BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[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.

[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.

[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.

[tooblue]

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!

Unfortunately SU used it unknowingly demonstrating his ignorance. Go back and read the thread that he started linking to a New Yorker article he espoused as enlightened but was blatant racism and bigotry:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=507&highlight=yorker

"Visible minorities." Is that something you made up? What a bunch of newspeak.

A day later he catches on ...

Speaking of self-parody (LOL!):

"Visible minority is a term used primarily in Canada to describe persons who are not of the majority race in a given population. In March, 2007, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination described the term as racist because it singles out a group."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_minority

I hope you and your disturbed ramblings about visible minorities stay the hell away from African Americans and gays.

I'm beginning to believe you truly are ignorant of the bigotry of your commentary. Only NOW are you even considering whether or not 'visible minority' might be considered insensitive ... honestly? You now assert --a day later-- that it certainly seemed racist?

Seattle, you are the parody. This thread you started is your monologue. You are so misguided in your attempts to denigrate a religion you are willing to espouse abject bigotry to do it. Your massively impressive intellect must surely be spinning at this point but think about it.

He was bated into using the term throughout the entire exchange and had NO IDEA that it might even be considered racially insensitive? Because he is a racist and a bigot. The onus is on him to prove otherwise. He has yet to apologize and repent for espousing the bigotry in the article he linked to and has yet to demonstrate the most basic sense of self-awareness that would render him even marginally enlightened.

Point goes to tooblue for staying on point. I was aware of what I was doing but the so called cosmopolitan SU wasn't? Better check your facts jack.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

Apples and Oranges, Indy.

Try to focus. BY never claimed to have received a revelation on the topic. He instituted the ban citing traditional 19th century folklore. For example, the "descendants of Cain" theory was invented by 16th-century English slave traders, not BY. Now that these reasons have all been repudiated, you cling to a notion of some kind of hidden revelation that for some strange reason, BY never referenced.

The church is now claiming that it was policy and not doctrine. How can a policy that is now repudiated be divine? Or how can something that was of divine origin regarding priesthood and temple blessing not be doctrine?

Who is really being honest here?

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

Except of course in this case, where there is no scripture and no recorded revelation of a commandment from God.

[tooblue]

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

Seattle is the only one here on this board that regularly espouses bigotry and racial hatred. He is trying to hide behind the ignorance of those who think he knows what he is talking about. Notice that he did not link to my supposed usage of the term in the thread in question ... why?

I linked to it. Go read his article in the New Yorker he loves so much that emphatically yet subtly insinuates that black voters in California were not smart enough or sophisticated enough to make an informed decision about Prop 8.

Why isn't SU linking to it -- why? Oh, here it is:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?p=5648#poststop

Gosh you'd think I'd want to hide that thread

[Indy Coug]

The church is now claiming that it was policy and not doctrine.

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).

[tooblue]

POINT goes to SU.

Oops you spoke too soon ... here's the link to the thread in question. Notice I'm not hiding it: http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...=5648#poststop

Here's a quote from cosmo SU:

Herzberg suggests, but is too much of a gentleman to draw explicitly, the connection between lack of educational opportunities and a tendency to fall prey to the mendacity of Prop. 8 proponents. He summarizes some of the most dishonest Prop. 8 tactics such as representations that Obama supported Prop. 8 and that gay marriage would mean that churches would eventually have to start performing gay marriages.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...talk_hertzberg

So, cosmo SU was easily baited into using offensive terms and then had to do some research to deflect from his untenable position.

[tooblue]

Oops you spoke too soon ... here's the link to the thread in question. Notice I'm not hiding it: http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...=5648#poststop

Here's a quote from cosmo SU:



So, cosmo SU was easily baited into using offensive terms and then had to do some research to deflect from his untenable position.

By the way I'm using the term 'black' here because SU has deemed it not offensive

[SeattleUte]

Unfortunately SU used it unknowingly demonstrating his ignorance.

I plead guilty to being ignorant to that racist term until you exposed me to it. I daresay most everyone here who dosen't reside in Canada was unaware of it as well. Countries have their own racist vocabulary unique to them. I do pat myself on the back for recognizing it was wrong as soon as I heard it, as I noted in the thread and in The Back Fence.

The thread speaks for itself. I did not engage or give credence to your usage of "visible minority." I asked who had heard the term before, and expressed my opinion it was wrong, before researching it. In fact, you used the term in just the way that the UN has condemned--in your lexicon (and apparently that of Canadians of like mind), some minorities who are more "visible" are qualitatively more authentic in some fashion than less visible ones. Shame on you.

The more you lie about this, the more you disgrace yourself in front of the whole board. The thread doesn't lie; you were not ignorant of the term and were using it in just the way the UN has condemned. I suggest you follow 3D's advise. The more you rage about this the more pitiful you look.

[SeattleUte]

By the way I'm using the term 'black' here because SU has deemed it not offensive

"Black" is offensive? That's news to the New York Times, as well as the various AA-owned publications titled "Black" something or other cited or quoted in the recent linked article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/bu...a/28press.html

Tooblue, you reside in your own strange little world. I'd rather not visit it.

[tooblue]

I plead guilty to being ignorant to that racist term until you exposed me to it. I daresay most everyone here who dosen't reside in Canada was unaware of it as well. Countries have their own racist vocabulary unique to them. I do pat myself on the back for recognizing it was wrong as soon as I heard it, as I noted in the thread and in The Back Fence.

The thread speaks for itself. I did not engage or give credence to your usage of "visible minority." I asked who had heard the term before, and expressed my opinion it was wrong, before researching it. In fact, you used the term in just the way that the UN has condemned--in your lexicon (and apparently that of Canadians of like mind), some minorities who are more "visible" are qualitatively more authentic in some fashion than less visible ones. Shame on you.

The more you lie about this, the more you disgrace yourself in front of the whole board. The thread doesn't lie; you were not ignorant of the term and were using it in just the way the UN has condemned. I suggest you follow 3D's advise. The more you rage about this the more pitiful you look.

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.

[Tex]

Except of course in this case, where there is no scripture and no recorded revelation of a commandment from God.

This is not the only case like that. My comment about consistency stands.

Even so, that doesn't get at the heart of the problem. Based on what you and others have said, I think if a credible revelation that said "The ban is of God" were produced, it would only deepen the crisis of faith.

[tooblue]

"Black" is offensive? That's news to the New York Times, as well as the various AA-owned publications titled "Black" something or other cited or quoted in the recent linked article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/bu...a/28press.html

Tooblue, you reside in your own strange little world. I'd rather not visit it.

Why can't people just be called Bob or Helen or American ... like the American President? You wouldn't reside in my world, my children don't attend private school and the many friends I associate with are, let's just say, not 'smart' or 'sophisticated' enough for you