Redemption

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Inane? It's right on point, and if you candidly and directly addressed it this discussion might actually progress.

No, I don't think they're icons.

Feel free to progress now.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

A stake president is a local leader and it is always appropriate to contact your local leaders about issues having to do with your church calling. Yes, even to talk about a concern you have with your bishop. That is way, way, more appropriate than discussing it with random church members.

In simplest terms, the first person you should contact is your bishop if you have a problem with something they've said or done. Afterwards, if you feel the issue has not been resolved to your satisfaction, then contact your stake president.

You shouldn't immediately turn to the stake president to iron out matters between you and your bishop.

That's simply my opinion. I don't think the leaders of the church want to repeatedly be brought into matters that theoretically could be resolved without their involvement to begin with.



P.S. The counter-example of a wife writing President Hinckley about their husband's porn problem is not applicable. These letters were not written because local leadership failed to resolve these situations to the wife's satisfaction.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, I don't think they're icons.

Feel free to progress now.

Then why did you bring up the notion of iconoclasm in the first place?

If you wanted to discuss your understanding of the similarities and/or differences between Church leaders and icons, and between members' responsibilities to the Church and "destruction" you would be well served to reason on these points.

Unless you mean to rescind your "iconoclasm" statement, or discuss why it's relevant, your statement here looks a whole lot like you're playing a game of intellectual musical chairs where you sit somewhere else every time the music stops.

Progression in discussion is not a burden that I must carry, and that you get to assign. It requires a shared sincerity and commitment. I'm doing my part.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Then why did you bring up the notion of iconoclasm in the first place?

If you wanted to discuss your understanding of the similarities and/or differences between Church leaders and icons, and between members' responsibilities to the Church and "destruction" you would be well served to reason on these points.

Unless you mean to rescind your "iconoclasm" statement, or discuss why it's relevant, your statement here looks a whole lot like you're playing a game of intellectual musical chairs where you sit somewhere else every time the music stops.

Progression in discussion is not a burden that I must carry, and that you get to assign. It requires a shared sincerity and commitment.

iconoclast: 2 : a person who attacks settled beliefs or institutions

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/iconoclast

That describes the "stick to the Man" attitude toward the church on CG.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

iconoclast: 2 : a person who attacks settled beliefs or institutions

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/iconoclast

That describes the "stick to the Man" attitude toward the church on CG.

Is it safe to assume that your position, then, is that "settled beliefs" and "institutions" are icons and that an "attitude" toward them on CG constitutes "attack" on the Church?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Is it safe to assume that your position, then, is that "settled beliefs" and "institutions" are icons and that an "attitude" toward them on CG constitutes "attack" on the Church?

It is safe to assume that I think people on CG tend to believe criticizing church leaders, doctrines, policies--whatever--is some sort of higher calling.

[Insensitive PAP]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Let's not make this thread about Tex. That's what he wants.

http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/sho...1&postcount=13

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

It is safe to assume that I think people on CG tend to believe criticizing church leaders, doctrines, policies--whatever--is some sort of higher calling.

What constitutes criticism?

Higher in what sense?

Higher than what?

Higher than who?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/sho...1&postcount=13

I honestly wasn't trying. Too many Pavlov's dogs around here.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

What constitutes criticism?

Higher in what sense?

Higher than what?

Higher than who?

Why don't you just state whatever it is you're trying to get at.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

I honestly wasn't trying. Too many Pavlov's dogs around here.



Why don't you just state whatever it is you're trying to get at.

I'm trying to get you to elaborate your point of view with reason. You use words like "criticism," "higher," and "settled belief" without specifying in what senses they apply.

If you are interested in elaborating your perspective, something which could be useful and which will allow you to forego the word games and convenient shifting of assumptions that lead only to frustration for all involved, you'll answer my questions (and similar ones). If you're really sincere, you'll take time to reflect on them first.