The Vision of the Anointed Never Faileth at FAIR

[_Yoda]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Droopy, please observe Universal Rule #6, which says:

• "Cross-posting" from other message boards is allowed. Feel free. If you do this--or if you just mention content hosted at another site--always provide a link to that content so people can find out just what it is you're talking about.

To that end, please provide a link to whatever thread it is to which you make reference. Thank you.]

Agreed! Some of us don't want to read MDD unless absolutely necessary.

[_Chap]

Are you surprised, Droopy? Really?

I imagine there were many faithful saints who felt the same way when Adam/God, polygamy and the ban itself were jettisoned in the name of political expediency.

I imagine Randy Bott is feeling much the same way at the moment. You espouse the position you were taught and which was clearly laid out for all to see. But. That position is now embarrassing. And so are the saints who insist on talking about it.

You are now on the receiving end of social pressure to conform. Not very pleasant, is it?

It is remarkable that God is so consistent. He makes His will on a subject known once society has determined what God's will on a subject should be.

"As man was, so God once was. As man is, so God will become."

That's more of a couplet than anything else.

[_Darth J]

It is remarkable that God is so consistent. He makes His will on a subject known once society has determined what God's will on a subject should be.

"As man was, so God once was. As man is, so God will become."

That's more of a couplet than anything else.

P.S. Penn Gillette is a libertarian. That must mean that Droopy agrees with him about things, since Droopy occasionally describes himself as a libertarian.

[_Droopy]

Weird that the wouldn't tolerate what is orthodox to a good percentage of older-generation corridor Mormons. It's not exactly a fringe view, is it? Does Juliann think this only comes from quasi-fundamentalists and trolls? Or maybe it's the way Droopy says things...

I don't think so. My core argument was a completely reserved and civil elucidation of key doctrines taken directly from the Book of Mormon. If anyone will read that post at MDD (the one where I plead for an end to racialism and vicious infighting amongst the apologetic community there over the priesthood ban issue), they will see that I offered the argument, not as an explanation in the specific cases of the priesthood ban, but as a scriptural and doctrinal basis for actions the Lord may take, for whatever reasons, with any specific people that may have salient relevance to the original "ban" as far as its basis in various doctrinal concepts.

In other words, given clear Book of Mormon teachings, their really isn't any good reason, from a faithful LDS perspective, to assume and take the position that the ban was a "mistake" grounded in cultural prejudice. There is clear doctrinal precedent throughout the scriptures, and most particularly in the Book of Mormon, for something very much like it, and something very much like it has applied to virtually all peoples and ethnic groups, including Caucasians, from time immemorial, and at one time or another.

But, of course, this involves black people, and black people are the mascots - kind of the intellectual and moral hood ornaments - of the Left, something you display when going through the public rituals of moral self congratulation and the casting out of evil non-leftist spirits.

In other words, there are some mods there and some members of the apologetic movement at that board who are not capable of listening to reasoned argument, on this issue.

[_Droopy]

What we know is that the church finds it VERY embarassing to hear Mormons say the blacks couldn't have the priesthood because they sat on the fense, or because they couldn't handle the responsibility, or whatever.

Never doctrine.

The Church knows lots of people believe it.

I doubt there is the slightest empirical evidence available of how many do or do not.

[_Droopy]

If the MDD moderators want to follow a course to set things right for the Church in the eyes of God and Man, more power to them.

Unfortunately, Moksha, from an LDS perspective, that would require a mantel of authority and calling from God.

This is a problem I think, based on my long years of experience with the MDD board, including its old email list, we will be seeing more of in the future.

[_Chap]

... black people are the mascots - kind of the intellectual and moral hood ornaments - of the Left, ....

A hood ornament for Droopy:

[_Droopy]

The Church hasn't changed it's response to the issue or it's doctrine.

Which is exactly the point. The attitude among some there has come perilously close to the situation regarding the ERA and woman and the priesthood as I remember it among some closet (and not so closeted) liberals in Maryland back in the mid-eighties.

People were calling for members to engage in a massive letter writing campaign to the Brethren demanding they alter the doctrine regarding priesthood and woman in the church. A similar condition has arisen over the Prop 8 issue. Some members know the will and mind of God and the scriptures, better than the Brethren, and have anointed themselves with an alternative mantel of authority that allows them to promulgate the true doctrines and policies the church should be following respecting certain controversial issues.

You know, it would be a real shame if the apologetic movement, given all the good it can do and has done in defending the Church, should fracture and fragment from within because of a kind of Trahison des Clercs among some of its elite intellectuals.

[_Droopy]

Not really, Chap. This is much more representative of my style in such matters:

[_Chap]

... black people are the mascots - kind of the intellectual and moral hood ornaments - of the Left, ....

A hood ornament for Droopy:

Not really, Chap. This is much more representative of my style in such matters:

To count as a valid return of the service, it has to be a hood ornament.

Out.