The purpose of Blacks and the Priesthood ban - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

TripletDaddy · 12-13-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

The question I would ask Mike, whom I also beat up on occasion but he knows I do it out of love and a desire to help him, is who is "we". By that do you mean the church leadership. By we do you mean the leadership at BYU and on Cougarboard.

You have to realize Mike the bulk of the church is not like that. The bulk of the church is not as the perception goes out or is put out by the zealots. I think the church leaders are reasonable men and say reasonable things, it is the zealots that then enhance their words and as most zealots do, get heard the most.

Does anyone really think most kids at BYU are like what is the perception. Probably closer now under the current restrictions, but still not an accurate portrayal.

Once again, correct. recently on CB, there was an informal poll taken before the statewide vote on vouchers, just to see how closely the CB opinion mirrored the general Utah opinion. Turns out that it wasnt even close....the two are not aligned.

CB is populated with several extremists who are protected by a set of rules that allows them to run and post amok while dissenters are identified as rabble-rousers. I would even venture to guess that CB, if left completely unfettered, would actually be comprised of fewer mullahs than people here may believe.

So a prediction of mass apostasy when truth is finally revealed is nonsense...since many, or most, are already aware to one degree or another.

mike is not talking to me right now. Please pass him a note that says that I love him and want to help him, just as you do. mike uses the socratic method (poorly), overly dramatic hypotheticals, and multiple logins posing as different personalities to spur thought and to point out erroneous thinking. I simply use sarcasm.

creekster · 12-13-2007, 02:51 PM

Mike, you kill me sometimes. As one who had reached the age of majoirty (at least as far as the military was concerned) in 1978 when the ban was lifted, I can tell you that the negative press was very significant. You talk as though no one noticed the priesthood ban until now. Not so, my young friend. This new scrutiny may result in a wave of negativity, but it will also generate a wave of support and genuine inquiry. I am not opposed to your concept of innoculation, although I would probabyl differ in approach to implementing same. To think, however, that becaseu a few pundits trumpet their disagreement with the church that the churhc will suffer dramtacially is simply wrong. As long as they spell our name correctly, we'll be fine. Besides, if you believe there is truth, as in eternal truth, in the gospel, then how can you contend otherwise?

creekster · 12-13-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

That's why it took 40 years.

Either your sense of humor is back or you are losing it completely.

MikeWaters · 12-13-2007, 02:53 PM

Gains that have been made are reduced in value and perception by the inability and unwillingness to be forthright and open.

In other words, like many things in life, it is not about what is good. It is about what is better. Is not what one has gained, but what one would have gained if one had been wiser.

Jeff Lebowski · 12-13-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I am seeing a new wrinkle to your persona....melodrama!

I dub this thread..."A Very Special Episode of mikewaters"....

Sorry Mike. But I got a chuckle out of that one.

ilmf · 12-13-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

In fact, I predict you will have many members announcing that true facts are actually lies. Imagine the confusion that will result, when they realize that they themselves have lied. Will they feel lied to, or deceived?

I laugh when I think back to my mission -- if someone we tracked into would have ever told me things like Joseph Smith had plural wives or that he translated the BOM by putting his face into a hat, I would have "testified" that those things were not true, and thought that the person was of the Devil.

The culture of not embracing our Mormon history has created the point that Mike's trying to make, I think. Saying "not embracing" is maybe sugar coating it too. All just my opinion, of course.

BYU71 · 12-13-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

That's why it took 40 years.

LOL, nice to see the humor gene didn't dissapear.

creekster · 12-13-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Gains that have been made are reduced in value and perception by the inability and unwillingness to be forthright and open.

In other words, like many things in life, it is not about what is good. It is about what is better. Is not what one has gained, but what one would have gained if one had been wiser.

If you believe that, then you are backward looking and of no value to thos who want to move forward. I don't beleive that you mean that.

BYU71 · 12-13-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilmf

I laugh when I think back to my mission -- if someone we tracked into would have ever told me things like Joseph Smith had plural wives or that he translated the BOM by putting his face into a hat, I would have "testified" that those things were not true, and thought that the person was of the Devil.

The culture of not embracing our Mormon history has created the point that Mike's trying to make, I think. Saying "not embracing" is maybe sugar coating it too. All just my opinion, of course.

You are not my age. You wouldn't believe the stuff we taught or were taught. That is what has given me one of my obsessions. Everything said by the brethern is not doctrine. Counsel is not commandment.

Some people just don't want to hear that. They don't want to be alone. They want someone to lead them and it is very comforting for them to think the person leading them has a direct link to God. How much better can it get.

I have no problem actually with those people feeling that way. To each their own. I only have a problem when they try to tell me I am an apostate or leading people astray if I don't agree with them. Don't laugh. I have gotten such board-mails. Even over the stinking honor code as if that is something equivalent to the ten commandments.

MikeWaters · 12-13-2007, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

If you believe that, then you are backward looking and of no value to thos who want to move forward. I don't beleive that you mean that.

I am saying there is more to be gained by honestly addressing racism that there is in being silent.

Act now. Your gains in the future will be greater. Don't act, you limit your gains.

I'm looking into the future.

12-13-2007, 02:51 PM	#22
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	Mike, you kill me sometimes. As one who had reached the age of majoirty (at least as far as the military was concerned) in 1978 when the ban was lifted, I can tell you that the negative press was very significant. You talk as though no one noticed the priesthood ban until now. Not so, my young friend. This new scrutiny may result in a wave of negativity, but it will also generate a wave of support and genuine inquiry. I am not opposed to your concept of innoculation, although I would probabyl differ in approach to implementing same. To think, however, that becaseu a few pundits trumpet their disagreement with the church that the churhc will suffer dramtacially is simply wrong. As long as they spell our name correctly, we'll be fine. Besides, if you believe there is truth, as in eternal truth, in the gospel, then how can you contend otherwise? __________________ Sorry for th e tpyos.

12-13-2007, 02:53 PM	#24
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Gains that have been made are reduced in value and perception by the inability and unwillingness to be forthright and open. In other words, like many things in life, it is not about what is good. It is about what is better. Is not what one has gained, but what one would have gained if one had been wiser.