Tithing Settlement - Page 7 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Alkili · 12-20-2005, 05:23 AM

This thread really turned ugly in a hurry!

Iluvatar · 12-29-2005, 06:39 PM

I'm sorry for stirring up such a hornet's nest...

I also feel I need to extend a public apology to fuegote. After reading it, that last bit was a little over the top. I'm truly sorry, fuegote (also sorry it's taken so long, I've been in Vegas and elsewhere).

That said, I still fear blind obedience. I worry that there is a sense in the church that when our church leaders speak, the argument is over. Even when asked to do something that we would all agree is fundamentally wrong (murder, adultery, etc.). I wish that we could all live according to our consciences, and not rely so much on the words of those in "authority". They make mistakes too.

FWIW

SteelBlue · 12-29-2005, 07:15 PM

I'm glad you returned. I think that you'll find good discussion here.

fusnik11 · 12-29-2005, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I'm glad you returned. I think that you'll find good discussion here.

i think one finds great discussion here....

my religious convictions and knowledge have been strengthened by conversations started here....

fuegote · 12-29-2005, 07:57 PM

Me, I'm personally offended and won't return to church....

welcome back.

Dan · 01-03-2006, 10:42 PM

... lying by Joseph and the early brethren before all the facts came out. But surely we can all see how the church was in a precarious position at that time and full disclosure may not have been a wise move. The following article which is often called Oaks's "Lying for the Lord" article may shed some more light on the dynamics of lying or misleading under certain circumstances.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/oakslying.shtml

SteelBlue · 01-03-2006, 11:51 PM

Excellent article Dan. Thanks for posting it.

Iluvatar · 01-28-2006, 11:06 PM

[quote="Dan"]... lying by Joseph and the early brethren before all the facts came out. But surely we can all see how the church was in a precarious position at that time and full disclosure may not have been a wise move. The following article which is often called Oaks's "Lying for the Lord" article may shed some more light on the dynamics of lying or misleading under certain circumstances.

"Precarious positions" don't make it alright to lie to, or mislead other people. One could very easily argue, using the same logic, that Bill Clinton was justified in saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" before a grand jury. Surely we can all see how Mr. Clinton was in a precarious position at that time, and a full disclosure might not have been a wise move. Can't we?

Honesty isn't always convenient. And, despite efforts to distance ourselves from our past; polygamy, polyandry and the web of deception associated with it, will haunt us well into the forseeable future.

All-American · 01-28-2006, 11:17 PM

I agree, there's not a good reason to lie. I submit that to the extent that any member of the church, from the nursery to the First Presidency, deliberately says something that is false, it is wrong. Fortunately, we never claimed to have infallible leaders.

We hold the dictim "The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth" in high esteem. Sticking with "The Truth" and "Nothing But the Truth" are just fine, but inability to adhere to that bit about "The Whole Truth" doesn't bother me at all. The simple fact is, the human mind is not ready to handle all truth at once-- indeed, were he presented all aspects of the argument the volume of evidences on both sides of the debate would overwhelm and confuse him.

Admittedly, "The Truth, the Most Important Bits of the Truth, and Nothing But the Truth" isn't nearly as reassuring as its more ambitious counterpart, but it it does have the benefit of being both realistic and workable.

Iluvatar · 01-28-2006, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

I agree, there's not a good reason to lie. I submit that to the extent that any member of the church, from the nursery to the First Presidency, deliberately says something that is false, it is wrong. Fortunately, we never claimed to have infallible leaders.

We hold the dictim "The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth" in high esteem. Sticking with "The Truth" and "Nothing But the Truth" are just fine, but inability to adhere to that bit about "The Whole Truth" doesn't bother me at all. The simple fact is, the human mind is not ready to handle all truth at once-- indeed, were he presented all aspects of the argument the volume of evidences on both sides of the debate would overwhelm and confuse him.

Admittedly, "The Truth, the Most Important Bits of the Truth, and Nothing But the Truth" isn't nearly as reassuring as its more ambitious counterpart, but it it does have the benefit of being both realistic and workable.

Brilliant!

12-20-2005, 05:23 AM	#61
Alkili Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Utah Posts: 263	This thread really turned ugly in a hurry! __________________ Dark is the Night, but I begin to see the light.

12-29-2005, 06:39 PM	#62
Iluvatar Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 52	Hey all... I'm sorry for stirring up such a hornet's nest... I also feel I need to extend a public apology to fuegote. After reading it, that last bit was a little over the top. I'm truly sorry, fuegote (also sorry it's taken so long, I've been in Vegas and elsewhere). That said, I still fear blind obedience. I worry that there is a sense in the church that when our church leaders speak, the argument is over. Even when asked to do something that we would all agree is fundamentally wrong (murder, adultery, etc.). I wish that we could all live according to our consciences, and not rely so much on the words of those in "authority". They make mistakes too. FWIW __________________ \"What we do in life echoes in eternity\"

12-29-2005, 07:57 PM	#65
fuegote Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 724	Me, I'm personally offended and won't return to church.... welcome back. __________________ http://www.cavaliersbrigade.com home of the greatest fans in MLS.

01-03-2006, 10:42 PM	#66
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	There seems to be a concern about ... ... lying by Joseph and the early brethren before all the facts came out. But surely we can all see how the church was in a precarious position at that time and full disclosure may not have been a wise move. The following article which is often called Oaks's "Lying for the Lord" article may shed some more light on the dynamics of lying or misleading under certain circumstances. http://www.lds-mormon.com/oakslying.shtml __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

01-28-2006, 11:06 PM	#68
Iluvatar Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 52	Re: There seems to be a concern about ... [quote="Dan"]... lying by Joseph and the early brethren before all the facts came out. But surely we can all see how the church was in a precarious position at that time and full disclosure may not have been a wise move. The following article which is often called Oaks's "Lying for the Lord" article may shed some more light on the dynamics of lying or misleading under certain circumstances. "Precarious positions" don't make it alright to lie to, or mislead other people. One could very easily argue, using the same logic, that Bill Clinton was justified in saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" before a grand jury. Surely we can all see how Mr. Clinton was in a precarious position at that time, and a full disclosure might not have been a wise move. Can't we? Honesty isn't always convenient. And, despite efforts to distance ourselves from our past; polygamy, polyandry and the web of deception associated with it, will haunt us well into the forseeable future. __________________ \"What we do in life echoes in eternity\"

12-29-2005, 07:15 PM	#63
SteelBlue Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Norcal Posts: 5,821	I'm glad you returned. I think that you'll find good discussion here.

01-03-2006, 11:51 PM	#67
SteelBlue Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Norcal Posts: 5,821	Excellent article Dan. Thanks for posting it.

01-28-2006, 11:17 PM	#69
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	I agree, there's not a good reason to lie. I submit that to the extent that any member of the church, from the nursery to the First Presidency, deliberately says something that is false, it is wrong. Fortunately, we never claimed to have infallible leaders. We hold the dictim "The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth" in high esteem. Sticking with "The Truth" and "Nothing But the Truth" are just fine, but inability to adhere to that bit about "The Whole Truth" doesn't bother me at all. The simple fact is, the human mind is not ready to handle all truth at once-- indeed, were he presented all aspects of the argument the volume of evidences on both sides of the debate would overwhelm and confuse him. Admittedly, "The Truth, the Most Important Bits of the Truth, and Nothing But the Truth" isn't nearly as reassuring as its more ambitious counterpart, but it it does have the benefit of being both realistic and workable.