On Elijah Able

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by 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.

Waters is just killing the messenger. This seems to be a new school of apologetics here: "BY, Mark Peterson, who cares what they said. JS didn't say it and it's not in the canon." Millet says the authority for the ban was likely the Pearl of Great Price. That is at least a defensible statement. The Pearl of Great Price says Pharoah was cursed as to the priesthood because of his black skin. I submit Millet was simply stating the obvious.

I'm not interested in a bunch of sophistry about how I'm misreading the Pearl of Great Price. So all you newly minted apologists hold your fingers.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by 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.

But Mike appears to be right, so perhaps you might be wise enough to seek for a better fighting position that in the middle of the enemy's kill sack encircled by anti-personnel mines.

Mike is an ass, but am I understand that character trait is somehow offensive to you?

Find another angle. In this case it appears that Millett said something that has no support. I don't think evaluating his motivation to be less than pure is so far off the mark. Right now his defense is that you, an admitted defender of what "The Church" does, remember him as a wholesome and kind man. Not real compelling, IMO.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

But Mike appears to be right, so perhaps you might be wise enough to seek for a better fighting position that in the middle of the enemy's kill sack encircled by anti-personnel mines.

Mike is an ass, but am I understand that character trait is somehow offensive to you?

Find another angle. In this case it appears that Millett said something that has no support. I don't think evaluating his motivation to be less than pure is so far off the mark. Right now his defense is that you, an admitted defender of what "The Church" does, remember him as a wholesome and kind man. Not real compelling, IMO.

I'm not trying to be compelling. I'm simply surprised and interested in investigating further, since it strikes me as inconsistent.

As to the specific point of Abel and Joseph Smith, I'm happy to concede it given the lack of evidence. Like you, it doesn't much matter to me where it begins, be it JS or BY. It wasn't really the crux of Mike's stupid point to begin with (I'd love to hear someone justify how Millet's "mistake" qualifies as "priestcraft").

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

In this case it appears that Millett said something that has no support.

you mean other than the text of the Pearl of Great Price itself?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Waters is just killing the messenger. This seems to be a new school of apologetics here: "JS, BY, Mark Peterson, who cares what they said. It's not in the canon." Millet says the authority for the ban was likely the Pearl of Great Price. That is at least a defensible statement. The Pearl of Great Price says Pharoah was cursed as to the priesthood because of his black skin. I submit Millet was simply stating the obvious.

I'm not interested in a bunch of sophistry about how I'm misreading the Pearl of Great Price. So all you newly minted apologists hold your fingers.

This is an interesting coupling.

Where Millet goes wrong, or at least gets sloppy, is linking JS's "restricting" of Abel's priesthood with the PoGP, where no "restriction" exists, or at least for which he offers no evidence.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not trying to be "compelling." I'm simply surprised and interested in investigating further, since it strikes me as inconsistent.

As to the specific point of Abel and Joseph Smith, I'm happy to concede it given the lack of evidence. Like you, it doesn't much matter to me where it begins, be it JS or BY. It wasn't really the crux of Mike's stupid point to begin with (I'd love to hear someone justify how Millet's "mistake" qualifies as "priestcraft").

My guess is that Mike is assuming that Millett, as an academic who was confident enough to speak on the origins of the ban, probably is familiar enough with the subject that he knows that Joseph Smith did not institute any restrictions on Elijah Abel. Priestcraft is the abuse of God given positions of authority. While being a religion teacher at BYU is not a calling from God, per se, Brother Millett is treated as an expert on the subject by many within the Church. Mike appears to be accusing the man of purposely leading folks astray as to the origins of the ban by promulgating falsehoods from a position of respected authority. Hell, I assumed it was true and was somewhat flabergasted by his response to me.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

you mean other than the text of the Pearl of Great Price itself?

I asked him to support his claim that Joseph Smith restricted Elijah Abel's ability to exercise the Priesthood that had been conferred to him. Millett had no support for his claim that Joseph Smith did such. He assumed that Smith had done it and then offered the PoGP as theological support for Smith's actions.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

My guess is that Mike is assuming that Millett, as an academic who was confident enough to speak on the origins of the ban, probably is familiar enough with the subject that he knows that Joseph Smith did not institute any restrictions on Elijah Abel. Priestcraft is the abuse of God given positions of authority. While being a religion teacher at BYU is not a calling from God, per se, Brother Millett is treated as an expert on the subject by many within the Church. Mike appears to be accusing the man of purposely leading folks astray as to the origins of the ban by promulgating falsehoods from a position of respected authority. Hell, I assumed it was true and was somewhat flabergasted by his response to me.

I was a little flabbergasted too, Goat, but you need a refresher on what priestcraft is: "for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.”

You're gonna be hard pressed to apply that to Millet based on this one murky issue. Waters is the type who assumes the worst about everyone with whom he disagrees. He's the most self-righteous mullah of any among us. I'm not going to excuse his juvenile behavior for the sake of one religion teacher's alleged bad judgment.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

[Waters] is the most self-righteous mullah of any among us. I'm not going to excuse his juvenile behavior for the sake of one religion teacher's alleged bad judgment.

A FREAKING MEN!!!!!!!

[MikeWaters]

Bad judgment? If he still works for BYU, he ought to come out with an apology, or be fired.

Period.

I do respect the man, though, for basically admitting to GN that he out and out lied.

It was 10 years ago. Maybe he has grown as a human being. Somehow I doubt it.

While two of you are "flabbergasted" I take that as code for "appalled." Yes, I am appalled as well.