1st Pres. and NAACP

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

When talking about a hoax versus something that is taught in all sincerity? Of course it is!

A need for an apology is stated with all sincerity.  I didn't do the hoax.  It happened.  I'm not after the guy who did it either.  I just think its small potatoes in terms of effect and hurt caused compared to the ban and resultant racism that spanned many decades.  

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

 

Of course you are. 

It doesn't sound like you are concerned at all that it was an elaborate hoax. End justifies the means, for the greater good, it's what they should've said, etc. and all that. 

In like manner, if you are intent on painting me that way, I suppose it sounds like you are so pleased that so many were hurt over the decades due to the racism inherent in the ban.  End justifies the means, for the greater good, its what they should've said, etc. and all that.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The reason they felt the spirit and were moved to tears is because the apology statement had the sentiment of a true apology for all the racism and harm that has been perpetuated by the church.   The spirit of the apology is written in the spirit of gospel principles. 

Unfortunately since it wasn't a real apology from the institution, and was rather a fraudulent apology by a third party, the end result of this stunt was to cause significant additional trauma.  

The spirit is present when things that resonate with our current beliefs are expressed.  People that believe in healing and reconciliation and equality and forgiveness are going to feel the spirit when they read a message like that.  

Just a technicality but Rongo doesn't know if anyone actually believed they felt the spirit or not.  

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Quite a bit.

 

 

I would answer "no," because I think it was God's will (inception, duration, and ending). Aside from that, though, there is one big difference between the hoax and the priesthood ban and explanations for it: the intent and knowledge of the "perpetrator." Streeter knew what he was doing, and put a lot of time and effort into counterfeiting First Presidency letters, website material, etc. Those who taught the priesthood ban believed themselves that what they were teaching was true; they were not palming off an intentional fraud. 

That's a really big difference, isn't it? One with a bearing on "jerk move" rankings? 

You seem to be suggesting the Church, it’s leaders, God, didn’t know what they were doing when they instituted the ban. Is that really the route you wish to go down?

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

You seem to be suggesting the Church, it’s leaders, God, didn’t know what they were doing when they instituted the ban. Is that really the route you wish to go down?

No I'm not. They believed they were following scripture and doing what God wanted done at that time (and I agree with them). 

What I am suggesting --- actually, saying --- is that they were *not* knowingly instituting a policy or doctrine they, themselves, didn't believe and that they knew wasn't true. 

Surely you're not suggesting that Streeter didn't know he wasn't really writing a real First Presidency letter and a real transcript from the press conference on the Church's real website. That's my point. 

[Marginal Gains]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

No I'm not. They believed they were following scripture and doing what God wanted done at that time (and I agree with them). 

What I am suggesting --- actually, saying --- is that they were *not* knowingly instituting a policy or doctrine they, themselves, didn't believe and that they knew wasn't true. 

Surely you're not suggesting that Streeter didn't know he wasn't really writing a real First Presidency letter and a real transcript from the press conference on the Church's real website. That's my point. 

So if the hoaxer believed he was doing what God wanted, then it wouldn’t have been a jerk move?

“they were *not* knowingly instituting a policy or doctrine they, themselves, didn't believe and that they knew wasn't true.“

You can’t say this^ because you don’t know who instituted it, nor on what basis it was instituted.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

White dude?

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmm."

Clarification: I said stupid white dude. I find it a necessary adjective

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Not sure if this is the first time you're mentioning this, but congratulations.

And just so I'm sure, you're not Megan Markhle, right?

Haha! No....thats a bit much of a weddinng for me. I mentioned i was getting married in the social section...which is why i’ve basically disappeared....and why i saw the pranks super late. It’s been a crazy couple of months.

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, but her husband is a prince ... Well, he's her Prince, and that's close enough.    (Seriously, congratulations, Blue Dreams.)

Thanks! 

 

With luv, 

BD

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I've been thinking about this over the last several days. The incident with the fake website and fake transcript and falsified letters on letterhead, links, articles, etc. has illustrated the difficulty and pitfalls in discerning inspiration and the Holy Ghost from our own wants and inclinations. I think what he did was a jerk move, and the pain and anger he caused people makes me angry. Par for the course with activist ex-members. But I also found it interesting that several members (some on this board, some in our wards, some who have commented online) were moved to tears and felt that they felt the Spirit as they read it and before they knew it was a fake. And it was a fake. Thus, what they felt to be inspiration and confirmation through the Holy Ghost was really their hopes and wants, given expression through the hoax. This reminds me of something President George Q. Cannon said: 

 

Likewise with BB in clarification (thouh i didnt cry at all...tears are rare for me). I was careful on my wording for a reason and described it as relief and hope. Not necessarily spiritual confirmation of anything. Just excitement at something new and potentially very positive. I was actually surprised by the sense of relief because it was a weight I didnt fully realize i was carrying. I was planning to study, think about, and add whatever i could to the change. But that was beyond short lived. 

