I am embarrassed for the church

[_DarkHelmet]

Skin color or ethnicity is never given as a reason for the Ban. Therefore, the Ban cannot possibly have been racist.

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... 2?lang=eng

Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.

It's official doctrine that the ban was based on race.

and color. People like BC Space can invent their own theories for the priesthood ban, but yesterday the church declared his speculation non doctrinal. So we can ignore BC Space's theories.

Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

[_consiglieri]

The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

Then the Church is never bound by anything.

[_Darth J]

The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

Then the Church is never bound by anything.

Bretheren and Sisters,

We are proud to present to you the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, as depicted below:

[_Yahoo Bot]

Yeah, except that you post almost as much as I do, which isn't very often.

So in this fantasy of yours, how does the academic get exposed? I assume that is where you come in?

It's like having to explain a joke to somebody who doesn't get it. The moment is lost.

My little parable says nothing about me exposing anybody. Your employer has the right to review blog posts from your employer's computers and they probably do so. The time may come when they'll ask you about it. And then you'll have to explain why you are using an anonymous screen name to pick on the adherents of a religion you once embraced and now despise.

In the case of Professor Bott, he makes boneheaded statements about race and racial stereotypes. In the case of Professor The Dude, he ridicules the free expression of another's religious beliefs. Kind of like a Jew who converts to Christianity and then goes to Temple to hurl turds on the sabbath at departing worshipers. More than 2000 times.

Doesn't that make you appear to be an embittered former acolyte? I mean, you fit the exact paradigm of one.

[_consiglieri]

In the case of Professor The Dude, he ridicules the free expression of another's religious beliefs.

Are you playing at words here?

Words have meaning, you Yahoo.

The Dude does not ridicule "the free expression of another's religious beliefs."

The Dude may ridicule another's religious beliefs.

But that is what "free expression" is all about.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Chap]

.... hurl turds on the sabbath at departing worshipers. More than 2000 times.
...

Oh dear. Poor old Bot is having another attack of his old copromania. Thought we'd helped him overcome that. He really needs to see somebody about it.

[_Darth J]

Exactly how is ridiculing another's religious beliefs different than ridiculing another's race, gender, sexual preference, or handicap?

I don't dispute that many religious beliefs are analogous to a handicap.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I don't dispute that many religious beliefs are analogous to a handicap.

Out of the mouth of bums --- so the saying goes.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

And he, and you, do so anonymously.

I see that your obsession with anonymity on the internet continues. Nice to see that some things never change.

This place is great because moderators don't throw the bums out. But this place is where you can see the faithful, timid, humble servants of God attempting to sally forth against the demented one percent who feel no limitations to what might be respectable behavior.

This place ain't for the weak of heart, that's for sure. If the testimony of the "faithful, timid, humble servants of God" is so shaky, then they ought to stay at MADB.

[_Chap]

...

Exactly how is ridiculing another's religious beliefs different than ridiculing another's race, gender, sexual preference, or handicap? ...

A couple of differences:

1. Being a member of a particular race or gender, having a particular sexual preference, or a certain mental or physical handicap, do not entail affirming propositions about the nature of the world we live in, as a religion commonly does. One may legitimately mock the affirmation of certain propositions held as part of religious belief (such as, for example, L. Ron Hubbard's nonsense about Xenu, and the baseless notion that the American Indians are in part at least of Jewish descent) as being ridiculous.

2. There are no associations of people of particular races, genders, sexual preferences or handicaps who proclaim that only those possessing those characteristics are in possession of the full truth, and send out missionaries to convert people to that belief. Religions do that (and thereby conflict with each other). It is legitimate to mock such pretensions as ridiculous.

Yahoo Bot knows all that perfectly well. But he is a timewaster as well as a copromane, it seems.