P3: "One of the indicators that a person or group is insecure in their position, is their attempt to silence dissent." For every attempt by an OW supporter to silence dissent there have been at least 99 attempts by OW opponents to silent OW. By the authors own admission what does that say about opponents of OW? This author clearly ignores the plank in his own eye while writing about splinters in other people's eyes.
FWJ: Since the Pharisees, it has always been one of the characteristics of Christ's enemies, to be hypocritical, to live a double standard. In that regard this portion of the argument is perfect. One can assume by her argument that she thinks it is wrong that people have allegedly tried to silence the OW movement, but then she uses that fact as justification for silencing others. If that act is wrong against them, in the world of normalcy it should also be wrong for them to do the same. Her argument is the basic moral equivalent of: since my people suffered under slavery for so long, it is ok for me to be a slave owner?
P3: Not only that- but author fails to provide a single example of OW trying to silence him in any way. This comment is still here on this page along with the thousands of other comments by people like him who try to harass OW. OW doesn't take down comments of people opposed to them- however, the page does frequently fail to load properly. I have seen it appear as if some of my comments were deleted as well only to later see them appear on the page.
FWJ: The inability of the OW movement to understand or study things in context, applies to even simple tasks like reading my arguments. One need only pursue the page to realize that my comments are not there, and are only known in part because a third party posted a link to them. Further, I personally know the person who runs the page, and who is very involved in the OW movement, which would indicate, if Lisa is really connected to them, that she would likely know of the fact I have been barred. At the very least, if her concerns were honest, she would petition the administrator to let me comment, rather than attack my comments in the secure assurance that her attacks would not be answered.
P3: The author claims that my quote from Brigham Young may be have been improperly recorded or taken out of context. The quote was recorded in the Journal of Discourses. The Journal of Discourses is a church publication in which church historians recorded the official talks of early church leaders. It is basically like the older version of Ensign magazine but even more direct as it only records the speeches by prophets and apostles word or word and doesn't add commentary by the author. You can find a link to the publication on BYU's library website. By the author's standard why believe any church publication of any talk ever written which we ourselves do not hear first hand? After all, it could be entirely made up or taken out of context! And Brigham Young's quote is so racist and so long. Its not like he just uses one racist word, and its not like this was the only talk he ever gave on how and why he thought blacks were inferior. For that entire diatribe to have been mis-recorded it would have required the church historian to be this racist jerk who basically makes up entire speeches that were never given at conference and then attributes them to the prophet of the church in a publication supported by the church. Can you imagine if someone working at Ensign made up an entire racist speech and published it in Ensign magazine claiming it was a speech given by Pres. Monson at general conference?
FWJ: Here Lisa is colorizing the facts to suit her purpose, The Journal of Discourses is nothing like the Ensign. Anyone who has played the whisper game, knows intuitively, that human memory and human ability to record are as flawed as humans themselves. There was no recording equipment to verify the record in those days, unlike today were sound bites are readily reviewable. It is similarly an error for her to wishfully suppose that BY or any speaker spoke so slowly and deliberately that a scribe, writing by hand, could actually record in writing what was said “word for word”. Contrarily by the standard I suggest to OW and Anti-Mormons alike, which is to judge by the Holy Spirit, one can know the truth of anything published by, for or about the church. But her suspect assertions are only a part of the equation, whatever the possibilities of direct and accurate recording, she still misses the necessary facts of context, as demonstrated in her next remarks.
P3: You don't think that if Brigham Young said none of what was recorded by the church historian in the journal of discourses that at least one person would have said- I was at that conference and Brigham Young never gave this talk! And taken out of context? In what context is it ever alright to say any of the things Brigham Young said in that talk.
FWJ: This baseless claim presupposes omniscient abilities that would make Lisa's assumptions fact. She infers that the absence of objecting parties in her mind, means there were actually no people who stood up and sought to correct the record, a claim that she cannot possibly prove or verify, but she states it none the less. Another characteristic of Anti-Mormons and OW supporters is the pretence to omniscience. They make statements like “no one stood up to correct” which is impossible for them to actually know. They say things like millions of people, “as if they could get into the minds of millions of people" to make such authoritative claims. Or as another OW supporter claimed on a blog site, that the majority of ward and stake budgets favor males, which, given the thousands of units, was simply beyond her capacity to really know.
Additionally, the context issues remain. In spite of her certainty the BY was a racist, Lisa provides nothing to indicate she has researched or read every other statement made by BY with regard to race, thus we have no thematic context. She provides nothing of the political and religious issues of the day in which the comments were made, of what the church was facing etc, so we are left without historical context, finally she proceeds to judge him to be racist, by applying her private interpretation to the words recorded, as if her conclusion is the only one. As mentioned in my other posts, apparently ignored by Lisa, a person with such tendencies to ignore spiritual context would have walked away from the Jesus, as soon as she heard Him say that they would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to be part of him. Without spiritual context that is pretty gross. Such persons would similarly have decried Jesus as a racist for calling the Samaritan woman a dog.....not only did Jesus not ordain her, restricting priesthood to the Jews, but he called her a dog!. Spiritual context is essential, and leads the reader to the only true conclusion with regard to BY, that he was a loving servant of God and not a racist, but since that conclusion does not suite the OW supporters, spiritual context must always be left out.
P3: He then goes on to say "Your comment only serves to reinforce that conclusion as you can’t get much more Anti-Mormon than declaring the Prophet Brigham Young to be a disgusting, bigoted, racist." Well the recent church publication on race and the priesthood also said that former church teachers who taught the inferiority of blacks did so because they held racist beliefs. Is the official church publication on this issue also "Anti-Mormon?"
FWJ: Directly contrary to what Lisa claims the Church did not make any such claims, though again the agenda driven OW supporters will interpret even church statements to try and make them say what they want them to say. Here is the link for anyone who would like to check out what the Church really had to say on the topic:
P4: John Hicks So, said another way, we can all determine for ourselves how to interpret statements made by leadership about gospel related topics .... Hmmm .... Sounds good to me. I therefore choose for myself to support Ordain Women.
FWJ: No .....the point really is that even though those who do not want to know the truth, like John, will determine for themselves how they want to interpret the church leadership on gospel related topics, that is still a flawed methodology to obtain knowledge of absolute truths. Those who want to know such truths, and who are willing to let God rule instead of trying to replace him and his wisdom with their private desires, will seek the Holy Spirit and let God REVEAL the truth about all these issues. Such persons, out of respect and love for God, will then choose NOT to support Ordain Women.