Here's a very sensitive subject - Page 5 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

LA Ute · 08-29-2005, 04:50 PM

you'd probably like his writing. The excerpt I quote is from a Signature Books promotional site. Signature typically publishes "non-approved" material of the type you could not get from Deseret Book. So Mackelprang is very likely not an apologist of the kind you would disdain.

For the record, I think Signature is dominated by people who would rather read Sunstone than the Ensign; I don't think I have any Signautre books. Just not my way of thinking about Church matters. To each his/her own.

tooblue · 08-29-2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooblue

If the letter is indeed authentic why is it no longer in circulation?

Boy, does this ever sum up how differently I view the world from some of you. I'd say it's out of circulation because it IS authentic. (By the way, see LA's post below now acknowledging it's authentic.)

Again, nothing written by anyone suggests this letter, as it appears on the linked Web site, is authentic.

The reality is other statements that speak to this issue are currently in circulation. Yet in said communications there is no mention of oral sex ect.

Fact: Bishops and Stake Presidents are counseled to NOT counsel members on such matters, but rather encourage the members to discover for themselves what is appropriate intimate behavior. Thereby placing the onus on the individual as to whether or not their actions are pure.

Perhaps there never was a letter but rather zealous persons who chose to ask questions about intimacies, followed by subsequent complaints, followed by wise, inspired counsel by the brethren on this matter that has been distorted and used for the express purpose of defaming the church !?

SeattleUte · 08-29-2005, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooblue

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooblue

If the letter is indeed authentic why is it no longer in circulation?

Boy, does this ever sum up how differently I view the world from some of you. I'd say it's out of circulation because it IS authentic. (By the way, see LA's post below now acknowledging it's authentic.)

Again, nothing written by anyone suggests this letter, as it appears on the linked Web site, is authentic.

The reality is other statements that speak to this issue are currently in circulation. Yet in said communications there is no mention of oral sex ect.

Fact: Bishops and Stake Presidents are counseled to NOT counsel members on such matters, but rather encourage the members to discover for themselves what is appropriate intimate behavior. Thereby placing the onus on the individual as to whether or not their actions are pure.

Perhaps there never was a letter but rather zealous persons who chose to ask questions about intimacies, followed by subsequent complaints, followed by wise, inspired counsel by the brethren on this matter that has been distorted and used for the express purpose of defaming the church !?

Okay, keep telling yourself it aint so if that makes you feel better. Far be it form me to take your placebo away.

tooblue · 08-29-2005, 06:54 PM

Because you say it is so doesn't make it so. The fact that you chose to condescend and label me as a partaker of placebos further suggests that you are chaff pushed in any direction that best suits you and your whims of the given moment.

I have offered a perfectly plausible, alternate possibility to explain the supposed events.

I choose to place responsibility upon persons in leadership who may have asked such questions. It is far too convenient to simply blame the brethren as the source for unwise decisions and actions.

Parrot Head · 08-31-2005, 02:35 AM

This discussion reminds me of our stake presidency coming to a combined YM/YW meeting when I was a teen to crush any consideration of the validity of the slogan, "Stay moral, go oral."

Wouldn't that make a fun signature on CB?

myboynoah · 09-09-2005, 12:00 PM

What a bunch of sheep we Mormons can be.

I suspect the letter (which I believe to be authentic) came out because too many folk kept asking local Church leaders the question "Is it okay if we do this?" There is only one person to whom that question should be addressed (unless of course one is a polygamist).

Anyway, another in a long list of examples of fallible Church leadership. Is this at all surprising?

I recently read a joke that goes something like this:

"Catholics state that the Pope is infallible, but don't believe it. Mormons state that the Prophet is fallible, but don't believe it."

Early on, I gained a "testimony" of the fallibility of Church leadership, something that has seen me through many a "trial of my faith."

Jeff Lebowski · 09-09-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myboynoah

"Catholics state that the Pope is infallible, but don't believe it. Mormons state that the Prophet is fallible, but don't believe it."

That's a great quote.

08-29-2005, 04:50 PM	#41
LA Ute Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 118	Seattle: Romel Mackelprang is not that kind of shrink . . . you'd probably like his writing. The excerpt I quote is from a Signature Books promotional site. Signature typically publishes "non-approved" material of the type you could not get from Deseret Book. So Mackelprang is very likely not an apologist of the kind you would disdain. For the record, I think Signature is dominated by people who would rather read Sunstone than the Ensign; I don't think I have any Signautre books. Just not my way of thinking about Church matters. To each his/her own. __________________ "Always do right. It will annoy some people and surprise the rest." --Mark Twain

08-29-2005, 06:54 PM	#44
tooblue Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,016	Because you say it is so ... Because you say it is so doesn't make it so. The fact that you chose to condescend and label me as a partaker of placebos further suggests that you are chaff pushed in any direction that best suits you and your whims of the given moment. I have offered a perfectly plausible, alternate possibility to explain the supposed events. I choose to place responsibility upon persons in leadership who may have asked such questions. It is far too convenient to simply blame the brethren as the source for unwise decisions and actions.

09-09-2005, 12:00 PM	#46
myboynoah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Memphis freakin' Tennessee!!!!! Posts: 4,530	Wow, joining this board is really paying off. What a bunch of sheep we Mormons can be. I suspect the letter (which I believe to be authentic) came out because too many folk kept asking local Church leaders the question "Is it okay if we do this?" There is only one person to whom that question should be addressed (unless of course one is a polygamist). Anyway, another in a long list of examples of fallible Church leadership. Is this at all surprising? I recently read a joke that goes something like this: "Catholics state that the Pope is infallible, but don't believe it. Mormons state that the Prophet is fallible, but don't believe it." Early on, I gained a "testimony" of the fallibility of Church leadership, something that has seen me through many a "trial of my faith." __________________ Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!! Religion rises inevitably from our apprehension of our own death. To give meaning to meaninglessness is the endless quest of all religion. When death becomes the center of our consciousness, then religion authentically begins. Of all religions that I know, the one that most vehemently and persuasively defies and denies the reality of death is the original Mormonism of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, Joseph Smith.

08-31-2005, 02:35 AM	#45
Parrot Head Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 763	This discussion reminds me of our stake presidency coming to a combined YM/YW meeting when I was a teen to crush any consideration of the validity of the slogan, "Stay moral, go oral." Wouldn't that make a fun signature on CB?