Church issues formal apology for MMM

[Tex]

Originally Posted by scottie

Thinking Christ's church should apologize for their non-Christlike actions is somehow analogous to some random guy thinking a church missionary should buy him a chicken. That's classic.

At the risk of leaving the impression I care more about this issue than I do ... I don't consider the church's actions to be un-Christlike, just like it's not un-Christlike to not buy every street bum a chicken.

Certainly it's a better analogy than Richard Nixon.

Originally Posted by scottie

BTW, why buy him fruit but not a chicken?

Cost.

[All-American]

Guys, I don't think the church apologized. I read the article, as well as one on the LDS website. I don't see Elder Eyring expressing anything but regret.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

EDIT: At the very least, this should put to rest the canard that I'm a robotic minion of the LDS collective.

You appear to be even worse than that. You go the extra mile even beyond the church when it comes to being cold, harsh, and judgemental.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You appear to be even worse than that. You go the extra mile even beyond the church when it comes to being cold, harsh, and judgemental.

Don't leave out that I'm a murderer-in-embryo too. Gotta keep that in the list.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Is there a good reason not to? What are we accomplishing by controlling the property? Besides offending the descendants? Remember that their ancestors are buried on the site. It seems to me that we would gain more from releasing it than we are accomplishing by owning it.

Offending descendants by controlling property?

At some point, you don't bow to pressure. My concern is to create an area where abnormal criticisms might be staged. Yes, MMM was an egregious mistake, but I don't trust the federal government at all.

I've not seen a property controlled by the Church which has been operated poorly. In some ways, the Church continuing responsibility for it, shows it acknowledges its continuing blame. Giving it to the federal government basically says the Church is now just pushing it away.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, obviously I'm the one disagreeing with the church's PR in this instance. And it's not the first time for me, surprise, surprise.

But you're suggesting that the church behaved in an un-Christianlike way on this topic; that sans-apology this incident was a chink in its ability to represent the Savior. Maybe you agree with the guy who demanded I give him a chicken.

It's an odd assertion to say the least, given who is at it's head.

Pardon me for the psycho-analysis, but this is the crux of the problem you have (as does Indy and other legalists).

You say you believe in grace and repentance but you act and talk the complete opposite. You have a very uneasy relationship with sin. It terrifies you. To acknowledge it in your life is to acknowledge the possibility that you will be cut off from God and loved ones for eternity. You would rather redefine and repackage the concept of sin (or distinguish it from "minor sin" which doesn't qualify) so you don't have to admit to any.

Thus you have a paradigm that the church can do no wrong. Since an apology by the church is an admission that the church did wrong, it upends your world. With your paradigm of sin and the eternal effects of it, an admission of guilt is completely condemning and damning.

John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye
might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be
of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Pardon me for the psycho-analysis, but this is the crux of the problem you have (as does Indy and other legalists).

You say you believe in grace and repentance but you act and talk the complete opposite. You have a very uneasy relationship with sin. It terrifies you. To acknowledge it in your life is to acknowledge the possibility that you will be cut off from God and loved ones for eternity. You would rather redefine and repackage the concept of sin (or distinguish it from "minor sin" which doesn't qualify) so you don't have to admit to any.

Thus you have a paradigm that the church can do no wrong. Since an apology by the church is an admission that the church did wrong, it upends your world. With your paradigm of sin and the eternal effects of it, an admission of guilt is completely condemning and damning.

John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye
might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be
of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Someone must have seriously scarred you at some point in your life. You have serious issues with guilt, judgement, being judged, etc. and you do some serious and baseless projection onto others.

Leave the psycho-analysis to <gulp> people like Mike Waters, who actually might have a clue, despite himself, and let Mike Waters leave the football prediction scoring formula to you or Pelagius or someone like that.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Someone must have seriously scarred you at some point in your life. You have serious issues with guilt, judgement, being judged, etc. and you do some serious and baseless projection onto others.

Leave the psycho-analysis to <gulp> people like Mike Waters, who actually might have a clue, despite himself, and let Mike Waters leave the football prediction scoring formula to you or Pelagius or someone like that.

jay, he is scared of you and what you say.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Pardon me for the psycho-analysis, but this is the crux of the problem you have (as does Indy and other legalists).

You say you believe in grace and repentance but you act and talk the complete opposite. You have a very uneasy relationship with sin. It terrifies you. To acknowledge it in your life is to acknowledge the possibility that you will be cut off from God and loved ones for eternity. You would rather redefine and repackage the concept of sin (or distinguish it from "minor sin" which doesn't qualify) so you don't have to admit to any.

Thus you have a paradigm that the church can do no wrong. Since an apology by the church is an admission that the church did wrong, it upends your world. With your paradigm of sin and the eternal effects of it, an admission of guilt is completely condemning and damning.

John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye
might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be
of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

I love this stuff; it's like going to a palm reader.

Tell me more about what I believe. Should I buy you a chicken, too?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Offending descendants by controlling property?

At some point, you don't bow to pressure. My concern is to create an area where abnormal criticisms might be staged. Yes, MMM was an egregious mistake, but I don't trust the federal government at all.

I've not seen a property controlled by the Church which has been operated poorly. In some ways, the Church continuing responsibility for it, shows it acknowledges its continuing blame. Giving it to the federal government basically says the Church is now just pushing it away.

I don't buy the argument that we somehow control the story by owning the property. Or that we need to control the story. What are we afraid of? Again, give me specifics examples.