Mark E Petersen On Race

[Teancum]

I was not aware that one is called to be an Apostle based on their doctrinal knowledge or Scriptural understanding, but rather to be a special witness of Christ.

The Apostles in Jesus' time were not doctrinal experts - they had disagreements and even squabbled amongst themselves about different topics.

There were times when Jesus spoke plainly to His Apostles, but they still did not fully understand what He was trying to teach them.

Their position and calling is based on their testimony of Jesus Christ period. That can give them more insights on other doctrines than most others, but not necessarily.

Elder Petersen gave a talk that today seems very racist, but at the time most likely would not be taken the same as it is today. How does that affect his special witness of Jesus Christ?

Let us also jump on Paul for being sexist - 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Should we now re-think all of Paul's contribution in the scriptures because he was an Apostle of Jesus Christ but got this soooo wrong? What else did he get wrong?

As long as we are questioning what Apostles have gotten wrong, why not bring into question the entirety of the NT? Why stop there? Why not question all of the OT as well?

Heck, what has God gotten wrong too?

 

 

Last I checked we sustain the FP and 12 as prophets, seers and revelators. Maybe I expect too much but it seems a Prophet Seer and Revelator ought to be able to see (seer) beyond the culture of their day.

[BlueDreams]

Why did you ask if I am now disavowing the speech when I thought I made myself quite clear? I said I believe Elder Petersen's speech was indelicately and -- especially by today's standards -- insensitively phrased: but that if one is able to look beyond the overly blunt language there is much sound and well-reasoned doctrine to be gleaned. Do you remember that part, or did you not read that far (I'm asking that question sincerely)?

But what I could have added is I think it's best for the members to learn how to wade through controversial matters on their own, and with the Lord's help learn how to figure out things for themselves. Being spoonfed by others rarely works. This was the great error of the Swedish area authority Hans Mattsson. He failed to realize that with the gift of the Holy Ghost to help him he could have figured things out for himself.

But I tell you what: One question at a time I'll answer BD's questions when I have time. But if I see the strong doctrine is beginning to make some board members choke and/or mock, I'm going to immediately back off. Stay tuned.

All the best,,,

 

Bobbie, this is all I ask of you, to answer 4 simple questions. I can appreciate that you don't want to throw Elder Peterson under a bus. But saying you would have been softer in how you address it isn't enough. His talk was specifically to justify racism, it was in defense of maintaining a status quo of an unequal world and calling it somehow just because God made it that way...of assuming our prejudices are God's. And if it can't meet up with 4 simple questions there's something wrong with that. I could litter you with more questions, like does it make sense that God would really send just the most righteous in fairly easy living experiences?  Can we really tell who a person was in the premortal life just by where they were born. Is being poor, black, brown, asian, etc a handicap of an eternal nature or one that we've socially derived in a fallen world? But these are all really all just abstracted concepts, it's easier to deal with it in abstract. So I'm asking you personally as a real individual with a real family with members that are black, mexican, native american, arab, and white:

Do you think I, because of my ancestry will only obtain the level of servant in the CK? 

 

If no, do you think my Black african predecessors will be servants in the CK not matter how much they embrace the gospel and the pertaining ordinances?

 

These are optional, but they are coming up as I read both his talk "more thoroughly" as you put it and your response:

    Do you think that I was less noble or great because of my circumstance of birth.....not sealed in an LDS family (still not), with a single mother who was poor and made poor relational choices? Do you think my black father was less valiant  in the pre-mortal life because he was raised in a country that was in the middle of a civil war (and they were on the losing side), was a refugee for a time, knew the feeling of hunger and homelessness, and probably had PTSD as a child from hearing bombs drop and seeing dead bodies that were killed? Do you think my Mexican-american father was less great and noble because he was raised poor in a family of migrant workers and trash pickers and was left in a social system of choosing between his cultural heritage and financial success/stability? Or my brother from also being raised by a Navajo single mother, living much of his life on a reservation where poverty is rampant, and then having to move up to his father and step-mother to have the chance of a decent education?  I could go on.

