Folklore Vs. Doctrine

[Analytics]

If it were clear, would I be asking for clarification? What's so difficult about a simple yes or no?

Read post #29 on this thread. I believe his answer is yes, the ban was divinely sanctioned by God himself, but we don't know why He chose to do so.

Using the Newsroom's standards of what constitute's doctrine, the first-presidency statements you've cited are doctrine. Scott seems to be following the church's lead of not being willing to clearly and positively state what the known doctrine really is.

[frankenstein]

Read post #29 on this thread. I believe his answer is yes, the ban was divinely sanctioned by God himself, but we don't know why He chose to do so'

I would say that is current position, which in my opinion has been the church position of Lds Church since the 1940s.

[frankenstein]

Why can't you see how this question is just a red herring?

We do not know the reason why a lot of things that "come from the Lord" in the context of Mormon doctrines. How does this change in any way the fact that these are still claimed to be from the Lord? Can you explain to me the reason why tea is part of the Word of Wisdom when most medical professionals believe the pros in health benefits far outweigh the cons? I don't remember Mormons complaining about this or refusing to believe the WoW was based on revelation. Can you explain why polygamy was commanded by an angel with a flaming sword when it was short-lived and served no apparent purpose whatsoever? I've yet to hear a good "reason" for it other than the usual, "God commanded it and his ways are not our ways." That reasoning seems to have worked well for Mormons for more than a century. So why is it that suddenly we have to question the "why" behind the Priesthood ban, and then, because we don't think there is a good reason for it, presume it was never inspired of God?

You guys are doing what so many other apostates before you have done. This is a very slippery slope you're dancing on. You're essentially telling us that an official proclamation by the Church, stating in unambiguous terms, that X is of God.... isn't really from God because you haven't heard a good reason for it!!

Say what you will, but bcspace got it right. FAIR is not the Church. Armand Mauss is not the Church. Lester Bush is not the Church.

The Church has stated what it has stated in an official capacity, claiming this is from the Lord. That by any definition is as good as saying it is divine revelation. What I see here is a tendency for some Mormons to put their faith, not in the Church, but rather apologetic scholarship.

I think it is up to the Fairisees to explain why "Thus sayeth the Lord your God" works for some things and not the Priesthood.

I agree that some of what the "scholars" do is what they lambast antimormon "scholars" for.

Edited March 7, 2012 by frankenstein

[Scott Lloyd]

If it were clear, would I be asking for clarification?

Yes you would. Bug off.

[KevinG]

If it were clear, would I be asking for clarification? What's so difficult about a simple yes or no?

Because we all know the power of yes or no questions to bring clarification to any issue.

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No.

[cinepro]

Because we all know the power of yes or no questions to bring clarification to any issue.

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No.

Here's the question Xander asked Scott:

[D]o you or do you not believe the priesthood ban was divinely sanctioned by God himself?

Where's the "gotcha"? It's a very straightforward question.

For me, the answer is "no" (and I've explained why many times over the years). For others, the answer might be "yes" (for which they would probably have an explanation of some sort). And a third possibility is "I don't know", where a person is open to either possibility and doesn't have enough information to commit to one or the other.

I don't see any reason why anyone would be reluctant to share any of those answers. I can see good reasons why any of them could work; I'm just more convinced by the arguments against the Theory of Divine Origin for the Priesthood Ban.

Edited March 7, 2012 by cinepro

[Xander]

Yes you would. Bug off.

This is a discussion board last time I checked, and I guess you're only pretending to participate. You cannot even respond to a simple question without hostility.

[Xander]

Read post #29 on this thread. I believe his answer is yes, the ban was divinely sanctioned by God himself, but we don't know why He chose to do so.

Yes, this is what I inferred as well but since this would mean he is running contrary to what the anti-Bott lynch mob has been pushing, I thought it would be best to ask for clarification. There are clearly people who are leaning towards this notion that the ban was wrong and that it was never based on revelation. I think we can count Scott Loyd among those who disagree with that school of thought, even if he refuses to make that point crystal clear.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is a discussion board last time I checked, and I guess you're only pretending to participate. You cannot even respond to a simple question without hostility.

Last I checked, one was allowed to determine for himself the extent of his participation. Due to your past behavior, I hold you in contempt and choose not to interact with you on this or any other topic.

This will be my last response to you and probably my last post on this thread.

[Xander]

Because we all know the power of yes or no questions to bring clarification to any issue.

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No

Do you really think you're being witty here? The answer to your question is that I never beat my wife. If the question I asked Scott required more than a yes/no then Scott could have easily supplied more context and explication. Instead, he has chosen to pretend that I'm "baiting" him in some unfair way.

If Scott believes the ban was inspired and directed by God himself, then good for him. At least he is consistent with LDS teaching. Of course, the downside to this is that he appears to part ways with what the recent apologetic fringe is suggesting. My question clearly drew attention to this dilemma, which is probably why he suddenly lost his voice on the subject.

.

