Some day, perhaps, the student body will be mature enough generally to shun the priests among us but, for now anyway, the banishment of priests from our group is functional and necessary IMO.
If one places “IMO” at the end of a statement, it is overlooked, after the fact, where it is presented, as an afterthought to the primary forethought. Therefore, when I read your statement above, it is presented as a mandate, where if one would place the “IMO” at the beginning of the statement as, [ It is my opinion that, –] then adding the statement, but then by stating “student body” would indicate all students, and that “to shun the priests” would indicate that you believe there are individuals who deem themselves as “priests”, and then to indicate that those who you deem as “priest(s)” who may have been banished or sanctioned, is “functional and necessary”, for the group as you see it, and would therefore not be an opinion.
Also, when or if the moderators make a decision to take action based on the greater good of the group, and there are individuals who have an opinion as to these actions based on policy, should be accepted as a debate, however when, as you say, and influence your “opinion” upon others whereby making no specific statement as to priesthood, other than your implication that they have no place or voice here, is a leading statement to insight others to your, so called opinion, which is not much different than what a preacher would do from the pulpit.
As to “tadpoles”, my implication is that they only live in water and until they grow legs and loose their tail, and move to dry land, would not have a clear understand of those frogs who live on land, and can live for a little time back in the water, in that a tadpole is only a transitional state, where evolution must change this creature into the next stage as a frog. Therefore, by insisting that a tadpole can stay a tadpole would also indicate a refusal in evolutional change.
Therefore, if evolution is progressive change, hopefully forward, then even a tadpole must have an open mind, and compromise, or allow new visions or insights to be presented, possibility for update or change and should not be shunned, because as these new, younger, readership of the Urantia Book present themselves with different ideas and ideals, who are you to stop evolution in its tracks? Thereby, a priest’s normal attitude, to squash anything which does not fit into that priest’s belief or taught doctrine, will only evolve into the loss of a congregation because of their need for dominance over their so called flock.
Also, when you state “It is true that we who share the UB are students of both the text itself and the Spirit of Truth and TA and Holy Spirit by personal revelation….” how can one share “the Spirit of Truth and TA and Holy Spirit”, have you some information or ability to look into other’s minds to assess their understand and or workings of their TA or how they comprehend the “Spirit of Truth” or for that mater, the “Holy Spirit”, whereby the only unforgivable sin is that associated with one’s own understanding and action towards the “Holly Spirit”, whereby would you really wish to be responsible for someone else’s association with the “Spirit’s” where your opinion dominates their action?
As an example, you said above: “Did Jesus not love or stop loving the 5,000 when he refused to feed their self serving needs? No, of course not. We may love and not serve error both I think. Is it love to assist and facilitate the ingestion of poison or rotten bread and bitter fruit because others do so or wish to?” Do you personally know what was in Jesus’ mind as to His actions? Also, someone who eats “rotten bread” may need penicillin, or the “ingestion of poison” can be associated to most if not all medications prescribed today, when truly done as an action based on symptomology rather than true understanding of the issues. So, you pose your statement as a question but do you not really believe in what you say, No?