 

But the flaw in what you've stated for me is not some issues with hearing "trigger words" or my power to maintain "rational objective reasoning" (which P.S., I don't think exists in any human) while reading his talk or just your thoughts about these so-called deep truths. My problem is simply that it doesn't resonate with my lived experience. It goes against what God has whispered to my soul or told me flat out in my Patriarchal blessing. In short "the thought makes  reason stare." It limits God's mercy, his Justice, and more importantly: how he views his children.

 

I don't say this to turn you away from answering. I still want an answer and feel that that is simple courtesy considering I have done what you've asked not once (answered your q's), but twice (read Peterson's talk more carefully). If you answer yes to either or feel they're loaded q's, explain. And then follow up with the other two questions: If so, where is your scriptural proof for it? Ask yourself is this just, is this fair, are you better than me in following the Gospel because of your skin color/ancestry?...explain and give some line of documentation and reasoning to it. People can vouch for me, I'm not one to jump down other's throats, even when I fundamentally disagree with them. I'm a believer in fairness and that everyone deserves a chance to explain themselves. So please, explain yourself. 

 

You've now had 30+ hrs to mull this over and the way you write assumes a level of certainty in what you know from Peterson's address....so it really shouldn't be that hard to answer 4 simple questions. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 29, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Teancum]

Mother Theresa, Pope Francis, American Jews, and tibetan buddhists:  All these you have mentioned also teach the words of God.

 

Do any of these claims to be and ask their membership to sustain them as Prophets, Seers and Revelators?   That there is quite a difference that you are missing seems rather odd.

[Teancum]

Do you think it valid for your children to apologize for you when you still hold your same views?

 

 

My children do not hold themselves out as Prophets, Seers and Revelators if God's One and Only True Church.  Oh maybe this is just a slight difference you think?

 

So yes, an institution that claims such fantastic authority in insight as to what the God of this Universe wants us to do should apologize for the nonsense some of its Prophets, Seers and Revelators have espoused and which certainly found their way into the institutional Church. It might help in purging such things that still remain to some extent.

[Teancum]

Would you consider it appropriate to apologize for the actions of your ancestors?

 

 

See above.  Your attempt to make such comparisons to avoid the responsibility the LDS Church should have on such things is apples and oranges and beyond.

[jwhitlock]

See above.  Your attempt to make such comparisons to avoid the responsibility the LDS Church should have on such things is apples and oranges and beyond.

 

Glad to see you verify that you hold to a double standard.

 

Your rationalization about avoiding responsibility is unfounded and simply a red herring. This and your other comments clearly show the contempt you hold the church and its leaders in.

[Calm]

But I also assume most active LDS in Utah are not very aware of Petersen's speech.  I may be wrong there also.

Probably many LDS are not aware of the speech given it was not published online with other BYU speeches, not published in church manuals and magazines and probably mainly comes up when it is comdemned by someone who has read about it when someone else condemns it.

Which means LDS in South Africa have pretty much the same sources to learn about it as LDS in Utah, currently the interenet, before that most likely antimormomon publications.

[Flyonthewall]

Last I checked we sustain the FP and 12 as prophets, seers and revelators. Maybe I expect too much but it seems a Prophet Seer and Revelator ought to be able to see (seer) beyond the culture of their day.

We do sustain them as prophet, seers, and revelators... not as an Encylcopedia Divinica.

Paul could not see past his day, or should women remain silent in church, and if they want to learn something, ask their husband...?

Prophets, seers, and revelators are called to serve the people of their time.

Just like women remaining silent in church, and relying only upon their husband for learning was directed towards the people of that time, Apostles of the 50s & 60s spoke to their time.

Not everyone is called to build an ark or lead the children of Israel out of Egypt.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Paul could not see past his day, or should women remain silent in church, and if they want to learn something, ask their husband...?

 

During the day of Moses, idolatry was very common, but God was quick to tell Moses that idolatry is a sin.

