for the first choice; I can put your mind at ease that you are alone in your belief that familiarity with "visible minority" is a sine qua non of comsomopolitanism or an educated person.

Even if we suspend belief and take you at your word, let me ask you this. Would it be okay for a white Mormon person from Canada to repeatedly use the N-word as he argued against gay marriage, even if in his own heated little mind he did not intend to be racist but only to use it as a rhetorical device?

The only choice here is for you to confess and repent of the racism you espoused. You were baited, fell for it and now hold out hope that somehow you can deflect from it. You weren't the only one in that thread to fell for the bait!

Furthermore, the fact that you believe I am alone in my opinion only further underlies just how misguided you are. You are speaking as an American of course and as such simply assume you are the defacto authority on the subject ... and that would be the ONLY reason I might be alone in one sense counselor.

By the way I hope the irony of this most recent exchange isn't lost on you. I can only hope you are as sophisticated as you say you are.

[SeattleUte]

You are speaking as an American of course

As an American, and on behalf of America, let me say that you seem more like North Korea than Canadian: Very passe, isolated, disrespected and angry about it, xenoophobic, a spouter of Communist shiboleths, a lover of authoritarianism, and a little scary.

[tooblue]

As an American, and on behalf of America, let me say that you seem more like North Korea than Canadian: Very passe, isolated, disrespected and angry about it, xenoophobic, a spouter of Communist shiboleths, a lover of authoritarianism, and a little scary.

And now comes the denigration. Perfect. Can't attack a man's position so you attempt to attack his character. You should have your own show on FOX news!

Do you get the irony yet -- or do you need a day?

[SeattleUte]

And now comes the denigration. Perfect. Can't attack a man's position so you attempt to attack his character. You should have your own show on FOX news!

Do you get the irony yet -- or do you need a day?

Irony, no doubt. The record reflects you were the first to attack character in our exchanges about gay marriage, in the nastiest possible way, which is why I have been unsparing in my exposition of your true character. This is your modus operandi, by the way (search "bitter apostate" here and on CG to remind yourself). Unfortunately, also like North Korea you are hard to ignore though ultimately inconsequential.

[All-American]

Anybody see the South Park episode where Jimmy and Timmy fight? Man, that was funny stuff.

[tooblue]

Irony, no doubt. The record reflects you were the first to attack character in our exchanges about gay marriage, in the nastiest possible way, which is why I have been unsparing in my exposition of your true character. This is your modus operandi, by the way (search "bitter apostate" here and on CG to remind yourself). Unfortunately, also like North Korea you are hard to ignore though ultimately inconsequential.

Have you figured out the irony? Someone get this man a Play Bill -- or make him a vin diagram.

Do the search -- it seems to be your favorite form of self-loathing -- you like calling yourself a bitter apostate.

[SeattleUte]

Have you figured out the irony? Someone get this man a Play Bill -- or make him a vin diagram.

Do the search -- it seems to be your favorite form of self-loathing -- you like calling yourself a bitter apostate.

Right. Like you pretended to be a racist, though you were just kidding to bait me.

[TripletDaddy]

Guys, I am going to be brutally honest here. I really enjoy watching you two go after each other. I think it is interesting. You get to see how people react when they are cornered...which posters rise to the occasion, which ones exit gracefully, which ones go down in flames....that sort of thing.

My problem is that with all the fur flying around, I have honestly lost track of the points you both are making. Would each of you mind succinctly recapping your points thus far. I don't want to read hyperlink or New Yorker articles. I simply want to catch up.

tooblue, i must say that I still feel that SeattleUte's article nailed you to the wall, but unless I am misunderstanding, you are now adopting the stance that you knew all along and were only pretending in an effort to bait SeattleUte? I am open to that, but please flesh it out a bit more because it does sound somewhat sketchy.

SeattleUte...."shiboleths?" really?

[tooblue]

Right. Like you pretended to be a racist, though you were just kidding to bait me.

Figured it out yet -- you still don't seem not to understand? Now you want to call me a racist in an effort to deflect! Have you done that search yet?

[tooblue]

tooblue, i must say that I still feel that SeattleUte's article nailed you to the wall, but unless I am misunderstanding, you are now adopting the stance that you knew all along and were only pretending in an effort to bait SeattleUte? I am open to that, but please flesh it out a bit more because it does sound somewhat sketchy.

