What I love about MD&D (Mormon Dungeons & Dragons) is that drivel like this passes as insight.
selek1 wrote: First, that since the Priesthood is God's to delegate or refuse as he sees fit, then any discrimination is only alleged, rather than explicit.
That's irrelevant to what "discrimination" is.
discrimination1.
an act or instance of discriminating.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic . something that serves to differentiate. For example, if I authorize my daughter to use the family car, but not my son- have I discriminated against my son?
Yes, because you have treated him differently than your daughter.
Most people would suggest that I have not, as "discrimination" is commonly understood.
Then most people need to get a dictionary.
The assumption that either the Ban or not allowing my son to use the car was "discrimination" is speculative. It is inferred, rather than explicitly stated.
No, it is observed by one's explicit actions.
My son has no "right" to use the family car. It is a privelege that I can bestow or withhold entirely at my discretion- and for any reason.
That is irrelevant. Once you choose to bestow things on people, withholding those things because of something other than individual merit is discrimination.
It is not your place (or anyone elses) to criticize me on who, how, or when I delegate the use of the family vehicle.
You have invited that criticism, because you are asking people to determine whether what you are doing is discrimination.
It is not your place to pass judgement on my reasons.
You invited everyone to pass judgment on your reasons. "For example, if I authorize my daughter to use the family car, but not my son- have I discriminated against my son?"
The same logic applies to the Priesthood Ban.
The same logic applies to the Church in general. Since it is not our place to pass judgment on it, we cannot determine whether the Church is true. "The Church is true" is a judgment. But once the Church invites the world to evaluate its truth claims, then it becomes our place to pass judgment.
No one now alive or dead (save Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ) have any right to the Priesthood.
Not even them. They had to earn it. But now we're getting into Mormonism ultimately being non-theistic.
That is a privilege that is theirs to bestow or withold as they see fit- for any reason or for no reason at all.
Because we would naturally expect a loving, wise, omnipotent God to act arbitrarily.
Unless and until it is demonstrated that the Priesthood Ban was not divinely sanctioned, none of us have any right to quibble over the reasoning behind the Ban.
That's how burden of proof works, you know!It is not our place to tell God to whom he "must" delegate his authority and under what conditions.
Nor is it our place to wonder why God gave us just enough intelligence and just enough of a conscience to make his actions look arbitrary and racist to a reasonable observer.
Second, I would stipulate that (assuming for the sake of argument) that I had discriminated against my son- can one assume that I did so on the basis of his gender?
You're only talking about two people, so that's not a big enough sample size. You might just like your daughter better as an individual. Now if you had 4 or 5 daughters, and they all got the car, and a couple of sons, and they did not, and all other things are equal, then yes, it's a fair inference that you're discriminating against the boys because of their sex.
It's also possible that you are in fact discriminating based on sex, but we need more information to infer that when there are only two kids involved.
Can one assume that I did so on the basis of his race?
Your kids are presumably the same race as you are---unless they reject the gospel, in which case they will be turned into American Indians. But it might be on the basis of race if your kids each have different mothers who are different races from each other. We still need a bigger sample size, though.
Can one assume that his conduct is "less valiant" than that of his sister?
Actually yes, that would be a reasonable assumption. Lots of parents ground their kids (who are old enough to drive) from using the car when they get in trouble.
Did you happen to have any of your paid spokesmen get up in front of a large audience and suggest that that this was the reason? You know, what with your analogy and all?
Can one assume that I did so because of his age?
Maybe. There are laws that discriminate about driving on the basis of age. Not all discrimination is invalid. The issue is whether there is a legitimate, reasonable basis to discriminate.
Like, "because you're black," for example.
All of these speculations about my reasoning are just that- speculation.
That's true. But if you have paid spokesmen talk in front of people and send out official letters and write books for 150 years or so telling the reasons why your son couldn't have the car, then it isn't speculation anymore.