 

According to the Wikipedia, Buddah

 

 

By tradition, he is said to have been destined by birth to the life of a prince, and had three palaces (for seasonal occupation) built for him. Although more recent scholarship doubts this status, his father, said to be King Śuddhodana, wishing for his son to be a great king, is said to have shielded him from religious teachings and from knowledge of human suffering. When he reached the age of 16, his father reputedly arranged his marriage to a cousin of the same age named Yaśodharā (Pāli: Yasodharā). According to the traditional account,^[which?] she gave birth to a son, named Rāhula. Siddhartha is said to have spent 29 years as a prince in Kapilavastu. Although his father ensured that Siddhartha was provided with everything he could want or need, Buddhist scriptures say that the future Buddha felt that material wealth was not life's ultimate goal

At the age of 29, the popular biography^[which?] continues, Siddhartha left his palace to meet his subjects. Despite his father's efforts to hide from him the sick, aged and suffering, Siddhartha was said to have seen an old man. When his charioteer Channa explained to him that all people grew old, the prince went on further trips beyond the palace. On these he encountered a diseased man, a decaying corpse, and an ascetic. These depressed him, and he initially strove to overcome aging, sickness, and death by living the life of an ascetic

 

We have something called Revelation, so your "his day" is problematic.

 

PS The American Jews were not affected by their time

 

 

"By the early 20th century both the Jewish and African-American communities were organizing socially and politically to combat anti-Semitism and racism respectively"

http://northerncity.library.temple.edu/people-and-places/jewish-african-american-relations

 

"American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders to found the NAACP. Kivie Kaplan, a vice-chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now the Union for Reform Judaism), served as the national president of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975. Arnie Aronson worked with A. Philip Randolph and Roy Wilkins to found the Leadership Conference"

http://www.rac.org/jews-and-civil-rights-movement#sthash.q1jRLpSQ.dpuf

[Calm]

I think instututional apologies may be useful in a limited set of circumstances. One could be constantly apologizing for past wrongs given human history, but generally people have a limit of how many times they hear "sorry" from someone before they start dismissing it as insincere. And then there are others who would be insulted that the institution could think an apology from someone besides the person who caused the suffering is in anyway meaningful.

When an institutional apology is made, imo it needs to be directly connected to the experience of those harmed and not just a vague, generic blanket acknowledgement or apology. Disregarding details is likely to convey a lack of caring. If one doesn't care enough to learn and share what happened in sufficient detail, then why should anyone believe they deeply care about the harm done? Does 'I am sorry that our employee hurt you and I don't need to know how much or how they did it but my assistant tells me you should be given this check as restitution' (the lack of need demonstrated, not spoken) mean as much as 'it was careless of our driver to not look carefully while he was turning and I am sorry that the result has totaled your car and and even more upset that it put you in the hospital and in order to remedy as much as possible what he has done to you, I've found out the projected medical costs and included an additional amount to help you get the emotional aid you may need to recover as well as giving you a car to replace the one you lost'? Which upon hearing would you more likely think is sincere? Since believing there is remorse is key to the ability of an apology to help heal, an understanding of direct and indirect effects should be present to the fullest extent practical, imo.

Being unsure about the cause and extent of harm may lead to a reluctance to apologize even if efforts have been made to correct understanding to prevent further harm. Will we trivialize the suffering by saying such and such or could we possibly increase the harm done? Indecision may not justify not apologizing at all, but it can help explain why there may be what appears to others an untimely delay or even it notbhappening at all.

I also think one needs to take care in apologizing because too many don't use apologies to move on, but to develop a victim mentality. I don't think that means one shouldn't apologize, just that such needs to be taken into account and apologies need to be crafted with care and insight into people's needs.

I personally would like to see something more than just the acknowledgment that those in the past had less light and knowledge and a dynamic denunciation of racism as was done in conference by Pres. Hinckley by someone in their official capacity of church representative for the Church as an institution. Otoh, I don't have enough knowledge to know when this should be done and how. I am currently thinking allowing a foundation of correct doctrine and teachings plus scholarly exploration of development and impact to build up significantly may be the key to making the apology when it comes to be the most effective...assuming of course that an institutional apology will occur. I recognize that it may not, that the Lord for some reason desires the healing to proceed through a different course and I believe our leaders are more likely to know this than I am.

