The priesthood ban makes the church look even better

[drumdude]

How are the works and power of God made manifest in relation to the priesthood ban? My experience suggests that because the prior ban is still well known, many people may not expect The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to achieve a worldwide multiracial brotherhood and sisterhood. But this is precisely what the Church has done, is doing, and is destined to do.

With such facts in mind, I wonder whether the old priesthood-ordination ban might not end up serving to make the harmonious fellowship within the Church of Blacks and Whites (and others) shine even more brightly, in contrast, than it otherwise would.

I think wife beaters around the world would be wise to follow this logic and employ it in their own lives. They should let their wives know that, actually, because they were abusive in the past, it makes their current non-abusive relationship shine just that much more brightly in contrast.

Live your lives poorly, brothers and sisters. It will make you look sterling when you catch up to the basic standards of those around you decades late.

[I Have Questions]

It is interesting that the Afore chooses to call it a “priesthood-ordination” ban. Because of course, black women faced a ban from visiting the temple as well, and “priesthood-ordination” played no part in that. Come to think of it, a “priesthood-ordination” ban is still in place for female members in that they are still banned from being ordained to any and all priesthood offices.

Female members still face a Priesthood Ban.

With such facts in mind, I wonder whether the repealing of the current priesthood-ordination ban for women might not end up serving to make the harmonious fellowship within the Church of men and women shine even more brightly, in contrast, than it otherwise would…if the church ever gets around to it.

I’ll labour the point even further. If the correction of wrongdoing actually makes things better than if no wrongdoing had happened in the first place, are marriages somehow stronger after one or both parties have had affairs? That’s the logic the Afore is quoting and endorsing in order to minimise 100 years of proactive racial discrimination by the religious sect of his birth.

Is a child’s good behaviour elevated simply because of all the bad behaviour that preceded it?

The real problem is that Peterson and the person he’s quoting, are seeking undue praise for correcting something that was problematic. Not only that, they are making baseless suggestions about the current Church situation between black and white members being better because of the problem, than if the church hadn’t caused the problem in the first place. And they then cite that some black people have finally been given junior positions in the hierarchy as evidence of that.

To do all that you have to make an unfounded series of assumptions - that interracial contact would not have occurred, or would have been substantially worse, had Black members enjoyed equal priesthood and temple status. And that black men and women would not have risen to high office through that period. Do we really think that the current harmony (if such harmony really exists, and there’s evidence to suggest it doesn’t) is better because of 100 years of racial discrimination than if such discrimination had not been imposed in the first place? That’s a laughable position for any rational person to take. Had the racial discrimination not been enforced for 100 years how many black Apostles might we have now?

It’s staggering how stupid and badly considered some of the things the Afore chooses to argue are. It’s an incredibly ignorant position to take.

[Gadianton]

I’ll labour the point even further. If the correction of wrongdoing actually makes things better than if no wrongdoing had happened in the first place, are marriages somehow stronger after one or both parties have had affairs? That’s the logic the Afore is quoting and endorsing in order to minimise 100 years of proactive racial discrimination by the religious sect of his birth.

Is a child’s good behaviour elevated simply because of all the bad behaviour that preceded it?

The real problem is that Peterson and the person he’s quoting, are seeking undue praise for correcting something that was problematic. Not only that, they are making baseless suggestions about the current Church situation between black and white members being better because of the problem, than if the church hadn’t caused the problem in the first place. And they then cite that some black people have finally been given junior positions in the hierarchy as evidence of that.

This is the most deranged apologetic I've seen in a while. I agree that the speculation that relationships are better because of the problem is baseless. This is "unfalsifiable" Peterson talking, since we have no way to say what the relationship would have been. Other Christian churches are far, far ahead of Mormons in Africa so it would seem not to have helped but perhaps the Church wouldn't have put more effort in earlier even without the ban so again Dan takes a conveniently unfalsifiable position.

The question about affairs is interesting. I would say almost never would that be the case. Almost never does abuse make relationships better though there is Stockholm syndrome and anything is possible. There are certainly times when people get off on the wrong foot, and then somehow that initial tension might play into a stronger relationship in the end. I grant the bare possibility that previous tensions and forgiveness and all that could result in a better eventual outcome than had the tension never happened.

