On Elijah Able

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

The reality is that Mike's righteous indignation about this guy making the claim he did, in light of the reality that most borderlander/progressive's argue that the genesis of the ban came under BY's leadership, is pretty justified. Millet knows what the borderlander/progressive argument is and he sought to win over the hearts and minds of the faithfull by linking the ban to Joseph Smith. As Mike's irate actions indicate linking it to the prophet puts a big dent in their argument. Personally, I don't care. Either it was of God or it wasn't and whether its genesis is with Joseph as the President or Brigham Young makes me no nevermind. For the borderlanders it is a big deal as a big part of the support for the claim that it was never revelatory lies in Joseph Smith having no role in initiating the ban.

Either way I think for someone who seeks to be a legitimate academic I found Millet's response to be rather incriminating. Millet should be familiar enough with the alternate theory to know such a claim that Joseph Smith restricted Elijah Able's rights to utilize the Priesthood conferred upon him should be supportable or not made.

I don't know as to what Millet's motivation is for the promulgation of unsupportable assertions/falsehoods so as to whether or not it is priestcraft, I cannot judge.

Personally, I don't care where it originated (JS vs BY). The process of tracing the roots is useful in that it sheds light on how how the ban evolved. JS ordained Elijah Abel in spite of how many folks interpret the PoGP, so that is good evidence that he did not start the ban or link it to a curse of cain. The first definitive writing on the ban was from BY, and he linked it to the mark of Cain. There is no specific discussion of a revelation anywhere. The modern church (thankfully) has disavowed the mark of Cain folklore (which was present long before the PoGP) and all other justifications. There is nothing left to support the ban or to give it any kind of divinely sanctioned legitimacy.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Mike and I (and others) both said that Millet was clearly FOS on the issue. You refused to take our word (no surprise there). GN simply confirmed what we were saying all along.

Yes, kudos to Goat.

Why should I blindly take your word? Do you think you know and have read everything that Millet knows and has read? What if he had something new to offer? Was there any harm in asking? Was there any harm in waiting to weigh in on the subject until after Millet responded?

Is intellectual curiosity only a good thing until you've made up your mind, after which trying to find out more is a bad thing?

Don't try and paint me as saying that Mike was wrong on this subject. The only thing I said he was wrong about was not asking Millet to find out what, if anything, he based his comments on.

Holy shit, that was an unreasonable position I took.

[MikeWaters]

Millet should apologize. "I apologize for stating as fact things with zero historical fact, while ignoring the extant historical works. As the former dean of religious studies, I know this is wrong. I am deeply sorry about this."

Instead he claims he has a right to his oponion, even though on TV he states it as fact. Absolutely ubbelievable.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Absolutely ubbelievable.

I hope you recover from your cold very soon, Mike.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Why should I blindly take your word? Do you think you know and have read everything that Millet knows and has read? What if he had something new to offer? Was there any harm in asking? Was there any harm in waiting to weigh in on the subject until after Millet responded?

Is intellectual curiosity only a good thing until you've made up your mind, after which trying to find out more is a bad thing?

Don't try and paint me as saying that Mike was wrong on this subject. The only thing I said he was wrong about was not asking Millet to find out what, if anything, he based his comments on.

Holy shit, that was an unreasonable position I took.

I have no problem with you not believing us. Where you are being a dumbass here is insisting that Mike had any kind of moral obligation to get Millet to admit his error before he justifiably called him out.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I have no problem with you not believing us. Where you are being a dumbass here is insisting that Mike had any kind of moral obligation to get Millet to admit his error before he justifiably called him out.

If that's the thumbtack you want to hang your hat on, fine.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Personally, I don't care where it originated (JS vs BY). The process of tracing the roots is useful in that it sheds light on how how the ban evolved. JS ordained Elijah Abel in spite of how many folks interpret the PoGP, so that is good evidence that he did not start the ban or link it to a curse of cain. The first definitive writing on the ban was from BY, and he linked it to the mark of Cain. There is no specific discussion of a revelation anywhere. The modern church (thankfully) has disavowed the mark of Cain folklore (which was present long before the PoGP) and all other justifications. There is nothing left to support the ban or to give it any kind of divinely sanctioned legitimacy.

Yes, and let's not forget that the POGP was not cannonized scripture until 1880. In fact, if memory serves, there isn't even a POGP until 1842 (and then it was published in the Times & Seasons.) There was the translation of the BoA in 1835, of course, but was it well-circulated amongst the Saints? Did Joseph cite it in public speeches? In personal correspondance? I don't recall reading an incident of that happening before 1842 (but I might just be having a brain lock).

[Cali Coug]

I had an interesting discussion with a historian recently who thinks the priesthood ban can be traced largely to events involving Walker Lewis. You can read about him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Lewis

Walker Lewis was a very prominent abolitionist (and was black). He joined the church and was very high ranking in his masonic lodge. He eventually became the highest ranking mason in his lodge. This happened about the time the church was finishing the temple in Navoo (where most Mormon men were masons).

The masons sent an edict to all lodges that blacks were not to be permitted to enter into the masonic temples, and the Mormons in Navoo received that edict and implemented that practice in their masonic temples. This may have been the genesis for disallowing blacks to enter into Mormon temples as well.

There is a pretty interesting article (linked below) that goes into far more detail.

http://people.ucsc.edu/~odonovan/eld...ker_lewis.html

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

JS ordained Elijah Abel in spite of how many folks interpret the PoGP, so that is good evidence that he . . . did not . . . link it to a curse of cain.

Here is some contrary evidence.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20172

Mine is not circumstantial nor conjectural, but comes direct from the horse's mouth.

[Tex]

I'm genuinely curious as to why Millet didn't provide more data. Maybe he didn't understand Goat's question or maybe he just didn't want to take the time. I took several classes from him, including PoGP, and spent several visits in his office talking to him about various issues. He also happens to be an outstanding emissary of the church to other faiths, has been the vehicle of several fruitful interfaith efforts, and even gotten some pastors/preachers of other faiths to come and speak at the Y.

In short, the role of liar or distortionist (or "FOS" as Lebowski so delicately puts it) I have a hard time assigning to Millet. It just doesn't seem consistent with the man I know. Maybe I'll email him myself.

But to the point of argument, Mike called the people in that 60-minute clip "false priests and priestesses," practitioners of "priestcraft," espousing views no different from the 1940's, and so on. Whatever one thinks of Millet's opinion on who originated the ban, these are clearly over-the-top allegations. Morever, he didn't even listen to the entire conversation, and when asked, could not produce examples of what he found objectionable.

Mike is a bombastic, petulant child on so many issues ... be it blacks, Palestine, torture, or you name it ... and deserves every word of criticism he gets. Small wonder that Lebowski slithers on by to defend him.