[Teancum]

Glad to see you verify that you hold to a double standard.

 

Your rationalization about avoiding responsibility is unfounded and simply a red herring. This and your other comments clearly show the contempt you hold the church and its leaders in.

 

 

Oh really? How so? Some actual rebuttal rather than "just because I say so" would be nice.

[Teancum]

We do sustain them as prophet, seers, and revelators... not as an Encylcopedia Divinica.

Paul could not see past his day, or should women remain silent in church, and if they want to learn something, ask their husband...?

Prophets, seers, and revelators are called to serve the people of their time.

Just like women remaining silent in church, and relying only upon their husband for learning was directed towards the people of that time, Apostles of the 50s & 60s spoke to their time.

Not everyone is called to build an ark or lead the children of Israel out of Egypt.

 

 

Ok. So based on this what good are they?  Why should I listen to them if they are simply products of their culture and God does not speak to them to tell them to be outspoken against the evils of racism or misogyny?  And so you know I hold the Apostle Paul to the same standard.

[jwhitlock]

Oh really? How so? Some actual rebuttal rather than "just because I say so" would be nice.

 

Already posted.

[JAHS]

Last I checked we sustain the FP and 12 as prophets, seers and revelators. Maybe I expect too much but it seems a Prophet Seer and Revelator ought to be able to see (seer) beyond the culture of their day.

 

Why? We need to live in this culture today. Therefore I think it is more important to see clearly within the cuture of this day so we can know how to handle it. Let future prophets handle the cultures of their time.

 

 Elder John A. Witdsoe said :

"A seer is one who sees with spiritual eyes. He perceives the meaning of that which seems obscure to others; therefore he is an interpreter and clarifier of eternal truth. In short, he is one who sees, who walks in the Lord's light with open eyes." 

 

That is what we need to help us handle the problems of our time.

[Teancum]

Already posted.

 

 

Uh no not really.

[Teancum]

Why? We need to live in this culture today. Therefore I think it is more important to see clearly within the cuture of this day so we can know how to handle it. Let future prophets handle the cultures of their time.

 

 Elder John A. Witdsoe said :

"A seer is one who sees with spiritual eyes. He perceives the meaning of that which seems obscure to others; therefore he is an interpreter and clarifier of eternal truth. In short, he is one who sees, who walks in the Lord's light with open eyes." 

 

That is what we need to help us handle the problems of our time.

 

 

Well if they are no better than being products of their time and culture why should I listen to them?

[Bobbieaware]

Bobbie, this is all I ask of you, to answer 4 simple questions. I can appreciate that you don't want to throw Elder Peterson under a bus. But saying you would have been softer in how you address it isn't enough. His talk was specifically to justify racism, it was in defense of maintaining a status quo of an unequal world and calling it somehow just because God made it that way...of assuming our prejudices are God's. And if it can't meet up with 4 simple questions there's something wrong with that. I could litter you with more questions, like does it make sense that God would really send just the most righteous in fairly easy living experiences?  Can we really tell who a person was in the premortal life just by where they were born. Is being poor, black, brown, asian, etc a handicap of an eternal nature or one that we've socially derived in a fallen world? But these are all really all just abstracted concepts, it's easier to deal with it in abstract. So I'm asking you personally as a real individual with a real family with members that are black, mexican, native american, arab, and white:

Do you think I, because of my ancestry will only obtain the level of servant in the CK? 

 

 

These are optional, but they are coming up as I read both his talk "more thoroughly" as you put it and your response:

    Do you think that I was less noble or great because of my circumstance of birth.....not sealed in an LDS family (still not), with a single mother who was poor and made poor relational choices?

