Mormon Representation in the Sciences

[maupayman]

Right, you were claiming that the LDS Church really was (or is) bigoted. But of course, you are a critic.

Would you not classify the denial of priesthood, to black people, as bigoted, given our use of the term in this thread?

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOAP,

It seems to me that there are a lot of good insights into the talk among the comments to your blog post. The short passage quoted below (from the end of the first comment) puts what must be about the best light possible on the controversial comment by BKP. I can certainly do no better than this.

FT, I appreciate the feedback.

[thesometimesaint]

maupayman:

No.

[maupayman]

maupayman:

No.

Given the way the word has been used in this thread, I think it most certainly fits. Bill said that skepticism on the part of Foxtrot, to hire religious people, was bigotrous, if the skepticism is based on their religious beliefs. Denying priesthood to people, based on the color of their skin, is far more bigotrous.

[dougtheavenger]

Would you not classify the denial of priesthood, to black people, as bigoted, given our use of the term in this thread?

No. Bigotry is defined by intolerance toward the beliefs, and practices of others when they vary from ones own, not by any particular belief or practice.

[maupayman]

No. Bigotry is defined by intolerance toward the beliefs, and practices of others when they vary from ones own, not by any particular belief or practice.

Oh, were going to play word games! Ok, than the practice was bigotrous, as per your definition, towards black people who believed they should have access to the priesthood.

[thesometimesaint]

maupayman:

It is highly unlikely that I will ever be president of the US. Even if I am otherwise qualified to be it. Is it bigotry that I will not?

No, it is not. There is no requirement that I be the president of the US. Likewise with the Priesthood. There never was a requirement, in this life, to hold the Priesthood.

[dougtheavenger]

Oh, were going to play word games! Ok, than the practice was bigotrous, as per your definition, towards black people who believed they should have access to the priesthood.

Yes we're going to play word games in that I will insist that words have established definitions.

As for the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood all Christian denominations and all Jewish denominations believe this priesthood had at one time or still has a lineage requirement. Most Jews believe lineage is the only requirement. If your father was a priest, you are a priest if you are male. Furthermore, certain ordinances within the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood can only be performed by biological descendedents of the tribe of Levi.

[maupayman]

maupayman:

It is highly unlikely that I will ever be president of the US. Even if I am otherwise qualified to be it. Is it bigotry that I will not?

No, it is not. There is no requirement that I be the president of the US. Likewise with the Priesthood. There never was a requirement, in this life, to hold the Priesthood.

This does not really compare, in any meaningful way. Noone has told you that you can't run for president, especially not simply based on the color of your skin. So, no, that is not bigotry. Nice try though.

[maupayman]

Yes we're going to play word games in that I will insist that words have established definitions.

As for the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood all Christian denominations and all Jewish denominations believe this priesthood had at one time or still has a lineage requirement. Most Jews believe lineage is the only requirement. If your father was a priest, you are a priest if you are male. Furthermore, certain ordinances within the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood can only be performed by biological descendedents of the tribe of Levi.

So, to justify the bigotry of the policy, you are going to say that the Jews were also bigots?... Duly noted. That does little to improve your position, that the practice was not bigotrous (i'm not even sure that is a word).

[LeSellers]

So, to justify the bigotry of the policy, you are going to say that the Jews were also bigots?... Duly noted. That does little to improve your position, that the practice was not bigotrous (i'm not even sure that is a word).

Not a word as far as I know, but it is now.

However, your position ignores the fact that it was not the Jews, per se, who instituted the first Priesthood ban, but God Himself. you ignore the fact that it is not the Jewish Priesthood, but God's Priesthood.

It is exactly the same with the Saints in the past: God's Priesthood, God's decision. It shows nothing about anyone's bigotry, unless you are accusing God of being a bigot (or is that a Bigot?).

Lehi

[Stargazer]

I have a feeling that this guy would never have gotten so much as a foot in the door in foxrot's company.

Who? Mark Steel?

Oh, wait ...

[Jeff K.]