[Xander]

Last I checked, one was allowed to determine for himself the extent of his participation. Due to your past behavior, I hold you in contempt and choose not to interact with you on this or any other topic.

This will be my last response to you and probably my last post on this thread.

But we both know this isn't true. You've responded to me in the recent past on a number of occasions, but only when you think you can score a quick point. When you can't, suddenly my "past behavior" becomes a convenient excuse for your silence. And the last time I checked, back and forth questions were part of civil discourse. Otherwise we're just dealing with dogmatic lecture.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Xander

[frankenstein]

Why does it matter if Scott holds a position that the arm of flesh (scholars) do not agree with? If only more LDS would do such a thing.

It just seems a silly item whether he is lock step with intellectuals or not.

[Xander]

And I don't see any reason why anyone would be reluctant to share any of those answers.

I think we have a pretty good idea why Scott has suddenly chosen to recoil into silence. Pointing out his disagreement with other apologists doesn't benefit him.

I'm just more convinced by the arguments against the Theory of Divine Origin for the Priesthood Ban.

Well there are two arguments here:

1. That it wasn't divinely sanctioned

2. That the Church taught that it was divinely sanctioned.

Clearly #2 is correct. To disagree is to say the Church got it all wrong, even in their official pronouncements.

I think we can both agree that #1 is wrong.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

Why does it matter if Scott holds a position that the arm of flesh (scholars) do not agree with? If only more LDS would do such a thing.

It just seems a silly item whether he is lock step with intellectuals or not.

I thought it was silly the way he was so resistant to a simple question designed for clarification. But I think we understand better why he has done this.

[Sky]

Here's the question Xander asked Scott:

Where's the "gotcha"? It's a very straightforward question.

For me, the answer is "no" (and I've explained why many times over the years). For others, the answer might be "yes" (for which they would probably have an explanation of some sort). And a third possibility is "I don't know", where a person is open to either possibility and doesn't have enough information to commit to one or the other.

I don't see any reason why anyone would be reluctant to share any of those answers. I can see good reasons why any of them could work; I'm just more convinced by the arguments against the Theory of Divine Origin for the Priesthood Ban.

Xander has shown himself to be somebody who will take a swipe at the LDS Church and its believing members in a rather malicious way every chance he gets. And he does it with an air of intellectual superiority. He doesn’t tolerate well opinions that differ from his own, which is why many LDS posters are reluctant to interact with him or give him the benefit of the doubt. But in his mind, I’m sure he believes he has won all the arguments. So I find it hard to believe that you don’t see any reason to suspect that his question may not have been asked in total sincerity or innocence.

But in a nutshell, the “gotcha” is that if Scott answered “yes” to the question, he could open himself up to be accused of being racist. If he answered “no” to the question, he could open himself up to be accused of criticizing past leaders and teachings of the Church. If he answers “I don’t know”, he opens himself up to be accused of copping out on the issue. So no matter how he answers, it is a trap and he loses.

[Xander]

Xander has shown himself to be somebody who will take a swipe at the LDS Church and its believing members in a rather malicious way every chance he gets. And he does it with an air of intellectual superiority. He doesn’t tolerate well opinions that differ from his own, which is why many LDS posters are reluctant to interact with him or give him the benefit of the doubt. But in his mind, I’m sure he believes he has won all the arguments. So I find it hard to believe that you don’t see any reason to suspect that his question may not have been asked in total sincerity or innocence.

This is a convenient excuse embraced by the few who have little tolerance for open, intellectual discourse. Of course, it is absolutely bunk, but that is beside the point. In this instance, I'm not attacking the Church. If anything, I'm the one letting the Church speak for itself. The apologists are the ones who are essentially saying the Church didn't know what the heck it was talking about all those years. The funny thing about all of this is that I am in full agreement with Scott, much to his chagrin. The Church really did say this was a commandment directly from God. That makes it revelation. Period. So it doesn't matter what the LDS historians conjure up in their research, trying to present arguments negating the divine aspect of the ban. To rely on them while ignoring the LDS leaders is to rely on the arm of the flesh.

But in a nutshell, the “gotcha” is that if Scott answered “yes” to the question, he could open himself up to be accused of being racist.

Nonsense. That wasn't the point at all. I'm taking a head count to see how many Mormons online disagree with the new wave of apologetic arguments designed to negate the divine aspect of the ban. I'm convinced that the anti-Bott crowd is fringe, not mainstream. Before including Loyd as an example, I wanted to ask for clarification so I didn't misrepresent him. How terrible of me.

If he answered “no” to the question, he could open himself up to be accused of criticizing past leaders and teachings of the Church.

And rightfully so. I mean, he is a Mormon in good standing, right? Wouldn't it be hypocritical to present yourself on a forum year after year attacking former members for failing to uphold the Lord's anointed, while doing the same thing yourself? But as I said, I strongly suspected his answer was yes, and I wanted to clarify that.

In either case, why is there always such a love-hate relation in Mormon culture when it comes to getting to the truth?

