DiscussMormonism.com

I was banned from the Mormon D&D thread, "Mormonism Under Attack?" for saying that the Church is being intentionally ambiguous (i.e. weaseling) when they claim that the reason for the priesthood being withheld is "not entirely clear."

Just to follow-up on some questions that were asked me after I was banned:

DaddyG wrote:I think we have definitively stated past restrictions were not doctrinal. How much further can we go without throwing past leaders under the bus?

I'd like to see your exact wording for this supposed "entity apology" and how it would differ from what was done last week. But I guess you will have to offer that in another thread now...

They've only said that "some" of the rational that "some" people have given for it are "not doctrinal." They haven't said that the ban itself was not doctrinal, and haven't repudiated any specific belief as being false.

My apology would be something like:

Before 1978, the Church considered members of the black race ineligible to hold the priesthood because of their race. We’ve come to the conclusion that the ban originated with the racist attitudes of past leaders of the Church and not with God. The various speculations that have been used to justify the ban are not doctrine and are not true. We apologize for any harm that the ban and related past teachings may have caused.

Sincerely,

First Presidency

why me wrote:I think that you have a chip on your shoulder. What harm has the church done today? What harmful thing has the church done? And what is the church?

“The Church” is the legal entity known as “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, headquartered at 50 E. North Temple, Salt Lake City Utah.

As an example of harm it has done, the Church harmed many of its members recently by not issuing a definitive statement on the origins of the priesthood ban. By being intentionally ambiguous in its statements and allowing members to believe that the ban was the expressed will of God, the church causes racist attitudes to fester among its members.

Bravo Roger!

Glad to see we're on the same page here. I've been trying to say the same exact things over there but the threads keep getting closed and I keep getting banned. It is as if they know we've nailed them on this issue but they just can't tolerate that pestering truth.

They want so badly for he Church to have "repudiated" these things, but the simple fact is, it hasn't. Which means they're all attacking Bott without support of the Church, as they like to pretend.

Ambiguity is always intentional, especially when written by a PR department.

You were banned? You had the best posts ever. I used all my rep points on you today.

just me wrote:You were banned? You had the best posts ever. I used all my rep points on you today.

Thanks!

I'm tempted to start a second thread with this title:

Definitive Proof that Mormons Revere Prophets More Than God

The proof? When it comes to calling somebody a racist, they'd rather throw God under the bus than throw past prophets under the bus.

I think we have definitively stated past restrictions were not doctrinal. How much further can we go without throwing past leaders under the bus?

Naming and apologizing for the sins of your institution and its past leaders is not "throwing them under the bus".

Kevin Graham wrote:Bravo Roger!

Glad to see we're on the same page here. I've been trying to say the same exact things over there but the threads keep getting closed and I keep getting banned. It is as if they know we've nailed them on this issue but they just can't tolerate that pestering truth.

They want so badly for he Church to have "repudiated" these things, but the simple fact is, it hasn't. Which means they're all attacking Bott without support of the Church, as they like to pretend.

Ambiguity is always intentional, especially when written by a PR department.

This whole contraversy proves it. Some Mormons believe that the only thing Bruce R. McConkie took back was the doctrine that black's wouldn't get the priesthood until the Milenium, and that his other explanations are true, but just aren't "doctrinal" becuase the corrupt PC world can't handle the truth.

Others think the ban itself was not doctrine.

Others think the ban was doctrine and was from God, but...

Others think....

And they all think the Church agrees with them.

Analytics wrote:

just me wrote:You were banned? You had the best posts ever. I used all my rep points on you today.

Thanks!

I'm tempted to start a second thread with this title:

Definitive Proof that Mormons Revere Prophets More Than God

The proof? When it comes to calling somebody a racist, they'd rather throw God under the bus than throw past prophets under the bus.

Oh yes. Always blame god first before you blame the Prophet.

Analytics wrote:

just me wrote:You were banned? You had the best posts ever. I used all my rep points on you today.

Thanks!

I'm tempted to start a second thread with this title:

Definitive Proof that Mormons Revere Prophets More Than God

The proof? When it comes to calling somebody a racist, they'd rather throw God under the bus than throw past prophets under the bus.

Or "definitive proof that some Internet Mormons revere scholars more than Prophets." Why do they keep referring me to apologetic opinion pieces as a valid refutation of official Church pronouncements?

Actually they're not throwing God under the bus. They believe that whatever God does must necessarily be good and virtuous, and therefor by "blaming" God for something, they are accepting that despite whatever appearances or smells a given thing may carry with it, it must be good and virtuous because God did it.

By blaming God for the priesthood ban they are saying the ban was good and virtuous, even though it doesn't look like it. We just aren't as clever as God, and therefor we can't see the good and virtue in it, but trust us, it's there.

To my view, "blaming God" for the ban is really an affirmation of a racist policy. They haven't really changed anything at all here, just made the racism a little more subtle, and pruned off some of the more damning external manifestations of it.

IMHO, what most LDS feel regarding the lifting of the priesthood ban is not shame, but relief that they don't have to so brazenly defend it as they used to. But defend it they do, so long as they attribute it to God.

I agree that Analytics' proposed apology would finally repudiate not only the practice of the ban, but the very idea and justification of it.

CaliforniaKid wrote:Naming and apologizing for the sins of your institution and its past leaders is not "throwing them under the bus".

They didn't even have buses back then.