BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[Art Vandelay]

I have it on good authority that there is a split among the 12 not just about content but doing these pieces altogether. I was told the lines break just about as you expect. Take that FWIW because I have no way to verify.

Word is the next one will be on Utah polygamy. I hope it's polygamy in general and covers Nauvoo polygamy because that's where all the interesting stuff is.

You guys must be pretty connected. I'm assuming there is at the most 18 men in the room at these meetings (Q12+FP+clerks and/or secretaries). Heck, ddd doesn't even know the names of many of the suborinates he orders around on a daily basis.

[FMCoug]

If they keep this up, missionaries are going to become even bigger pansies than they already are! When I did my time in inner city Pittsburgh, what I wouldn't have given to be able to say "they screwed up and have admitted it" and had the press release to back me up. Instead of the tap dancing that all/most of us have had to do at one time or another.

[jay santos]

You guys must be pretty connected. I'm assuming there is at the most 18 men in the room at these meetings (Q12+FP+clerks and/or secretaries). Heck, ddd doesn't even know the names of many of the suborinates he orders around on a daily basis.

This has been going around LDS blogs/forums for a while. This is a case where the inside info turned out to be right.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...torical-issues

[RC Vikings]

I would give anything to hear the inside scoop on how this race article was drafted and approved. As I have mentioned before, I know a GA who related a story about BKP from 3-4 years ago and at that time, BKP clearly saw the ban as divine in origin. Oh, to be a fly on the wall...

To me this doesn't look like something TSM would push for yet I would think he had to give full approval before it was released. I wonder if their was any feelings toward holding off until BKP passed away.

[Donuthole]

If they keep this up, missionaries are going to become even bigger pansies than they already are! When I did my time in [B]inner city Pittsburgh[\B], what I wouldn't have given to be able to say "they screwed up and have admitted it" and had the press release to back me up. Instead of the tap dancing that all/most of us have had to do at one time or another.

lol @ less-faithful-in-the-pre-existence stateside missionaries.

[creekster]

lol @ less-faithful-in-the-pre-existence stateside missionaries.

This crack does raise an interesting issue: If race is not a characteristic upon which valiance in the pre-existence was rewarded, then how do we know which (if any) other temporal circumstances were or were not related to our pre-existence performance?

[pelagius]

FWIW, I do accept the premise that our default position should be to interpret the prophet's position on Issue X as charitably as possible, even if--perhaps especially if--this means that we might have to rethink our own views on X. But I don't think your model captures what this would mean. Sure, a faithful member of the church would be wise to play the odds and "follow the prophet" in a general sense. Fair and good. But when we get down to the nitty gritty of specific cases like this, I'm not sure that it's helpful.

It's like you didn't read my alternate model at all:

Okay, I would probably model Waters and Adam more like the following:

Let

X = the set of all information useful and relevant to decide whether option A or B is correct.

Y = the set of all information used by the FPQ12 to decide whether option A or B is correct.

Z = the set of all information used by individual i to decide whether option A or B is correct.

FPQ12 suggest option A is correct and individual $i$ suggests option B is correct.

If Z=Y=X, then

P(FPQ12=correct|X) > P(i=correct|X) (1)

Most of the time Y not equal X and Z not equal X then

P(FPQ12=correct|Y) > P(i=correct|Z) (2)

However Waters argues that sometimes (if the options have to do with civil rights, woman rights, or gay rights) then,

P(FPQ12=correct|Y) less than P(i=correct|Z) (3)

That would be my "Liberal" model although my guess is that conservatives wouldn't object to it in principle. Liberals and conservatives would argue over high hard it is to identify situations like 3 from an ex ante perspective.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

This crack does raise an interesting issue: If race is not a characteristic upon which valiance in the pre-existence was rewarded, then how do we know which (if any) other temporal circumstances were or were not related to our pre-existence performance?

Although stateside vs foreign missions could give you a good idea, another important one is when they were born. The closer to the last days, the more valiant.

[RC Vikings]

This crack does raise an interesting issue: If race is not a characteristic upon which valiance in the pre-existence was rewarded, then how do we know which (if any) other temporal circumstances were or were not related to our pre-existence performance?

[pelagius]

But of course a probabilistic model is next to useless when it comes to settling any discrete, determinate question: was the ban divinely sanctioned and therefore morally correct or not?

Well, I would hope not (it's a model ... and sometimes you need a hammer not a model). The model isn't designed to answer any such questions. The model is about under what conditions it makes sense to act as if the prophet is infallible even if the prophet is actually quite fallible.

It's a brutally simply model but it actually has some very interesting implications. For example, in the model there is a subset where people believe (have faith or have a testimony) but deviate from prophetic counsel when it is different from their own view. For example, suppose you think there is a 70% probability the church is true (so, the prophet is a prophet). Also if the prophet is prophet he is correct 60% of the time but only correct 30% of time if he is not a prophet. Also you believe you are correct 50% of the time. The probability the prophet is correct is 70*0.6 + 0.3*0.3 = 48%. So you believe the church is true but ignore prophetic counsel (and there is no tension saying you believe but rejecting counsel). You get some interesting regions.

[FMCoug]

This crack does raise an interesting issue: If race is not a characteristic upon which valiance in the pre-existence was rewarded, then how do we know which (if any) other temporal circumstances were or were not related to our pre-existence performance?

You may be joking but that entire "doctrine" is BS too IMO.

I have my own made up version of this. You escendants of the pioneers are the less valiant ones. He loves all of his children so that is how He levels the playing field.

The less valiant are spoon fed the gospel from birth in Utah among lime minded folks.

Us valiant ones were born into less than ideal circumstances and had to overcome them and find the Gospel because the Lord knew we could and you couldn't.

Note that this version has as much scriptural basis as "doctrine" as the more common opposite one.

[falafel]

Who you callin' lime-minded?

[Northwestcoug]

This crack does raise an interesting issue: If race is not a characteristic upon which valiance in the pre-existence was rewarded, then how do we know which (if any) other temporal circumstances were or were not related to our pre-existence performance?

All kidding aside, the connection between valiance in the preexistence and 'station' in this life can be very appealing. It goes a long way in explaining away inequalities in this life. Of course, it can also lead to a sense of superiority for some.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Who you callin' lime-minded?

Escendants of the pioneers. Pay attention.

[Eddie]

Who you callin' lime-minded?

Is it key lime? I really like key lime. Pie I mean.