If he answers “I don’t know”, he opens himself up to be accused of copping out on the issue. So no matter how he answers, it is a trap and he loses.

If it was a trap then Scott set it up for himself and then walked right into it. No one forced him to jump into this discussion and insert his opinions the way he has. It just took me by surprise that he would agree that it was in fact a commandment of the Lord. This suggests that at least one veteran apologist here disagrees with the anti-Bott crowd, and I thought that was a point worthy of clarification.

How anti-Mormon of me!.

And you wonder why this place sometimes resembles a one-sided echo chamber. You cannot even tolerate simple questions. You constantly attack critical feedback with this psychoanalytical gibberish about sincerity and motives. It is almost as if you're afraid to see how the discussion might play itself out if you were to reciprocate with a give and take approach to civil discourse.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Xander

[Sky]

And you wonder why this place sometimes resembles a one-sided echo chamber. You cannot even tolerate simple questions. You constantly attack critical feedback with this psychoanalytical gibberish about sincerity and motives. It is almost as if you're afraid to see how the discussion might play itself out if you were to reciprocate with a give and take approach to civil discourse.

I'm not seeing where the apologists and the Church are in disagreement with each other.

And this place certainly doesn't resemble a one-sided echo chamber any more than the Mormon Discussions board does. But if you want to complain about this place, I'm sure you will find plenty of sympathy with your friends over there.

I dare to post something that is critical of you (but also happens to be true), and you pounce on me. How predictable.

And your assertion that I cannot tolerate simple questions is not true. I'm the one who started the popular thread (which is still open) with the poll asking for people's thoughts on if the Priesthood ban was a mistake. I welcome open discussion and debate. I wanted to see how the discussion would play itself out with a give and take civil discourse. I wanted to hear from people from all sides of the issue - including you.

But if you want respect and engagement from LDS posters, you really need to be more respectful to them!

[Xander]

I'm not seeing where the apologists and the Church are in disagreement with each other.

The Church referred to the priesthood ban as coming from God. Do you agree?

The Church also taught that the blacks were denied the priesthood because of their actions in the preexistence. Do you agree?

You see, FAIR is adopting the Mauss/Bush approach which is to call all of this stuff a myth. Mauss was one of the guys who jumped all over Randy Bott and accused him of being ignorant, not of official LDS doctrine, but rather "scholarship."

As if this matters.

And this place certainly doesn't resemble a one-sided echo chamber any more than the Mormon Discussions board does.

LOL!

Is that why several veteran Mormon participants from this forum frequently go over there to complain about how intolerant this place is? I'll admit that there is probably a ratio of 4:1 between critic and apologist and that makes the situation more difficult for believers there. But that has more to do with the fact that Mormon apologists prefer to "debate" where they know they have an advantage. In this case, where the moderators are constantly involved in the day to day process. At the other forum the mods show up once in a blue moon and so discussion can usually take its natural course. Just today Loran Blood started a thread there complaining about this place.One of the more vocal apologists named ldsfaqs, is constantly making a mockery of any attempt at civil dialogue between scholars.

I dare to post something that is critical of you (but also happens to be true), and you pounce on me. How predictable.

You attacked me in order to derail from the subject at hand. That's it.

And your assertion that I cannot tolerate simple questions is not true.

Then prove it. Contribute to the discussion with something of substance and dispense with the psychoanalytical subterfuge about my sincerity and intentions. Your rhetoric about how I only want to attack the church is a tactic used to rally the troops in the "us vs. them" approach that so many here have adopted. This "group think" mentality, which is why you've rushed in to help Scott avoid further embarrassment.

I'm the one who started the popular thread (which is still open) with the poll asking for people's thoughts on if the Priesthood ban was a mistake.

Yes, that same thread that banned several people for simply disagreeing with what FAIR wants to promote as mainstream. That's one way to project an image of what's mainstream, I suppose.

I wanted to see how the discussion would play itself out with a give and take civil discourse. I wanted to hear from people from all sides of the issue - including you.

But apparently the mods didn't. I expressed my view in that thread along with the official LDS statements that shaped my opinion, and I was subsequently banned. Other people have been censored for expressing their views as well, even LDS believers who disagree with the way Bott has been thrown under the bus.

But if you want respect and engagement from LDS posters, you really need to be more respectful to them!

Then take your own advice. I've said nothing disrespectful to anyone in this thread. All I did was ask Scott a clarifying question, to which he responded by accusing me of trying to catch him in a snare. As cinepro said, this made no sense at all. Scott also poisoned the well against me by pretending to be so far above me on the ladder of civility. You decided to jump in with the usual attacks on me proving you're still holding a grudge against me, as is Scott. I don't even know who you are and you act like you know me. How can either of you pretend to be interested in respectful dialogue when you're constantly announcing your reasons, baseless as they are, for holding me "in contempt"?

[Ares]

Oh brother... if you want to complain about the quality of the discourse on this board do it elsewhere.