Alternate Voices: The Calling and its Implications

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

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.

You are going to have to explain, for I am now the caricature waiting to be set a flame!

If his desire, beyond glory (authority) for himself was not to compel, then what was his desire? How are my statements illogical? Furthermore I have yet to arrive at a conclusion ... nor might you or I ever in this lifetime!

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

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.

As usual you can't smell what you shovel.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

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.

"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."

What in that is offensive or condescending?

If you're revving up for an ecclesiastical-intellectual authority dichotomy I'm rejecting it.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

...The fact is, Indy was attempting his usual MO, I called him on it...

Prove it.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

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.

I did in fact read it and the act of reading prompted my response -is not the point? You can't simply tease the beast and expect purrs in return.

Please don’t tell me to ‘hurry along little one’ with a label nonsense.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You are going to have to explain, for I am now the caricature waiting to be set a flame!

If his desire, beyond glory (authority) for himself was not to compel, then what was his desire? How are my statements illogical? Furthermore I have yet to arrive at a conclusion ... nor might you or I ever in this lifetime!

Read what I wrote.

Satan's plan in the pre-existence was about forcing everyone to be blindly obedient to him. He didn't want the risks of a test, with its choices and subsequent knowledge. Your associating innoculation in the sense of exposure to non-hagiographic Mormon history with Satan has exactly zero scriptural support, prophetic support, and logical support. It's a false association, plain and simple. Worse, you seem to like the idea of blind obedience to authority, and the scriptures be damned.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I did in fact read it and the act of reading prompted my response -is not the point? You can't simply tease the beast and expect purrs in return.

Please don’t tell me to ‘hurry along little one’ with a label nonsense.

You still haven't said what was offensive and condescending in that point.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Prove it.

Come on, Indy. This is a case of the chickens coming home to roost. You have to admit that you have a pretty big body of work on message boards from which people can delineate tendencies.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

"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."

What in that is offensive or condescending?

If you're revving up for an ecclesiastical-intellectual authority dichotomy I'm rejecting it.

I am not nor do I intend to rev up. As a member of the rank-and-file in order to appreciate one's perspective I always must place in context to authority.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Come on, Indy. This is a case of the chickens coming home to roost. You have to admit that you have a pretty big body of work on message boards from which people can delineate tendencies.

This is a switch. Lebowski defending someone being an asshole instead of being the voice of reason. lol You guys sure are a consistent bunch.