BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[myboynoah]

Why doesn't The Church correct the record and acknowledge fault at the highest levels? Because the leadership realizes that most members are lazy. Such "revelations" would force reflection and a hard look at one's faith. Many members don't want that.

No doubt.

[Tex]

Intellectual honesty would be to admit that it is entirely possible there are reasons beyond our realm of understanding that are only known to God; like the unspoken reasons God had Abraham take Isaac for a father/son campout.

Indeed. In fact, if the "it was man not God" crowd is going to be consistent, it needs to apply this same approach to every instance in scripture where God commands or permits uncomfortable or inexplicable things.

[Indy Coug]

No. Intellectual honesty would be admitting that there is no other reasonable alternative explanation.

Intellectual honesty would be to admit that it is entirely possible there are reasons beyond our realm of understanding that are only known to God; like the unspoken reasons God had Abraham take Isaac for a father/son campout.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm intellectually honest enough to know I don't possess enough facts to offer any substantive alternative explanation; and even if I did attempt of offer an alternative explanation, I wouldn't have the temerity to be passing it off as indisputable fact.

No. Intellectual honesty would be admitting that there is no other reasonable alternative explanation.

[Indy Coug]

But if you insist on nitpicking without offering a substantive alternative explanation...

I'm intellectually honest enough to know I don't possess enough facts to offer any substantive alternative explanation; and even if I did attempt of offer an alternative explanation, I wouldn't have the temerity to be passing it off as indisputable fact.

[Indy Coug]

You folks need to cure yourselves of this quaint notion that these guys talk to some deity. (It's so automatic and ingrained that no one got my TIC post poking fun at it above.) The day that happens the clouds will part, the sun will shine through, and all will be crystaline clear to you.

Yawn. Arguing matters of faith with the faithless doesn't interest me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's no more intellectually disingenuous than your claim that there is "no doubt".

Metaphysical certainty is not required in order to apply the label disingenuous.

But if you insist on nitpicking without offering a substantive alternative explanation, let's say "beyond any reasonable doubt". How is that?

[SeattleUte]

Perpetrated or perpetuated by His prophets?

You folks need to cure yourselves of this quaint notion that these guys talk to some deity. (It's so automatic and ingrained that no one got my TIC post poking fun at it above.) The day that happens the clouds will part, the sun will shine through, and all will be crystaline clear to you.

[Indy Coug]

Even putting that issue aside God "sits idly by" all the time while much worse things happen.

Perpetrated or perpetuated by His prophets?

[wuapinmon]

You are the only one in the history of this board who has used a racial epithet here, and you did it repeatedly in serious conversation amid a screed against gays. You should be ashamed of yourself. To your credit clearly you are, because the experience seems to have burned a hole in your soul, the way you keep blathering about it. I've never before heard it said that people who send their kids to private schools are racists, but then you are the one who espouses the novel theory that the New Yorker is racist. I do know that the UN has issued a proclamation condemning people like you.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...371318&k=23802

Wow. Just wow. Greater pwnage knoweth no man than this.

[SteelBlue]

Usually lost in this discussion is the debate about just how much control the Lord exerts over his church, and I think that's the more critical issue at play. Folks who take the "it was man, not God" approach are forced to concede that God saw fit to sit idly by for 130 years (give or take), giving revelation and direction on a myriad of other things, yet doing nothing while (potentially) millions of his children were excluded.

I've argued before that the ban really only excluded people for a period of about 20 years. Meaning that it wasn't until the late 50's early 60's that there were black people wanting to join the church. You may recall that the reason there was so much discussion of the subject during McKay's tenure was because of a group in Africa who had discovered a tract and had formed a version of the church there. When they finally made contact with SLC the brethren had to take up the issue.

Even putting that issue aside God "sits idly by" all the time while much worse things happen.

[TripletDaddy]

I do know that the UN has issued a proclamation condemning people like you.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...371318&k=23802

checkmate. Match to SeattleUte.

tooblue, hermano......you have been summarily pwned by this link. It is in your best interest to never bring this issue up again. Seriously, could there be a more perfectly crafted article to settle this ongoing CG/CUF feud? And by the UN, no less.

Hello, buzzsaw!

[scottie]

You are the only one in the history of this board who has used a racial epithet here, and you did it repeatedly in serious conversation amid a screed against gays. You should be ashamed of yourself. To your credit clearly you are, because the experience seems to have burned a hole in your soul, the way you keep blathering about it. I've never before heard it said that people who send their kids to private schools are racists, but then you are the one who espouses the novel theory that the New Yorker is racist. I do know that the UN has issued a proclamation condemning people like you.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...371318&k=23802

POINT goes to SU.

[SeattleUte]

So says the the racist who sends his children to private school. If that's cosmopolitan then you don't know what cosmopolitan means.

You are the only one in the history of this board who has used a racial epithet here, and you did it repeatedly in serious conversation amid a screed against gays. You should be ashamed of yourself. To your credit clearly you are, because the experience seems to have burned a hole in your soul, the way you keep blathering about it. I've never before heard it said that people who send their kids to private schools are racists, but then you are the one who espouses the novel theory that the New Yorker is racist. I do know that the UN has issued a proclamation condemning people like you.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f469b36e-c587-40e7-98e5-3aa50a371318&k=23802

[tooblue]

The preisthood ban has been read allegorically in that way; the LDS church is nothing if not derivative. This does not exculpate in the eyes of greater modern society. As a tribe, ancient Jews reflected myriad racisms and bigotries, which is typical. That is 3,000 years in the past. We are a consmopolitan, not a tribal culture.

So says the the racist who sends his children to private school. If that's cosmopolitan then you don't know what cosmopolitan means.