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

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I don't think there is a whole lot in the modern church that you are going to find. While I think there are teachings that some people may find jarring, I think there is very little if anything we asked to do that is.

On the other hand, being asked to take a plural wife would have been jarring. Being asked by Joseph whether he could take my wife as his own would have been jarring. There are books full of things in the early church that would have been jarring, but since we don't live in the early church it can't be any more than a theoretical discussion.

The Catholic church was the author of a fair amount of mischief over the centuries. It has evolved into an organization that primarily does good, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the organization of the inquisition, the one that showed Galileo the instruments of torture and invited him to recant, the organization that burned witches at the stake.

So what does the past that a church has departed from have to do with what a church currently asks its members to do? Ask the question in the reverse: what does what a church currently requires have to do with what it historically required?

Your implicit assertion that nothing controversial is currently required is no more of a trump card that someone else's assertion that one hundred controversial things were once required. You know the answer to your question. What is your point?

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.

The point is that we are asked to do things that are neither evil nor controversial by our prophet.

In light of that, I think the leadership of our church, even beyond matters of simple faith, have established enough of a track record that obeying their counsel should neither be called blind, robotic or ignorant, nor predisposed to future debauchery and homicide. Rather, our obedience to the Prophet is a combination of faith and rationale, given their established track record of giving good counsel in the past.

To make the laughable "logical" voyage from obeying counsel on such things as "being nice to the birdies", "voice your opinion to your elected officials", "everyone pays 10% tithing", "obey the laws of the land", "turn your hearts to Christ, not to armies and weapons" to becoming religious hitmen requires a vehicle fueled by one part paranoia and four parts cowdung.

[Burning Bright]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Evil? Nothing comes to mind. Controversial?

A statement that I should oppose the ERA and support a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting gay marriage come to mind.

tsch, what's controversial about that?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Indy, biggest problem to you, or the church? If they were to fire professors for shoddy work at BYU, half the faculty would be out of jobs.

You could be right.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I don't think there is a whole lot in the modern church that you are going to find. While I think there are teachings that some people may find jarring, I think there is very little if anything we asked to do that is.

On the other hand, being asked to take a plural wife would have been jarring. Being asked by Joseph whether he could take my wife as his own would have been jarring. There are books full of things in the early church that would have been jarring, but since we don't live in the early church it can't be any more than a theoretical discussion.

The Catholic church was the author of a fair amount of mischief over the centuries. It has evolved into an organization that primarily does good, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the organization of the inquisition, the one that showed Galileo the instruments of torture and invited him to recant, the organization that burned witches at the stake.

So what does the past that a church has departed from have to do with what a church currently asks its members to do? Ask the question in the reverse: what does what a church currently requires have to do with what it historically required?

Your implicit assertion that nothing controversial is currently required is no more of a trump card that someone else's assertion that one hundred controversial things were once required. You know the answer to your question. What is your point?

A good post.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You are correct in suggesting that BYU likes to keep its faculty's incompetence (not speaking of everyone) out of the spotlight.

I doubt BYU's faculty incompetence is any greater or lesser than other similarly ranked institutions.

Show me an institution please that parades its incompetence around, other than the Republican Party.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I find what BYU did acceptable and what Nielsen did as dumb. To me, it was an employer/employee issue, not a free speech or church related issue.

He publicly critisized the Church bringing it into disrepute. If you critisize your employer publicly you are likely to be censored or fired.

And academically, would you be comfortable relying upon the representations of one party in a dispute? In the legal field, it's not a very sound position to take.

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).

[Indy Coug]

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).

I didn't claim that's why he terminated, I offered my personal opinion on what I thought was the bigger issue with his op-ed piece.

Once again your reading comprehension machine never even booted up this morning.

[UtahDan]

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.

The point is that we are asked to do things that are neither evil nor controversial by our prophet.

In light of that, I think the leadership of our church, even beyond matters of simple faith, have established enough of a track record that obeying their counsel should neither be called blind, robotic or ignorant, nor predisposed to future debauchery and homicide. Rather, our obedience to the Prophet is a combination of faith and rationale, given their established track record of giving good counsel in the past.

To make the laughable "logical" voyage from obeying counsel on such things as "being nice to the birdies", "voice your opinion to your elected officials", "everyone pays 10% tithing", "obey the laws of the land", "turn your hearts to Christ, not to armies and weapons" to becoming religious hitmen requires a vehicle fueled by one part paranoia and four parts cowdung.

They just want you to think for yourself. I don't want to stereotype you, but would it not be fair to say that you and most LDS in most matter simply "resort to authority" in answer to most questions. I'm not saying that is wrong, nor that it is uncommon. What I'm saying is, on an internet message board where people are necessarily thinking things out, it is tiresome for someone to always simply resort to authority since that isn't the point of the exercise.

It is my observation that there are a great number of folks around here who think just as you do, who also get the benefit of the doubt you don't get because they are more readily willing to "show their work" so to speak. I think you can conclude anything around here by merely saying that it is the end result of some thinking on your part and that your recognize the ambiguity that exists in almost every question.

I appreciate that there are some of you who feel the need to inject the party line in into what essentially is a thought exercise that assumes the party line and tries to approach it in a different way. It keeps the discussion honest. On the other hand, I think you are a smart enough guy to understand that much of the frustration with you and others stems from your desire to "change the subject" so to speak.

[MikeWaters]

I think the most controversial thing the prophet has asked us to do.....hasn't happend yet, but *will* happen in our lifetimes.

I'm not sure what it will be. There will be a winnowing. And not necessarily in a way that some mullahs might think.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

They just want you to think for yourself. I don't want to stereotype you, but would it not be fair to say that you and most LDS in most matter simply "resort to authority" in answer to most questions.

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.