BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[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/showthread.php?70420-Church-begins-inoculation-efforts-on-historical-issues

[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.

[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.

[Pheidippides]

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.

I think that one is going to freak a lot of members the hell out. From polyandry to sending men on missions and marrying their wives to the circumstances of section 132 to the John Taylor revelation to the manifesto circumstances to post manifesto polygamy. I don't know how they can possibly do that one fully in a statement. Even just Utah polygamy has enough to go nuts with.

[TripletDaddy]

is this the October surprise, albeit a little late, and coming directly from the Church instead of disaffected members? Because I would agree that this would qualify as a big deal!

[jay santos]

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.

[Pheidippides]

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...

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.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

For whatever reason, I expected the article regarding this release to be one of the top stories on KSL. Looks like it's quietly dropping through the time line with UPS delays caused by weather and the Olympic torches throughout history.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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...

[Harry Tic]

That is a play on one of my favorite questions, that mothers, wifes, and girlfriends seem fond of asking boys and men, "Are you lying to me? Now look me in the eye and tell me ARE YOU LYING TO ME!". Somehow No is always the wrong answer to this quandry.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/12740

[Art Vandelay]

I always get a kick out of the circularity of WW's argument. If the question I am trying to settle is whether or not the prophet can lead me astray, the one person whose position is totally irrelevant to me is the prophet's.

I may have lots of reasons for believing that a prophet is not leading me astray, but his assurance that he is not is, in itself, definitely not one of them.

That is a play on one of my favorite questions, that mothers, wives, and girlfriends seem fond of asking boys and men, "Are you lying to me? Now look me in the eye and tell me ARE YOU LYING TO ME!". Somehow No is always the wrong answer to this quandry.

[Harry Tic]

That is perhaps the most pelagius post I have ever read.

As to Harry Tic ' comments, I believe it was Wilford Woodruff who made the "won't lead you astray, not in the program" statement. I haven't checked dates but I believe he said that with the backdrop of the manifesto and a fractured church, looking to rally his base. I could be remembering this way wrong.

I always get a kick out of the circularity of WW's argument. If the question I am trying to settle is whether or not the prophet can lead me astray, the one person whose position is totally irrelevant to me is the prophet's.

I may have lots of reasons for believing that a prophet is not leading me astray, but his assurance that he is not is, in itself, definitely not one of them.

[smokymountainrain]

The biggest question I've always had on this is why does the PoGP hold precedent over Peter's vision in Acts 10. The PH should have been perplexing to many (and it was) as it holds no canonical support. Some of my favorite NT verses come from Acts 10, especially these:

34 ¶Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no arespecter of persons:

35 But in every anation he that bfeareth him, and cworketh drighteousness, is eaccepted with him.

lol, did creekster write the book of Acts?

[TripletDaddy]

I can't. Why not go through KSL?

It would haven been worse reading it through the Deseret news because then they wouldnt know until the evening of the next day!

[Harry Tic]

Back in the day when I used to post on religious topics this is what I argued:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21104

Not to bait you back into posting on a religious topic, Pelagius, but, well, you've already broken your own rule once today...

I can see how your model tries to flesh out what it means for us to give a church leader the benefit of a doubt. You're suggesting that we should perhaps presume that when an individual member's position differs from that of the prophet on a particular question, the prudent thing to do is to defer to the prophet. This might possibly be a helpful model if we had lots of data points to draw from (not to mention a clear way of deciding, empirically, whether the prophet is "right" or "wrong" on those issues). 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?

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.