Maybe no, maybe yes. it all depends. The scriptures make it quite plain that very often things that outwardly seem to be curses are actually blessings in disguise. And this is how I feel about this whole topic. I believe the priesthood ban, the curse the Lord put upon the Lamanites,

Do you think my black father was less valiant  in the pre-mortal life because he was raised in a country that was in the middle of a civil war (and they were on the losing side), was a refugee for a time, knew the feeling of hunger and homelessness, and probably had PTSD as a child from hearing bombs drop and seeing dead bodies that were killed? Do you think my Mexican-american father was less great and noble because he was raised poor in a family of migrant workers and trash pickers and was left in a social system of choosing between his cultural heritage and financial success/stability? Or my brother from also being raised by a Navajo single mother, living much of his life on a reservation where poverty is rampant, and then having to move up to his father and step-mother to have the chance of a decent education?  I could go on.

 

But the flaw in what you've stated for me is not some issues with hearing "trigger words" or my power to maintain "rational objective reasoning" (which P.S., I don't think exists in any human) while reading his talk or just your thoughts about these so-called deep truths. My problem is simply that it doesn't resonate with my lived experience. It goes against what God has whispered to my soul or told me flat out in my Patriarchal blessing. In short "the thought makes  reason stare." It limits God's mercy, his Justice, and more importantly: how he views his children.

 

I don't say this to turn you away from answering. I still want an answer and feel that that is simple courtesy considering I have done what you've asked not once (answered your q's), but twice (read Peterson's talk more carefully). If you answer yes to either or feel they're loaded q's, explain. And then follow up with the other two questions: If so, where is your scriptural proof for it? Ask yourself is this just, is this fair, are you better than me in following the Gospel because of your skin color/ancestry?...explain and give some line of documentation and reasoning to it. People can vouch for me, I'm not one to jump down other's throats, even when I fundamentally disagree with them. I'm a believer in fairness and that everyone deserves a chance to explain themselves. So please, explain yourself. 

 

You've now had 30+ hrs to mull this over and the way you write assumes a level of certainty in what you know from Peterson's address....so it really shouldn't be that hard to answer 4 simple questions. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Let's make this simple and much easier for both of us to handle. Ask me one question at a time (only one question), and I will answer you one question at a time. A proliferation of too many emotion-charged words tends to breed confusion and misunderstanding. Clarity of thought is imperative when addressing such delicate subject matter.

[Flyonthewall]

Ok. So based on this what good are they?  Why should I listen to them if they are simply products of their culture and God does not speak to them to tell them to be outspoken against the evils of racism or misogyny?  And so you know I hold the Apostle Paul to the same standard.

Because they do address the issues of our times.

Sometimes we can only take baby steps so a lower bar is set for us. That is the whole reason for the Mosaic law - because Israel was not ready for the higher law.

Now could the higher law have be impletented anyway? sure. Could some of Israel abide by it? I am sure some could but not the majority.

I would think similarly we needed a more gradual transition for the race issues.

So was the Law of Moses wrong? Well it sure has things in it that would insult our senses today, but it was what was needed at the time.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Flyonthewall

[Sanpitch]

I would like an answer to my question to Sanpitch about what teachings the members in South Africa would be unaware of. I'm REALLY curious. You said it. Back it up.

I think I've answered this before, I know nothing of South Africa but I don't think the LDS people in Utah know much about Petersen's speech so why would someone on the other side of the world know much about it.  Things like the Black issue and polygamy are not really well publicized.   Why the big issue with you? 

Edited August 29, 2015 by Sanpitch

[Raingirl]

Let's make this simple and much easier for both of us to handle. Ask me one question at a time (only one question), and I will answer you one question at a time. A proliferation of too many emotion-charged words tends to breed confusion and misunderstanding. Clarity of thought is imperative when addressing such delicate subject matter.

Butting into the conversation for a moment.....

 

You really were asked a few simple questions.  That were repeated again so you wouldn't even have to bother to search back for them. Such as :"Do you think I, because of my ancestry will only obtain the level of servant in the CK?".   A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that is required to answer such a question.  True,  you might then be asked to explain why you gave the answer you gave, but why refuse to even answer the straightforward question?