 

 

With luv,

BD 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Just a technicality but Rongo doesn't know if anyone actually believed they felt the spirit or not.  

I'm personally aware of accounts from people I interact with on social media that said they felt the spirit when they first read the apology letter.  

I have expressed this before, but I'll reiterate in a short summary.  The spirit is a subjective experience, it is not a ruler by which we can objectively measure and agree on facts about the universe.  It is a feeling and it is subjective and it varies by each individual, and is influenced by their temperament, background, culture, circumstances, etc. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by hope_for_things

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

So if the hoaxer believed he was doing what God wanted, then it wouldn’t have been a jerk move?

No, it still would have. He would still be knowingly doing a hoax, even though in his mind it was for the "right reason."

Do you honestly not understand that?

“they were *not* knowingly instituting a policy or doctrine they, themselves, didn't believe and that they knew wasn't true.“

You can’t say this^ because you don’t know who instituted it, nor on what basis it was instituted.

Are you honestly claiming that the priesthood ban was just a big hoax (in their minds)? If so, you're just playing games. Do you really believe that? Or, are you just shooting a Bazooka randomly, trolling in this thread?

I mean, it's not like I have a question about that . . .  

As far as this goes, though, I know enough for me, based on the evidence, that whoever instituted it or on what basis it was instituted, it wasn't a knowing hoax on their part, too. I take the Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham Smoot statements at face value, and so I know (for myself) who instituted it and from that point, on what basis. Others may disagree, but I don't think I would be able to find one who would claim with a straight face that it was a hoax like the Streeter hoax. 

[Marginal Gains]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, it still would have. He would still be knowingly doing a hoax, even though in his mind it was for the "right reason."

A bit like the Kinderhook plates then.

[Marginal Gains]

Quote

 

“they were *not* knowingly instituting a policy or doctrine they, themselves, didn't believe and that they knew wasn't true.“

 You can’t say this^ because you don’t know who instituted it, nor on what basis it was instituted.

 

 

Quote

 

Are you honestly claiming that the priesthood ban was just a big hoax (in their minds)? If so, you're just playing games. Do you really believe that? Or, are you just shooting a Bazooka randomly, trolling in this thread?

I mean, it's not like I have a question about that . . .  

As far as this goes, though, I know enough for me, based on the evidence, that whoever instituted it or on what basis it was instituted, it wasn't a knowing hoax on their part, too. I take the Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham Smoot statements at face value, and so I know (for myself) who instituted it and from that point, on what basis. Others may disagree, but I don't think I would be able to find one who would claim with a straight face that it was a hoax like the Streeter hoax. 

 

No, I’m saying...

Quote

“they were *not* knowingly instituting a policy or doctrine they, themselves, didn't believe and that they knew wasn't true.“

 You can’t say this^ because you don’t know who instituted it, nor on what basis it was instituted.

Unless of course, you do know and can demonstrate who instituted the ban, and why. Can you do that?

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, I’m saying...

 You can’t say this^ because you don’t know who instituted it, nor on what basis it was instituted.

Unless of course, you do know and can demonstrate who instituted the ban, and why. Can you do that?

I already answered that. I can for myself, but you're insisting that I prove to your satisfaction something that you refuse to accept, no matter what. Just as a trolling game. 

Turning the tables: What evidence do you have that the ban was a Streeterian hoax? Prove it to my satisfaction. 

See how juvenile that is? 

I have a lot more credible evidence for my position (already noted) than you do for your not-really-serious one. And you know it? 

(Next, you're going to CFR me on that, too, right?)

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I already answered that. I can for myself, but you're insisting that I prove to your satisfaction something that you refuse to accept, no matter what. Just as a trolling game. 

Turning the tables: What evidence do you have that the ban was a Streeterian hoax? Prove it to my satisfaction. 

See how juvenile that is? 

I have a lot more credible evidence for my position (already noted) than you do for your not-really-serious one. And you know it? 

(Next, you're going to CFR me on that, too, right?)

You know who instituted the ban and why? That’s fantastic news. You need to inform the Church ASAP so they can update Race And The Priesthood.

And yes, CFR

Edited May 22, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

And yes, CFR

In order to answer this ("I have a lot more credible evidence for my position (already noted) than you do for your not-really-serious one"), I would first need to know what your evidence is that the priesthood ban was a Streeterian hoax. Otherwise, we can't compare.

Your move.  CFR. List your evidence. 

