Spencer W. Kimball Lessons

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And here is the crux of your condenscension. You feel free to state the scriptures contain all we need. Well it may be sufficient for some, but not for others. If it is sufficient for you, good deal. It's not for me, but I won't tell you or others what is or is not sufficient. Because you pretend to know what is sufficient you are the epitome of condescension, you also ignore my other arguments with condescension. IOW, you are so full of your own self you can't even see your own blindness.

It's sufficient for those who have priesthood oversight for the church curriculum, and yes, that's sufficient for me.

As for the rest, we're all just expressing our opinions here. If you don't like mine, you certainly don't have to read them.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's sufficient for those who have priesthood oversight for the church curriculum, and yes, that's sufficient for me.

As for the rest, we're all just expressing our opinions here. If you don't like mine, you certainly don't have to read them.

Let me break down the arrogance here. Very clever, but very condescending.

First, hidden use of authority, "it's enough for God's elite", I agree with them, hence I'm elite, but those who disagree are on thin ice. You don't how to write without condescension. You are perhaps the most hateful, condescending poster ever.

[JohnnyLingo]

Hey Archaea, you're an arrogant old coot and you disgust me with your hypocrisy. Calling Tex a racist, bigot, homosexual, and tactless and then have the balls to call him the most hateful poster ever?

Ridiculous.

[All-American]

Wow, Arch. I don't know that he deserves quite that much venom.

Look, guys, I know we don't typically get along, but why don't we all ease up a bit?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Hey Archaea, you're an arrogant old coot and you disgust me with your hypocrisy. Calling Tex a racist, bigot, homosexual, and tactless and then have the balls to call him the most hateful poster ever?

Ridiculous.

Maybe you're correct, perhaps you are. SoCalCoug even found unadulterated proof of your racism in your own words.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

Wow, Arch. I don't know that he deserves quite that much venom.

Look, guys, I know we don't typically get along, but why don't we all ease up a bit?

The venom comes from Tex's own mouth. In some ways, he's either quite skillful in the rhetorical devices employed or quite awkward.

Just analyze.

"I just cite the prophets, who by the way are GOOD enough for me." What's the unstated venom in that post, if you dare to disagree, you are an apostate, because I'm on the side of angels and discussants who disagree are not. Pure venom and hate.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The venom comes from Tex's own mouth. In some ways, he's either quite skillful in the rhetorical devices employed or quite awkward.

Just analyze.

"I just cite the prophets, who by the way are GOOD enough for me." What's the unstated venom in that post, if you dare to disagree, you are an apostate, because I'm on the side of angels and discussants who disagree are not. Pure venom and hate.

Arch, you have shown time and time again that if someone has the temerity to disagree with you, you fall back to the lazy tactic of extrapolating whatever position they've taken and grossly mischaracterizing both the stance and the person that took that stance.

It's both painfully transparent and intellectually insulting.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Maybe you're correct, perhaps you are. SoCalCoug even found unadulterated proof of your racism in your own words.

Are you really that dense, or are you just being incredibly immature?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The venom comes from Tex's own mouth. In some ways, he's either quite skillful in the rhetorical devices employed or quite awkward.

Just analyze.

"I just cite the prophets, who by the way are GOOD enough for me." What's the unstated venom in that post, if you dare to disagree, you are an apostate, because I'm on the side of angels and discussants who disagree are not. Pure venom and hate.

You called the manuals "hodgepodgery," "unfocused," and "unteachable." I didn't agree with that, and so I found a quote from a talk I remembered (by Dallin Oaks) that said as much. He called them "rich," "relevant," and "superb."

You're suggesting that if I just said "rich, relevant, and superb" myself, without invoking Oaks, you'd be just fine. But as soon as I quote an authority, I've crossed the line into venomous, hateful condescension. Moreover, you think that quoting Oaks (or whomever) is evidence that I don't think for myself--that he's told me they are "rich, relevant, and superb," so I just nod and say "okay" like a good little Mormon automaton.

It seems to be lost on you that I could have independently come to that conclusion and simply located and used the quote to provide support for my contention.

What really makes you mad about my posts, it seems, is that you can't disagree with me without disagreeing with the quotes or scriptures I post. But you're wrong--you can. You just have to find quotes and scriptures that support what you say ... I acknowledge there are multiple ways of looking at an issue, or of interpreting what a quote or scripture says.

Stamping your foot and screaming is not one of those ways.

PS. This is likely the last thing I'll have to say on this. I grow weary of threads consistently devolving into flame wars and I won't participate.

[Tex]

For Arch's benefit, and in the spirit of vainly trying to put a thread back on track (or letting it die), here's my opinion on the priesthood manuals, free of authority quotes.

I find the manuals rich, relevant, and superb. When I take the time, which is less than I'd like, I prefer to spend a couple of hours studying the chapter in question. Often I mark passages as I would mark them in my scriptures and make notes in the columns. I like to cross reference scriptures and make footnotes. Sometimes I look up the footnotes provided and do reading in the source material. Last week I spent a good amount of time in the Miracle of Forgiveness (the lesson's subject). Even though I am not an Elders Quorum teacher, I try to approach the lesson as if I were the one needing to teach it.

I don't disagree that the lessons are loosely structured. As with the new Preach My Gospel manual, the church seems to be moving in the direction of giving teachers greater latitude in what to discuss and how to approach it. Some of this makes me nervous, as it can lead to teachers reading a single quote from the lesson and the spending the rest of the lesson on a tangent. But, if the church is to eventually consist of celestial people, they need to be given the opportunity to lead and be led by the spirit.

Of course I don't have the time to do this kind of study all the time. I wish! But when I do read the lesson and find time for reflection, I think a lot about how my life should change--about how the life of my family should change. The questions at the end of each chapter, which are not quiz questions, are supposed to spur that kind of thought.

Imagine if each week, each member of the quorum went through that kind of preparation. And imagine if the teacher came prepared to lead a quorum through that kind of discussion! Each week would be a remarkable spiritual experience.

I'm not naive enough to have that expectation, but it's worth striving for. And it doesn't require going to any external source other than the manual itself, and the scriptures that support it.

And in the end, hypothetically each church member will have a library of valuable quotes on varied topics from each of the last 14 prophets, AND will have spent years studying each one. In my opinion, it's brilliant.

That was my sole contention all along.