But here's the thing, two strangers misapprehending each other, going off half cocked, and then become better friends -- per what apparently is called relational dialectics theory -- could only apply here in a completely twisted way. If we want to say the church was in the wrong with the policy, then maybe there is something to it. But what the Mopologists seem to be suggesting is that God ordered a "fake" ban as a means of triggering the psychological vulnerabilities at work which result in a stronger bond in the end. That's complete sociopathology. Sociopaths are in fact known to do this, to initiate conflict and then magnify their own role as the peacemaker as a means of strengthening the victims trust toward them. That Dan is suggesting God has orchestrated this complex relational dialectic calculated to have blacks eating out of the hands of white apostles is completely sick. It comes as no surprise, however, that the apologists believe such a thing.

[drumdude]

I think Dan floated the idea subtly at the end of his blog post that Mormon God may not have been even himself responsible for the ban. Remember how limited Mormon God is, being just an exalted man rather than creator of the Universe.

Dan implies maybe Mormon God was just turning something awful that happened entirely out of his hands into something good. Another instance of the shell game that Dan plays with his conception of God. It’s capable of miracles when it needs to be and can provide a moral foundation when it needs to, but it can also be completely absolved of responsibility when it suits the argument’s needs.

The passive voice strategy: Mistakes were made. That’s all that apologists want to acknowledge.

[Doctor Scratch]

This is reminiscent of a post the Afore made quite a while ago, clear back in the earliest days of his blog, where he made the assertion that contemporary US Blacks should be grateful that their ancestors were enslaved since it meant that they (I.e., the descendants of said slaves) ultimately got to be born in America—the Greatest Country on Earth—rather than Africa.

[I Have Questions]

This is the most deranged apologetic I've seen in a while. I agree that the speculation that relationships are better because of the problem is baseless. This is "unfalsifiable" Peterson talking, since we have no way to say what the relationship would have been. Other Christian churches are far, far ahead of Mormons in Africa so it would seem not to have helped but perhaps the Church wouldn't have put more effort in earlier even without the ban so again Dan takes a conveniently unfalsifiable position.

The question about affairs is interesting. I would say almost never would that be the case. Almost never does abuse make relationships better though there is Stockholm syndrome and anything is possible. There are certainly times when people get off on the wrong foot, and then somehow that initial tension might play into a stronger relationship in the end. I grant the bare possibility that previous tensions and forgiveness and all that could result in a better eventual outcome than had the tension never happened.

But here's the thing, two strangers misapprehending each other, going off half cocked, and then become better friends -- per what apparently is called relational dialectics theory -- could only apply here in a completely twisted way. If we want to say the church was in the wrong with the policy, then maybe there is something to it. But what the Mopologists seem to be suggesting is that God ordered a "fake" ban as a means of triggering the psychological vulnerabilities at work which result in a stronger bond in the end. That's complete sociopathology. Sociopaths are in fact known to do this, to initiate conflict and then magnify their own role as the peacemaker as a means of strengthening the victims trust toward them. That Dan is suggesting God has orchestrated this complex relational dialectic calculated to have blacks eating out of the hands of white apostles is completely sick. It comes as no surprise, however, that the apologists believe such a thing.

I think 100 years of proactive racial discrimination is a little different to two guys sparring themselves into a solid relationship, like the first couple of years of what becomes a lifelong happy marriage. However, putting that aside, I don't think the Afore really believes what he's saying. If he truly believed the principle then he would accept that his testimony of the gospel would be stronger were he to leave the church he was brought up in and to spend several years going off the rails. That's the principle he is claiming to espouse. But, as per usual, the Afore is not prepared to put his money where his mouth is.

[I Have Questions]

This is reminiscent of a post the Afore made quite a while ago, clear back in the earliest days of his blog, where he made the assertion that contemporary US Blacks should be grateful that their ancestors were enslaved since it meant that they (I.e., the descendants of said slaves) ultimately got to be born in America—the Greatest Country on Earth—rather than Africa.

Only a white man would take such an ignorant position.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I used to think Mopologists were simply Mormons trying to communicate clearly, but stuck in an indefensible ideology. But it became increasingly apparent that they hide behind semantic fog to appear erudite, when really they’re just sophists pretending to wisdom.

In this case DCP is just Boss Nass’ing his slopchompers because he’s on the front end of dementia. Nothing else can explain the idiotic choice to post that.