It was covered many moons ago. The thread is out in the open for all to see -- I linked to it, Seattle did not. Seattle is hoping you and others have forgotten. Speaks volumes.

[beefytee]

tooblue, i must say that I still feel that SeattleUte's article nailed you to the wall, but unless I am misunderstanding, you are now adopting the stance that you knew all along and were only pretending in an effort to bait SeattleUte? I am open to that, but please flesh it out a bit more because it does sound somewhat sketchy.

As a Canadian, I was unaware that "visible minority" was a term created by Stats Canada. I thought it was used in the States as well. I've lived here in the US for 12 years now. I've used it since moving here. I hope I didn't confuse anyone with it. I'm pretty sure I haven't offended anyone with it.

I doubt that tooBlue knew it would be offensive. I still don't see how it is offensive. It is certainly accepted in Canada. I don't see any minority groups complaining about it...only a UN committee, and they don't offer any "more appropriate" term.

Not having read the original thread, I didn't get why SU was posting it. My guess was that it was an example of how ridiculous the UN has become and how ridiculous we have gotten with PC terms.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Guys, I am going to be brutally honest here. I really enjoy watching you two go after each other. I think it is interesting. You get to see how people react when they are cornered...which posters rise to the occasion, which ones exit gracefully, which ones go down in flames....that sort of thing.

My problem is that with all the fur flying around, I have honestly lost track of the points you both are making. Would each of you mind succinctly recapping your points thus far. I don't want to read hyperlink or New Yorker articles. I simply want to catch up.

tooblue, i must say that I still feel that SeattleUte's article nailed you to the wall, but unless I am misunderstanding, you are now adopting the stance that you knew all along and were only pretending in an effort to bait SeattleUte? I am open to that, but please flesh it out a bit more because it does sound somewhat sketchy.

SeattleUte...."shiboleths?" really?

Better yet, how about if tooblue and SU start another thread and carry on there? This is not an interesting hijack.

[tooblue]

As a Canadian, I was unaware that "visible minority" was a term created by Stats Canada. I thought it was used in the States as well. I've lived here in the US for 12 years now. I've used it since moving here. I hope I didn't confuse anyone with it. I'm pretty sure I haven't offended anyone with it.

I doubt that tooBlue knew it would be offensive. I still don't see how it is offensive. It is certainly accepted in Canada. I don't see any minority groups complaining about it...only a UN committee, and they don't offer any "more appropriate" term.

Not having read the original thread, I didn't get why SU was posting it. My guess was that it was an example of how ridiculous the UN has become and how ridiculous we have gotten with PC terms.

I am an American that lives in Canada. I was fully aware that it is a term the UN has deemed offensive and that is why I used it to bait SeattleUte and expose his bigotry, racism and lack of sophistication. It's a sorted tale. Originally SeattleUte had posted a link to a New Yorker article that suggested blacks* are not smart or sophisticated enough to make an informed decision when voting on Prop 8 in California. This is an opinion SeattleUte continues to stand by.

SeattleUte's latest (not his first) link to the article on Canada.com from 2007 is an effort to paint me as a racist in the hopes his views on the subject will not fully be made known. Interestingly enough, the Canadian government still uses the term.

*I use this term because SeattleUte has ruled it is not offensive

[Jeff Lebowski]

The interview LA Ute cited with Elder Holland, Elder Holland used the terms "policy", "practice" and "doctrine" interchangeably with regards to blacks and the priesthood. The lack of uniformity with regards to which term to use appears to be a reflection of Elder Holland's own uncertainty (i.e. 'we don't know') as to the underlying reason(s).

Go back and check post #8 in this thread. Elder Childs was much less equivocal. Clearly there are various opinions among the brethren, even among the Q12. That is why I started the thread.

The "it was policy, not doctrine" line of thinking is a recognition of the fact that there is no clear tie to any kind of revelation at the origin of the ban. Rather, the ban can be traced to folklore which is now disavowed. However, it clearly came to be viewed as doctrine during the period of the ban as evidenced by BRM's book and the resistance to repealing the ban.