Alternate Voices: The Calling and its Implications

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I'd love to be able to say I don't need to understand everything -but that would be disingenuous. Rather, I have great faith in the idea that in time I WILL understand everything ... I am willing to be patient, and attempts to develop such willingness is very comforting.

I like this statement. This is how I feel too, though my patience waxes and wanes. Patience is something I constantly feel I need more of.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Everytime you exude arrogance and condescenion I will throw it back in your face.

You'd think for as smart as you'd like to think you are that you wouldn't be eating out of my hand so easily.

You have earned my condescension. And if it really is true that you are just attempting to bait me, then that only underscores what I have already said.

I know, I know. You're just pointing out the obvious, calling it like you see it and being the conscience of the board. A heart felt thanks on behalf of us all.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Intending no disrespect, I think this is where the analogy falls down. I don't think we are really arguing about freedom, I think we are discussing what all the innoculation should entail.

Freedom to accept what the innoculation should entail as opposed to compulsion is central to the question you posed earlier ... as well as important to the idea I raised of examining intention.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I didn't mean that as an attack, I just know that from my own experience it is easy for me to dismiss someone as "one of those" on many different topics and that colors my thinking about what is said. Since it is impossible to know what really motivates a person in their heart, it has to be supposition on your part even if it is well informed supposition. If what said is not applicable to you, then disregard it.

I fully accept that it is supposition on my part.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You do realize your entire assumption is predicated upon the idea that what this thread qualifies as the alternate voice is in fact an authority of sorts. Do you realize how offensive and condescending such an idea is to anyone who does not have the same education or willingness to be an alternate voice?

And such is the crux of the issue. Most so-called alternate voices are more interested in authority than they are interested in assisting in the spiritual growth of their fellow brothers and sisters.

We do not need others explanations of how they thought things through as much as we NEED the freedom and encouragement to think them through for ourselves ... that is what the brethren do with great efficacy.

My "entire assumption," as you call it, is not predicated on anything you've discussed here. But don't let that stop you from setting up a straw man to knock it down.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I think we should examine the definition of innoculation.

1.to implant (a disease agent or antigen) in a person, animal, or plant to produce a disease for study or to stimulate disease resistance. [disease or agent in the form of ideas]

2. to imbue (a person), as with ideas.

Satan's desire was not to teach but rather, as supreme authority, force or compel us to be innoculated.

A prophets desire is to teach and encourage individuals to seek out higher authority for confirmation of thoughts, feelings and ideas. Such confirmation is the most effective innoculation.

What do each of us value -authority or freedom?

What you have written here is false. Satan's desire was not to "compel us to be innoculated." Innoculation is about knowledge, something we are here to gain (remember the fruit on the tree?). And your discussion of "prophet's desire" is rarified, non sequitur, and closer to Satan's blind obedience than anything I've asserted.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Dan have you noticed that the persecution and victim complex on this particular site amongst the LDS and those who've left the church comes from the intellectuals and "truth seekers"? If not, then you haven't been paying attention. They constantly act like victims of repression.

I certainly haven't cried persecution. You, though, have made a nuisance of yourself as usual. You love to say that people cry victim when you treat them as something beneath human dignity. You are your own problem.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Well thank goodness were back to the original topic after SEIQ's pity party of thinking he's being picked on.

What a baby.

Picked on? Baby? Keep up your delusions. The fact is, Indy was attempting his usual MO, I called him on it, and you have decided to use the occasion to, once again, demonstate that you are your own problem.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You do realize your entire assumption is predicated upon the idea that what this thread qualifies as the alternate voice is in fact an authority of sorts. Do you realize how offensive and condescending such an idea is to anyone who does not have the same education or willingness to be an alternate voice?

And such is the crux of the issue. Most so-called alternate voices are more interested in authority than they are interested in assisting in the spiritual growth of their fellow brothers and sisters.

We do not need others explanations of how they thought things through as much as we NEED the freedom and encouragement to think them through for ourselves ... that is what the brethren do with great efficacy.

As I re-read this, I can't help but come to the conclusion that it is pure nonsense. It seems that you didn't actually read what I wrote. All I said was that for intellectuals, their issues are intertwined with faith and that sometimes the rank-and-file appreciate their efforts when they come upon their own difficulties. Offensive and condescinding? You're out to lunch.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

My "entire assumption," as you call it, is not predicated on anything you've discussed here. But don't let that stop you from setting up a straw man to knock it down.

I'm not setting up a straw man to knock anything down. I am not attempting to turn you or Maus into a caricature. Where is the two-way dialogue in this discussion? Am I not permitted to contend or voice an opinion without being belittled?

Perhaps my tone is adversarial or condescending. However it is worthwhile to discuss authority discussion.