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, rongo said:

In order to answer this ("I have a lot more credible evidence for my position (already noted) than you do for your not-really-serious one"), I would first need to know what your evidence is that the priesthood ban was a Streeterian hoax. Otherwise, we can't compare.

Your move.  CFR. List your evidence. 

No, in order to answer the CFR you need to put up your supporting references that you know who instituted the ban and on what basis.

I repeat my CFR. (Second time of asking)

[rongo]

Just now, Marginal Gains said:

No, in order to answer the CFR you need to put up your supporting references that you know who instituted the ban and on what basis.

I repeat my CFR. (Second time of asking)

I already did (the Coltrin and Smoot statements given at John Taylor's behest). They both state that Joseph Smith told them that blacks couldn't have the priesthood. That others reject their testimony doesn't change the fact that it is my reference. 

Now, what are your references for your Streeterian hoax theory? I repeat my CFR. Second time asking.  

[Marginal Gains]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I already did (the Coltrin and Smoot statements given at John Taylor's behest). They both state that Joseph Smith told them that blacks couldn't have the priesthood. That others reject their testimony doesn't change the fact that it is my reference. 

Now, what are your references for your Streeterian hoax theory? I repeat my CFR. Second time asking.  

You’re only half way there. You said you knew why it was instituted.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

You’re only half way there. You said you knew why it was instituted.

I'm going with the "disavowed" reasons.  Those are my reasons for why it was instituted. 

Your turn. I can't wait to read what you come up with as far as evidence that will convince me that Joseph Smith/Brigham Young intended to set up a Streeterian hoax in instituting the ban. This ought to be good. 

Judging from your past behavior, you will simply ignore this and go on trolling in other threads. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by rongo

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, rongo said:

I'm going with the "disavowed" reasons.  Those are my reasons for why it was instituted. 

Your turn. 

I don’t understand what you mean. For what specific reasons do you “know” were behind the ban?

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I don’t understand what you mean. For what specific reasons do you “know” were behind the ban?

You're playing dumb. I know this because you and I have had a conversation about this in another forum on this specific point, so I know that you know what explanations were "disavowed" in the Race and Priesthood Essay.

If you list them (in your head, or here), these are the reasons given for the ban. If you make the list (here, or in your head), you have your answer.

But you already know that. When are you getting around to your share of the CFR jamboree?

Edited May 22, 2018 by rongo

[Marginal Gains]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

You're playing dumb. I know this because you and I have had a conversation about this in another forum on this specific point, so I know that you know what explanations were "disavowed" in the Race and Priesthood Essay.

If you list them (in your head, or here), these are the reasons given for the ban. If you make the list (here, or in your head), you have your answer.

But you already know that. When are you getting around to your share of the CFR jamboree?

So God allowed His Prophets to institute a ban based on incorrect theories about race. That’s your position. Wow.

Now in terms of your CFR on me.

Quote

Your turn. I can't wait to read what you come up with as far as evidence that will convince me that Joseph Smith/Brigham Young intended to set up a Streeterian hoax in instituting the ban. This ought to be good. 

I didn’t claim that Joseph Smith/Brigham Young intended to set up a Streeterian hoax instituting the ban.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Now in terms of your CFR on me.

I didn’t claim that Joseph Smith/Brigham Young intended to set up a Streeterian hoax instituting the ban.

At least that's clarified! 

Who do you think started the ban? i.e., do you place it with Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? What reasons do you claim that he/they had for the ban?

Where do you come down on the Coltrin/Smoot statements?   

 

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So God allowed His Prophets to institute a ban on incorrect theories about race. That’s your position. Wow.

No, of course that isn't my position. My position (a minority position here, to be sure) is that it was based on correct ideas about race. But, I'm quite literal and less "nuanced" in my views on doctrine, scripture, and population dynamics than many here. 

I believe that its inception, duration, and ending were all what God wanted, when he wanted it. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by rongo

[Marginal Gains]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, my position (a minority position here, to be sure) is that it was based on correct ideas about race. But, I'm quite literal and less "nuanced" in my views on doctrine, scripture, and population dynamics than many here. 

I believe that its inception, duration, and ending were all what God wanted, when he wanted it. 

Correct ideas about race? Such as?

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Correct ideas about race? Such as?

That our race (and many other things, such as era, geography, family placement, etc.) are influenced by the pre-existence. I don't believe it's just a random accident of circumstances and chance where any of us, anywhere, entered this life and what we would face. 

I'm curious whether you, personally, place the ban with Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? And, what do you do with the Coltrin/Smoot statements? Do you dismiss them, and if so, why? You tend to ignore most questions and ask questions yourself. This isn't a gotcha, and I've answered all of your questions. Go ahead and answer mine!  

Edited May 22, 2018 by rongo