Did This SP Go Too Far?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

You know Tex really symbolizes an interesting cultural aspect to the LDS Church. Here in this little corner of the cyberworld a small group of educted and intelligent BYU fans/mormons/former mormons meet to discuss some subjects of mutual interest. They met on Jefe's sight due to their mutual love of BYU sports. Like most communities the other interests eventually became public. Jefe, a young man very well trained in LDS thought and practice, instantly became uncomfortable with the discussions initiated and nurtured by many on this venue. For whatever reason he symbolizes that wing of the LDS Church that doesn't want anything that could be embarassing to the LDS Church to be public, even if it is true. Hence, the unwanted minority eventually established their own cyber community to discuss these issues that are important to them. Jefe, as a decent chap, continues on his "all is well in Zion" ways but leaves the questioning fringe folks alone. He is pretty close to live and let live, so he has his space and affords you folks yours. However, Tex, one who is what I might call in a mean spirited moment "an asshole," feels compelled to come here and ensure you know when you cross the line, how frequently you cross the line and by how much you have crossed the line. He is the home teacher who goes to your back sliding door when you, as the inactive, won't open the front door. He does this not because he is neither a nosy son of a bitch nor an asshole, but because his commission is to love you and show you the way. He knows the way by the way, just ask him.

Indy on the other hand is more along the Jefe lines. He is fairly reasonable and stands his ground, but he doesn't love you like Tex does. He doesn't climb the fence into your backyard and pound on the sliding glass door. I actually like Indy as he occasionally adds something about sports as well. I am not sure Tex has offered a sports post once, I know I am closedminded but that might mean he is either a chick or a pussy or both.

More Indy's might get annoying, but I like having one around. Tex symbolizes an aspect of the Mormon Church that I genuinely could just do without.

You know Tex is rubbing his hands together right now with a maniacal grin on his face. "This topic is boring....how can I get these morons to talk about ME again......."

Okay maybe not, but sometimes I think many of us get played like a fiddle.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by BYU71

How about Lingo, he is Tex withouth the IQ.

I'll echo that too.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

You know Tex is rubbing his hands together right now with a maniacal grin on his face. "This topic is boring....how can I get these morons to talk about ME again......."

Okay maybe not, but sometimes I think many of us get played like a fiddle.

There is no question, hence my reference to anal orofice. In real life I am sure he is agreeable and whatnot. However, I do stand on my fundamental indictment that his paucity of posts about sports indicate serious issues that should concern his wife.

However, the cyber person that he plays is fundamental to much of the discussions about the LDS Church. The cyber person of Tex would agree that the Church is justified to ignore honesty if it decides honesty would not facilitate its purposes. That is the central issue most here have with respect to how the LDS Church approaches its colorful history.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

You know Tex is rubbing his hands together right now with a maniacal grin on his face. "This topic is boring....how can I get these morons to talk about ME again......."

Okay maybe not, but sometimes I think many of us get played like a fiddle.

You may be right, but Goat may have stumbled upon what Tex repesents. He would function well fifty, sixty years ago in Idaho or small town Utah, but the urban realities of the LDS Church, together with globalization and the increasing changing demographics make him an anachronism. And Goat is correct, he's a lot like Robin, he doesn't seem to care for sports and a man who doesn't care for sports isn't worth trusting.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

That is the central issue most here have with respect to how the LDS Church approaches its colorful history.

If our leaders believe what we have is meritorious, why are so many of them unwilling to allow the facts to stand upon themselves.

History class would be a lot more fun if reality were relayed.

[Tex]

No, UtahDan, I actually don't feel that way. I'm going to stop posting in this thread so y'all can get back to what you were discussing.

I will say one thing in response to Goat: I do post occasionally on sports over on CB, not so much here. I never missed a home football game, and rarely missed a home basketball game, while at BYU, and I try to attend at least one game a year. This year I went to UCLA, and I'm trying to get up to Provo for one.

Just because I don't have tons to say on sports doesn't mean I don't care about it.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by BYU71

How about Lingo, he is Tex withouth the IQ.

