What's the most evil/controversial thing the Prophet has asked you to do?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What I find is that with varying degrees of effort I find myself in agreement with the counsel given by the Prophet. I don't always find myself inclined to follow their counsel, but that's more of a failure on my part rather than a case of being given poor or false counsel.

What I often find here are people straining mightily to come up with reasons, any reason, why the church is or was wrong in a given situation.

So from my vantage point it appears the tension on this board often arises from a group that tries to find reasons why the Prophet is right and another group that tries to find why the Prophet was or could be wrong; and the former group, due to their lack of antagonism, gets labeled as not being able to think independently.

*Tex opens his mouth to say something, then shuts it.*

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What I find is that with varying degrees of effort I find myself in agreement with the counsel given by the Prophet. I don't always find myself inclined to follow their counsel, but that's more of a failure on my part rather than a case of being given poor or false counsel.

What I often find here are people straining mightily to come up with reasons, any reason, why the church is or was wrong in a given situation.

So from my vantage point it appears the tension on this board often arises from a group that tries to find reasons why the Prophet is right and another group that tries to find why the Prophet was or could be wrong; and the former group, due to their lack of antagonism, gets labeled as not being able to think independently.

Or from a different vantage, there is a group that thinks the Prophet is correct 100% of the time, and casts about in anger at a group who thinks the Prophet is only right 95% of the time.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Or from a different vantage, there is a group that thinks the Prophet is correct 100% of the time, and casts about in anger at a group who thinks the Prophet is only right 95% of the time.

Or that group sees the logic offered as a basis that the Prophet is wrong 5% of the time is faulty and is worthy of refutation.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So from my vantage point it appears the tension on this board often arises from a group that tries to find reasons why the Prophet is right and another group that tries to find why the Prophet was or could be wrong; and the former group, due to their lack of antagonism, gets labeled as not being able to think independently.

Yeah, and I don't honestly know whether I think that gloss is fair to you or not. On the one hand, I have to concede that you could think through every issue and arrive at the same answer every time. On the other hand, I don't know any LDS in real life who don't, at least on a few issues, say "that just doesn't make sense to me." I think that the perception is that some people don't think its okay to say that. I think that all of us feel that way about some things if we're honest.

So if there aren't any areas like that for you (and my guess is that there are) then you probably aren't doing your own thinking. My guess is that the reality is that you are, but are just less likely to bring your areas of uncertainty to the fore. This forum is all about kicking our uncertainties back and forth in a place where it is at least somewhat "safe" to do it. I guess I just feel like someone who invariably tows the party line on even the smallest points is engaging in spiritual chest thumping more than engaging in meaningful discussion here.

I know I'm talking in generalities, but the whole tone of your original question was "I just don't get you people." But I think you do. I think you just like the intellectual exercise of defending a certain position no matter what. I can understand you enjoy that. Can you understand why some people think its tiresome?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So in a thread where the conversation turns to a BYU professor getting fired for "disobeying" the prophet's counsel, you just thought it relevant to opine that his article wasn't very well written but otherwise expressed no opinion on whether or not he was fired for disobedience? Um, good insight there. Do you charge extra to actually contribute something of value?

And your contribution to this thread has been exactly what?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

But I think that is Solon's point. His letter WAS a criticism of the church (or taken to be by BYU) because it violated the spirit of the letter from the FP re the gay marriage issue.

Indy is trying to split hairs and make it appear that he was only requested to voice his opinion on the matter (whatever that opinion may be) when clearly the church was advocating a position on the matter and he was punished for taking the opposite position. Indy's next claim (that he was terminated because his letter wasn't scholarly enough or well-written is laughable and a new low in apologia).

Cali makes the point more clearly than I did. I don't care if the BY wants to fire an adjunct prof. - they can do what they want. It's when the department's reason for firing said prof. is that he publicly "contradicted" the church on a specific political issue about which the church, legally, should have no position (and hence, there should be no possibility of contradicting this nonexistent position).

Another example of church policy differing from church actions. Their bases are always covered.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

Cali makes the point more clearly than I did. I don't care if the BY wants to fire an adjunct prof. - they can do what they want. It's when the department's reason for firing said prof. is that he publicly "contradicted" the church on a specific political issue about which the church, legally, should have no position (and hence, there should be no possibility of contradicting this nonexistent position).

Another example of church policy differing from church actions. Their bases are always covered.

You're missing my point.

First, we don't have the evidence, only what Professor Nielsen chose to share with us. The evidence trail is not very good.

Second, he was critical in a public forum of his employer.

You and Cali are assuming all the facts are as Professor Nielsen explained them to be. That may or may not be true. But assume for a moment that they are, he didn't go out and say, I believe this is the correct way, he stated, "I think my employer is a piece of proverbial shit for holding this naive view."

It wasn't his opinion that got him canned, but his attack on his employer. That distinction is key.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're missing my point.

First, we don't have the evidence, only what Professor Nielsen chose to share with us. The evidence trail is not very good.

Second, he was critical in a public forum of his employer.

You and Cali are assuming all the facts are as Professor Nielsen explained them to be. That may or may not be true. But assume for a moment that they are, he didn't go out and say, I believe this is the correct way, he stated, "I think my employer is a piece of proverbial shit for holding this naive view."

It wasn't his opinion that got him canned, but his attack on his employer. That distinction is key.

You make a fair point, and I'd like to know more about how the whole thing went down.

I still feel that (getting back to the original proposition) the church very carefully worded this letter to influence a political outcome while maintaining its legally appointed distance. It's disingenuous and, - as the original post asked - the worst thing the LDS leadership has asked me to do.

[MikeWaters]

I've been asked over the pulpit to support anti-gay marriage laws. Of course that wasn't the prophet.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The point is I get sick of people on this board engaging in this "Indy would pull his pants down around his ankles and fart in President Bush's face if the prophet told him to do so" hypothetical nonsense.

Heck - I'd do that.