This does not really compare, in any meaningful way. Noone has told you that you can't run for president, especially not simply based on the color of your skin. So, no, that is not bigotry. Nice try though.

Indeed the very Constitution denies me the right to run for president simply because of the place where I was born, something I had no choice in and in theory, something that has no impact to the type of person or leader I am. If that isn't discrimination I don't know what is.

[PaulBoyerFan]

maupayman:

It is highly unlikely that I will ever be president of the US. Even if I am otherwise qualified to be it. Is it bigotry that I will not?

No, it is not. There is no requirement that I be the president of the US. Likewise with the Priesthood. There never was a requirement, in this life, to hold the Priesthood.

Ummm, it would be discrimination if you were barred from being president on the basis of sex, race, or religion, although exclusion on the basis of national origin is allowed by the Constitution.

[dougtheavenger]

So, to justify the bigotry of the policy, you are going to say that the Jews were also bigots?... Duly noted. That does little to improve your position, that the practice was not bigotrous (i'm not even sure that is a word).

You keep speaking some language that sounds like English, but isn't. For example, you keep using that word, "bigot", but you don't seem to know what it means..in English.

[dougtheavenger]

So, to justify the bigotry of the policy, you are going to say that the Jews were also bigots?... Duly noted. That does little to improve your position, that the practice was not bigotrous (i'm not even sure that is a word).

This statement reveals that you don't think the Aaronic priesthood represents any authority from God..Unless you think God is a bigot too.

[Jason]

Would you not classify the denial of priesthood, to black people, as bigoted, given our use of the term in this thread?

No I would not.

Was the Jesus bigoted when he said he would preach only to the Jews, not the Gentiles? In fact, when speaking of the possibility he said, "It is not meet to take the children

[Avatar4321]

Given the way the word has been used in this thread, I think it most certainly fits. Bill said that skepticism on the part of Foxtrot, to hire religious people, was bigotrous, if the skepticism is based on their religious beliefs. Denying priesthood to people, based on the color of their skin, is far more bigotrous.

No one was ever denied the priesthood based on the color of their skin.

[volgadon]

Ummm, it would be discrimination if you were barred from being president on the basis of sex, race, or religion, although exclusion on the basis of national origin is allowed by the Constitution.

How is excluding one from becoming president on the basis of the location of birth not discriminatory?

[Stargazer]

How is excluding one from becoming president on the basis of the location of birth not discriminatory?

It IS discriminatory, in the pure meaning of the word.

The framers of the US Constitution had a bit of a problem with the idea of having a single chief executive in the first place, and they were paranoid about too much power being placed into the hands of one man. Thus, if they absolutely had to have one chief executive, by Golly they wanted to make sure the man in question was at least a citizen from his birth, not some guy that immigrated here subsequently, and was consequently less familiar with the spirit of the country than a native-born.

Incidentally, it isn't the strictly speaking the location of birth that is at issue. It is the citizenship at birth. A man (or nowadays woman) born on US soil, is a citizen regardless of which land his or her parents owe their allegiance to. By the same token, a man or woman born in Germany or other foreign country whose at least one parent of which is a US citizen is a natural-born citizen. John McCain, for example, was actually born in the US Canal Zone, which though it was under US administration has never been US soil. But his parents were both US citizens (father in the military and stationed there). So he could be President.

In my own case, I have three sons who were born in Germany while I was in the Army. They could all serve as President.

[maupayman]

Not a word as far as I know, but it is now.

However, your position ignores the fact that it was not the Jews, per se, who instituted the first Priesthood ban, but God Himself. you ignore the fact that it is not the Jewish Priesthood, but God's Priesthood.

It is exactly the same with the Saints in the past: God's Priesthood, God's decision. It shows nothing about anyone's bigotry, unless you are accusing God of being a bigot (or is that a Bigot?).

Lehi

I'm not ignoring that fact. All I have said, is that given the way Bill was using the term, it would also apply to the LDS belief/policy which denied black people the priesthood. I don't care who made the decision, if it was God, than yes God was a bigot.