OK you potential Bishops out there

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, Tex and I aren't in lock step one with another on everything in this forum, and sometimes even when we take a similar stance, it's the result of distinctly different rationale.

Sometimes, I disagree with Tex but he's already getting dog-piled on so heavily that I don't feel like I need to add to the feeding frenzy.

I'd actually appreciate you disagreeing. It would dispel the myth that we are identical, and you would probably make some good, rational points; maybe even persuade me. It'd be nice to have a polite disagreement with someone who takes longer than 3 seconds to call me a murderer.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, Tex and I aren't in lock step one with another on everything in this forum, and sometimes even when we take a similar stance, it's the result of distinctly different rationale.

Sometimes, I disagree with Tex but he's already getting dog-piled on so heavily that I don't feel like I need to add to the feeding frenzy.

Though I disagree with Indy, he can at least speak on a topic, when he chooses to, and he will reveal his own opinions or some personal information.

They appear very similar in their views, but perhaps they differ in how they reach their conclusions. Indy does differ in style if not substance.

[Indy Coug]

Should we always adhere to the counsel of our leaders (let's stick to General Authorities for purposes of this discussion)? Not necessarily.

As a quick for instance, sometimes our leaders give specific examples of how they would implement some Gospel principle (eg. Sabbath observance). Personally, I may disagree that I need to do precisely the same thing, but I do acknowledge that the principle (which is really the bigger picture) being taught is correct and I need to apply that principle in my life.

Should we regularly and justifiably find ourselves in opposition to the counsel of our leaders? Probably not.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Should we always adhere to the counsel of our leaders (let's stick to General Authorities for purposes of this discussion)? Not necessarily.

As a quick for instance, sometimes our leaders give specific examples of how they would implement some Gospel principle (eg. Sabbath observance). Personally, I may disagree that I need to do precisely the same thing, but I do acknowledge that the principle (which is really the bigger picture) being taught is correct and I need to apply that principle in my life.

Should we regularly and justifiably find ourselves in opposition to the counsel of our leaders? Probably not.

Agreed, it is a slippery slope to justify over and over again not following the counsel. However, to not recognize the counsel is given often as a generality for the church and point fingers is also detrimental.

Several come to mind. Every young man a missionary and women shouldn't work outside the home. Earlier ones like, get married after your mission as soon as you can and don't put off having children. Some have looked at others and pointed a finger just as surely as if they had lit up a Marlboro in church.

[Tex]

As long as we're in the mood of listing extremist Mormon views, I thought I'd offer a few:

1. Black men were kept from the priesthood largely due to the racist views of a handful of Mormon prophets and their adherents, a position at odds with the desires of God.

2. Any lay member of the church has the privilege of deciding, either via the Spirit or textual criticism, which passages in the Bible are true and which aren't, and is thus free to follow them at his own dictates.

3. The Book of Mormon may not actually be true, and this possibility may indeed actually be affirmed by the Spirit.

4. Prophets can, have, and/or will lead the church astray.

5. The church has rejected the Joseph Smith Translation, and it may not even be revelation.

And that's just my short list. If my religious views are indeed extreme, it appears I'm in welcome company.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

As long as we're in the mood of listing extremist Mormon views, I thought I'd offer a few:

1. Black men were kept from the priesthood largely due to the racist views of a handful of Mormon prophets and their adherents, a position at odds with the desires of God.

2. Any lay member of the church has the privilege of deciding, either via the Spirit or textual criticism, which passages in the Bible are true and which aren't, and is thus free to follow them at his own dictates.

3. The Book of Mormon may not actually be true, and this possibility may indeed actually be affirmed by the Spirit.

4. Prophets can, have, and/or will lead the church astray.

5. The church has rejected the Joseph Smith Translation, and it may not even be revelation.

And that's just my short list. If my religious views are indeed extreme, it appears I'm in welcome company.

Number 2 may be subject to intepretation. The scriptures may be true, just not true as to how you intepret them. I have the opportunity to pray and see what the truth of the scripture is for me.

I would say some scriptures are pretty clear and not subject to interpretation, however many are not.

#4 is pretty general. How do you define led astray? He can say some things that lead the folks down the wrong path. I doubt he ever will, but he has the power to, especially for people who think his every word is gospel.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Like Arch's ridiculous post, you have distorted my view. I did not say we are not allowed to seek truth. I said we are not allowed to declare new doctrinal truth outside of the guidelines of what the prophet has stated.

This is not an extra-mainstream view. It goes all the way back to Hiram Page.

But, no need to re-hash it. It's enough to understand that you and so many others are completely incapable of backing up your accusations without gross distortions.

See, Tex. This is exactly what I meant. I gave you an example and you dismissed it out of hand. "All my views are mainstream because I say they are!"

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

See, Tex. This is exactly what I meant. I gave you an example and you dismissed it out of hand. "All my views are mainstream because I say they are!"

I think I detect a black pot.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Sometimes, I disagree with Tex but he's already getting dog-piled on so heavily that I don't feel like I need to add to the feeding frenzy.

Dog-piled? That's funny Indy. Go back up the thread and look what happened this morning. This was a dead topic until Tex called Rocky out for not responding to his challenge. Despite his attempts to appear as a martyr, Tex lives for this kind of attention.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Dog-piled? That's funny Indy. Go back up the thread and look what happened this morning. This was a dead topic until Tex called Rocky out for not responding to his challenge. Despite his attempts to appear as a martyr, Tex lives for this kind of attention.

Who said I was talking about this thread specifically? I was just making a general observation.