BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree with you, but I think this may have been SteelBlue's whole point.

LDSChurchCo. has to present a united front. We will never hear public dissenting opinion on this topic any more than we will see Steve Ballmer hold a press conference to talk about all the ways in which he has disagreed with Bill Gates.

It's very Texonian, actually. Shuck and jive, shuck and jive.

But don't you find the press conference last summer (described in the link I provided) to be significant? It was a clear deviation from the old "We don't know" line.

[tooblue]

You may be scratching your head but this shouldn't surprise you. It sounds totally consistent and authentic. We even see the pattern here on CUF. Certain conclusions are intolerable--LDS apostles or first presidency are or were racist, LDS belief has inherently racist strains demonstrably traceable to old world racism, Joseph Smith didn't translate the Book of Mormon from golden plates just like he didn't translate the Book of Abraham. Any conclsuion, no matter how convoluted the reasoning or how absurd, is considered rather than the inthinkable, even if an objective person unconnected with the LDS Church would consider the unthinkable to be the most likely or even self-evident conclusion.

Since you are so enlightened on issues of race as well as objective when it comes to discussions about religion, namely the Mormon church, we should take your comments seriously and laud you for your insightful conclusions!

[byu71]

I fail to see why this issue is so troublesome to those not of our faith or those who were once of our faith and now want to take continual shots at it.

For someone of our faith, it might be troubling and we have to deal with prior Prophets and their ability to receive revelation. Amongst us members we can debate if everything said from the pulpit by the GA's is doctrine.

However, to the non-believers why do they care. They have already established in their minds the GA's are not prophets, seers and revelators. Are they on some kind of holy mission to enlighten the "believers". I doubt it.

Some pain is left there that has to be worked out. I suggest they see a shrink to get the angst out of their system.

[SteelBlue]

I agree with you, but I think this may have been SteelBlue's whole point.

LDSChurchCo. has to present a united front. We will never hear public dissenting opinion on this topic any more than we will see Steve Ballmer hold a press conference to talk about all the ways in which he has disagreed with Bill Gates.

It's very Texonian, actually. Shuck and jive, shuck and jive.

Exactly. Everyone who sat in on those meetings with McKay is dead and we give tremendous weight to anything said or done by those who've served in those positions. You probably won't find a single instance in the past 100 years where people will comfortably point to a decision made by the brethren and say "they were wrong". It's easier to say "We weren't there, we just don't know why".

I think it would be nice to hear something along the lines of "there is nothing now nor was there ever anything doctrinal about the Priesthood ban" as the party line and not just in the occasional archived deseret news article and from the occasional obscure 70. Reasonable people could draw their own conclusions.

[byu71]

Exactly. Everyone who sat in on those meetings with McKay is dead and we give tremendous weight to anything said or done by those who've served in those positions. You probably won't find a single instance in the past 100 years where people will comfortably point to a decision made by the brethren and say "they were wrong". It's easier to say "We weren't there, we just don't know why".

I think it would be nice to hear something along the lines of "there is nothing now nor was there ever anything doctrinal about the Priesthood ban" as the party line and not just in the occasional archived deseret news article and from the occasional obscure 70. Reasonable people could draw their own conclusions.

In conference in I think the late seventies, maybe earlier, birth control was called "evil" and a tool of the devil. Those who practiced it were pretty severly chastised some very condemning words were used. I would say "they were wrong". You can't have something that is "evil" and "of the devil" in the 70's and it not be so in 2009.

[SeattleUte]

I fail to see why this issue is so troublesome to those not of our faith or those who were once of our faith and now want to take continual shots at it.

For someone of our faith, it might be troubling and we have to deal with prior Prophets and their ability to receive revelation. Amongst us members we can debate if everything said from the pulpit by the GA's is doctrine.

However, to the non-believers why do they care. They have already established in their minds the GA's are not prophets, seers and revelators. Are they on some kind of holy mission to enlighten the "believers". I doubt it.

Some pain is left there that has to be worked out. I suggest they see a shrink to get the angst out of their system.

You're an ignoramus who himself doesn't understand the issue here. How about this: There are many Mormons I care about, and as I've said, there isn't a greater gift Mormon leaders could give than a frank, and complete acknowledgement of wrongdoing with respect to the priesthood ban.

The priesthood ban cuts across everything. One of the allegorical lessons to be gleaned form the book of Mormon is that it's better to cut a defenseless drunk's head off than permit an entire people to live in a cowl of ignorance. That's how big a deal is this issue. LDS leaders are committing a most severe offense against an entire people.

[UtahDan]

This kind of "hearsay" would be admissible in a court of law.

I guess you are assuming that BKP is one of the parties.

[tooblue]

You're an ignoramus who himself doesn't understand the issue here. How about this: There are many Mormons I care about, and as I've said, there isn't a greater gift Mormon leaders could give than a frank, and complete acknowledgement of wrongdoing with respect to the priesthood ban.

The priesthood ban cuts across everything. One of the allegorical lessons to be gleaned form the book of Mormon is that it's better to cut a defenseless drunk's head off than permit an entire people to live in a cowl of ignorance. That's how big a deal is this issue. LDS leaders are committing a most severe offense against an entire people.

And we are supposed to take you seriously because you were unaware of your bigotry when you espoused the view that the same entire people you mention above is not intelligent or sophisticated enough to make an informed decision about a polarizing political issue.

[UtahDan]

You're an ignoramus who himself doesn't understand the issue here. How about this: There are many Mormons I care about, and as I've said, there isn't a greater gift Mormon leaders could give than a frank, and complete acknowledgement of wrongdoing with respect to the priesthood ban.

The priesthood ban cuts across everything. One of the allegorical lessons to be gleaned form the book of Mormon is that it's better to cut a defenseless drunk's head off than permit an entire people to live in a cowl of ignorance. That's how big a deal is this issue. LDS leaders are committing a most severe offense against an entire people.

Full style points for working in the word "cowl." Well done.

[TripletDaddy]

I guess you are assuming that BKP is one of the parties.

Maybe it was an excited utterance?

"We can't handle the influx of members from Africa!!!!"

[UtahDan]

Maybe it was an excited utterance?

"We can't handle the influx of members from Africa!!!!"

Heh.

[landpoke]

Your mother sounds like my grandpa.

Did you just call PAC's mom a dude?

[SeattleUte]

Maybe it was an excited utterance?

"We can't handle the influx of members from Africa!!!!"

Clearly he's a speaking agent for THE PARTY here. Given the source of the infromation and the number of witnesses to the source's statement it probably comes in under the catch-all exception. If anyone wants to raise double hearsay, clearly Lebowski is making and admission against interest.

[TripletDaddy]

Clearly he's a speaking agent for THE PARTY here. Given the source of the infromation and the number of witnesses to the source's statement it probably comes in under the catch-all exception. If anyone wants to raise double hearsay, clearly Lebowski is making and admission against interest.

Has BKP introduced evidence of his good character yet? If so, the door is open for you to attack him all you want. Prior bad acts, character flaws, etc.

[UtahDan]

Clearly he's a speaking agent for THE PARTY here. Given the source of the infromation and the number of witnesses to the source's statement it probably comes in under the catch-all exception. If anyone wants to raise double hearsay, clearly Lebowski is making and admission against interest.

I got the first part right! Yes! I don't know though SU, on the second part you need unavailability of the declarant. Though I suppose THAT could be procured.......