 

Yet you keep weaving and bobbing and writing long non-answers, all with this air of...what? That no one here but you is bright enough to understand the subject at hand?  That you have some special super-secret insight that you don't want to divulge?  You make references to "trigger words" and "trigger expressions" and "revelatory insight" that you possess (and only you possess? Or is everyone else just not bright enough to understand your special viewpoint?) and expound at length without ever answering four simple questions.

 

I know it's not my conversation, but even I as an observer am wondering why you continue to avoid answering these questions.

[carbon dioxide]

Well if they are no better than being products of their time and culture why should I listen to them?

 

Perhaps statements made by the following might help guide you on these issues

 

"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator-please note that one exception-you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works, you may know by the same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it." (Harold B. Lee, "Stand Ye in Holy Places" p. 162-163)

 

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-204)

 

"The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the standard works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the standard works." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 111)

 

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted." ( LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," lds.org (4 May 2007)

 

"In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith, and decision. In the capacity of a quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice-the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants... Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:91-92)

 

"An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be." (Joseph Fielding Smith, "Eternal Keys and the Right to Preside," Ensign (July 1972): p. 88)

[Tacenda]

I think I've answered this before, I know nothing of South Africa but I don't think the LDS people in Utah know much about Petersen's speech so why would someone on the other side of the world know much about it. Things like the Black issue and polygamy are not really well publicized. Why the big issue with you?

This happens...one way to mess with your mind.

[Teancum]

Glad to see you verify that you hold to a double standard.

 

Your rationalization about avoiding responsibility is unfounded and simply a red herring. This and your other comments clearly show the contempt you hold the church and its leaders in.

 

Ah ok.  Carry on in whatever you feel you need to in order to maintain your testimony. If it works for you I am happy for you.,  But you your claim that I have double standard based on your own specious comments without explaining why is revealing.

 

Additionally your attempt to poison the well is apparent.  I have no contempt al all for the Church nor for its leaders though I think they and the apologists should own things rather than dismiss them as is so very common. 

 

Believe it or not I still attend and hold a TR though I was surprised after my last interview that I got one.  Since I still live the commandments but have issues with the belief questions at least for my bishop and SP it seems orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy.

[Bobbieaware]

Butting into the conversation for a moment.....

 

You really were asked a few simple questions.  That were repeated again so you wouldn't even have to bother to search back for them. Such as :"Do you think I, because of my ancestry will only obtain the level of servant in the CK?".   A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that is required to answer such a question.  True,  you might then be asked to explain why you gave the answer you gave, but why refuse to even answer the straightforward question?

 

Yet you keep weaving and bobbing and writing long non-answers, all with this air of...what? That no one here but you is bright enough to understand the subject at hand?  That you have some special super-secret insight that you don't want to divulge?  You make references to "trigger words" and "trigger expressions" and "revelatory insight" that you possess (and only you possess? Or is everyone else just not bright enough to understand your special viewpoint?) and expound at length without ever answering four simple questions.

 

I know it's not my conversation, but even I as an observer am wondering why you continue to avoid answering these questions.

Thank you for your concern. My request for one question at a time is a deliberate attempt on my part to try to bring calm and deliberation to an emotion-charged situation.

[Calm]

I think you are reading emotion into the conversation where there isn't any, at least from others besides yourself.  Perhaps this subject is one you feel emotionally charged over so you are assuming others feel this way.

 

And certainly Bluedreams has been very deliberate and thoughtful in responding to you.

 

Apparently you were able to construct a list of questions that wasn't too emotionally charged for Bluedreams to answer.  

 

It would be polite for you to just go ahead and do what you promised to do and answer her questions.  

 

I promise that if I see the least bit of overcharged emotions leaking from Bluedreams, I will do my best to calm her down but I have yet to see Bluedreams overcharged emotionally and I find it rather patronizing that you think she is.

Edited August 29, 2015 by calmoriah