Alternate Voices: The Calling and its Implications

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

If you would simply read the articles and then engage them you would have little criticism from me. But time after time you don't do that. And yet I'm the bad guy here...interesting.

In this exchange you've come off looking far too defensive. It's been out of character for you.

[creekster]

I am afraid I am left with no choice but to send this entire thread to SLC for review.

[Archaea]

I think we should be getting our cease and desist letters from SLC with a hold on our memberships soon.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

In this exchange you've come off looking far too defensive. It's been out of character for you.

To the degree that that is true it is because Indy has pulled one over on you. He's tried to make the post about me instead of about any significant issue. That intent is evident in his first post, in which tried to make the discussion about my definition (a classic red herring). He could have read the articles. He could have offered something substantive. Indy has been operating out of his usual playbook.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

How shocking it would be if they green lined some point in somebody's article and let the author know that someone in leadership liked it? The only time intellectuals hear from leaders regarding their work is in negative situations. I'd like to see that change.

I agree this would be a good idea. But the animosity towards the brethren you're showing doesn't win people like me over, though. And I believe you're more on the conservative/brethren-supporting side of the intellectual gang.

Viewing this from afar, I get a picture of two sides digging their trenches. The average member is going to side with the brethren every time. So you need to change your tactics.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Your rhetoric is often of the "shut up and conform" variety and you like to derail discussions into the nitpicking of definitions. You don't so much challenge people on their viewpoints as imperiously declare them invalid. You do little more than take pot shots and defend the status quo for its own sake.

I'm not threatened by you (your ego indulgence, though, is highly amusing). I do know your methods and the fact that you have tried to make me out as the bad guy even as you refuse to engage the issues. Though you deny it, you bully people and generally make a stink of things. This exchange with you, which started with your usual bait, is more of the same.

I could ask you why you feel the need to ask for definitions when reading the articles would give you the grist for discussion? How about giving your definition for a change instead of sitting back and acting smug, then playing the victim when you are called on it? The "come hither my darling" question that you inevitably ask is worn out, predictable, and unproductive.

If you would simply read the articles and then engage them you would have little criticism from me. But time after time you don't do that. And yet I'm the bad guy here...interesting.

OK, I was willing to drop it, but apparently you seem bent on venting anyway.

The lengthy quote you provided gave no definition of "alternate voices". Sure, I could try to divine from the quote what that definiton was, but I thought a more productive and possibly more accurate way would be to ask someone I assumed was more familiar with the term.

Then, you proceeded to violate the very tenets of the column you posted.

I'm still not sure when a voice becomes an alternate voice. There's still a fair amount of gray area there, even after reading Elder Oaks' talk, but I have a better idea than I had after my initial reading of your quoted article.

I think your characterization of my involvement in this forum is pretty inaccurate, but ultimately that really doesn't matter to me.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I agree this would be a good idea. But the animosity towards the brethren you're showing doesn't win people like me over, though. And I believe you're more on the conservative/brethren-supporting side of the intellectual gang.

Viewing this from afar, I get a picture of two sides digging their trenches. The average member is going to side with the brethren every time. So you need to change your tactics.

Do I show animosity toward church leadership? Frustration, sometimes, but animosity? I disagree with things that are taught here and there, but many people do.

What is the animosity of which you speak?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

To the degree that that is true it is because Indy has pulled one over on you. He's tried to make the post about me instead of about any significant issue. That intent is evident in his first post, in which tried to make the discussion about my definition (a classic red herring). He could have read the articles. He could have offered something substantive. Indy has been operating out of his usual playbook.

All I can tell you is that you wildly misunderstood a very, very, very simple question. If you had just humored me with an answer right away, instead of going off on wild paranoid rantings about what you THOUGHT I was going to do, this could have all been avoided. I even stated later on in the thread I basically agreed with the points made, even though I tend to agree with Jay about the general defensive tone that permeated the piece.

Don't pin this one on me, this is all of your own making.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Do I show animosity toward church leadership? Frustration, sometimes, but animosity? I disagree with things that are taught here and there, but many people do.

What is the animosity of which you speak?

I can't specifically recall you having animosity towards church leadership; several other names come to mind when it comes to animosity.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

OK, I was willing to drop it, but apparently you seem bent on venting anyway.

The lengthy quote you provided gave no definition of "alternate voices". Sure, I could try to divine from the quote what that definiton was, but I thought a more productive and possibly more accurate way would be to ask someone I assumed was more familiar with the term.

Then, you proceeded to violate the very tenets of the column you posted.

I'm still not sure when a voice becomes an alternate voice. There's still a fair amount of gray area there, even after reading Elder Oaks' talk, but I have a better idea than I had after my initial reading of your quoted article.

I think your characterization of my involvement in this forum is pretty inaccurate, but ultimately that really doesn't matter to me.

The links did give plenty of context. My definition was not the matter at hand nor did I want it to be. In the past you have skirted real issues by making the issue the person. And which of those tenents have I violated?