Lingo can't keep himself from getting Korihored at Jefe's sight, so he is clearly suffering from cognitive dissonance. Lingo was the Seminary President and jealous that the cool kid who came late to seminary dryhumped the wayward yet hot Stake President's daughter in the family van at last saturday's stake dance. His jealousy boils over when the cool kid goes on a mission and serves for 6 months as an AP making all the Sisters and Daughters of Zion moist with the anticipation of dating him after he flexes those spiritual muscles during his homecoming address. However, 4 years later the aura of missionary service has worn off and he is back to cussing frequently, which Lingo does as well but doesn't want to as Lingo just lacks self control, and cracking off color jokes like he did in high school, the only reason he doesn't dry hump is because he married the hot Stake President's daughter so he wet humps instead---which is much better in case you forgot '71.

Lingo doesn't know what to think about all of this. He wants to be Tex, but he also wants to be Mike Waters. What is a fella to do?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

There is no question, hence my reference to anal orofice. In real life I am sure he is agreeable and whatnot. However, I do stand on my fundamental indictment that his paucity of posts about sports indicate serious issues that should concern his wife.

However, the cyber person that he plays is fundamental to much of the discussions about the LDS Church. The cyber person of Tex would agree that the Church is justified to ignore honesty if it decides honesty would not facilitate its purposes. That is the central issue most here have with respect to how the LDS Church approaches its colorful history.

Oh I agree. Tex represents the thought process (which incidently I think he would correctly point out is the mainstream thought process) which begins with the proposition that whatever decision the church has made is correct and then constructs the logic to support that.

I think it is more common around here to say "what is right or wrong in light of gospel principle and in light of reason." Some people stop there and if they think the church is wrong simply say so. This process has led some around here out of the church. I think that many more of us go through this process with the hope that we can reconcile whatever it is the church has done or said with these thought processes, and even when we can't we let faith bridge the gap. I am able to do this on most issues and it doesn't bother me that I can't do it on all.

I would say that the Tex line of thinking doesn't really identify with an LDS person not beginning with the assumption that whatever the church has done or said is correct. The line of thinking I have ascribed to myself doesn't understand the resistance to reasoning things out. This just puts us on different pages a lot of the time.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, UtahDan, I actually don't feel that way. I'm going to stop posting in this thread so y'all can get back to what you were discussing.

I will say one thing in response to Goat: I do post occasionally on sports over on CB, not so much here. I never missed a home football game, and rarely missed a home basketball game, while at BYU, and I try to attend at least one game a year. This year I went to UCLA, and I'm trying to get up to Provo for one.

Just because I don't have tons to say on sports doesn't mean I don't care about it.

I was kidding. That may not have been obvious.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Oh I agree. Tex represents the thought process (which incidently I think he would correctly point out is the mainstream thought process) which begins with the proposition that whatever decision the church has made is correct and then constructs the logic to support that.

I think it is more common around here to say "what is right or wrong in light of gospel principle and in light of reason." Some people stop there and if they think the church is wrong simply say so. This process has led some around here out of the church. I think that many more of us go through this process with the hope that we can reconcile whatever it is the church has done or said with these thought processes, and even when we can't we the let faith bridge the gap. I am able to do this on most issues and it doesn't bother me that I can't do it on all.

I would say that the Tex line of thinking doesn't really identify with an LDS person not beginning with the assumption that whatever the church has done or said is correct. The line of thinking I have ascribed to myself doesn't understand the resistance to reasoning things out. This just puts us on different pages a lot of the time.

I agree many take the Tex approach, but more of the conventionalists take an Indy approach, namely, I really, really, really disagree, and I don't care to have to reason it all out, but I'll "live and let live". Tex takes upon himself to correct us after having used his, "The Church is always right belief" to steer us from our wayward paths. So of the conventionalists, I would argue that Indy's or Jefe's approach is more akin to the mainstream conventionalists as opposed to Tex's more aggressive approach of conventionalism.