AMA a positive model and example for LDS Church

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Solon

I'm of the opinion that this is it. If not "infallible," then "never wrong in terms of leadership." Modern leaders are extremely hesitant to correct even obvious and blatant misstatements of earlier ones, perhaps out of respect, but (in my cynical opinion) more likely because casting doubts on past leaders undermines the position of present leaders.

I agree pretty much with this. But that doesn't mean that the membership thinks the prophets are infallible. It doesn't mean that an apology will never be issued.

For example, me as scoutmaster, with some time under my belt, I am extremely reluctant to criticize any of the scoutmasters that preceded me, even though I have held some negative opinions from time to time.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I agree pretty much with this. But that doesn't mean that the membership thinks the prophets are infallible. It doesn't mean that an apology will never be issued.

For example, me as scoutmaster, with some time under my belt, I am extremely reluctant to criticize any of the scoutmasters that preceded me, even though I have held some negative opinions from time to time.

You all except Solon missed my point. The point is that infallibility is the only poossible explanation--besides sheer cowardice, which I doubt anyone would defend as principled from any perspective--that they don't come clean about the past.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I agree pretty much with this. But that doesn't mean that the membership thinks the prophets are infallible. It doesn't mean that an apology will never be issued.

For example, me as scoutmaster, with some time under my belt, I am extremely reluctant to criticize any of the scoutmasters that preceded me, even though I have held some negative opinions from time to time.

What if your predecessor was a child molestor? Would you feel constrained not to criticize him? We're not talking about Monday morning quarterbacking here. We're talking about an issue of huge ethical dimensions. After all, the AMA only is responsible for the professional and intellectual advancement of its members. The LDS Church's claims are much greater. It's scandalous they don't apologize, and it says it all.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You all except Solon missed my point.

Disagreeing with != missing.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What if your predecessor was a child molestor? Would you feel constrained not to criticize him? We're not talking about Monday morning quarterbacking here. We're talking about an issue of huge ethical dimensions. After all, the AMA only is responsible for the professional and intellectual advancement of its members. The LDS Church's claims are much greater. It's scandalous they don't apologize, and it says it all.

Different strokes for different folks.

If a child molester had been part of my ward, I would consult experts on the proper way to help people heal, and try to look forward, not backward. That doesn't mean I would deny the obvious but to the extent experts advised me to look ahead not backwards, I would do so for the good of the congregation.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Your doctrine is that they are infallible. Ergo, no need to apologize. God made them do it. Is there another possible explanation than this apparent "doctrine of infallibilitiy" of the LDS Church?

Our doctrine? I thought no one could tell you what are doctrine was?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

You've chosen to leave the fold. Why do you refuse to leave it alone?

Good hell, man, get over it. We get it. You hate the LDS Church. Shut up about it already.

I should be clear about what dog I have in this fight. First, I don't think the fact that there were some blacks who joined the LDS Church and were denied the priesthood is the main concern. That was downright demeaning and cruel, but the LDS Church didn't beat or kill or maim them or deprive them of a livelihood or education. The LDS is just not that historically significant insofar as blacks are concerned. Probably not many blacks have cared a lot about this.

Il Padrino is correct in a sense that since I've disassociated myself from the LDS Church I shouldn't care. Implicit in his point is, if I don't think the priesthood means anything, why do I care?

But here is why I should and do care. I care for the souls of LDS Church members including family members I love. LDS have been conditioned to listen to their Church leaders, not to me, so their Church needs to belly up and do its job and try to save their souls.

As I've stated, what a wonderful growing and maturing experience for LDS rank and file it would be if their members heard their curch apoloize forthrightly--acknowledging that the Church was wrong, that what it did was not of God and was morally indefensible, that it was a huge laggard and not a moral leader or beacon on this important moral issue, and the ideological basis for the ban was wholly discredited creationism.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

Disagreeing with != missing.

Tex, give me a straight, PRINCIPLED explanation for why the don't do exactly what the AMA did. I've tried to come up with one. Do you agree with the only candidate I could come up with?

If you (of all people) don't respond, I'm going to assume they aren't acting in a principled way.

(As I explained in my prior post, I submit that by behaving in this unprincipled way they're injuring their members.)

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Tex, give me a straight, PRINCIPLED explanation for why the don't do exactly what the AMA did. I've tried to come up with one. Do you agree with the only candidate I could come up with?

If you (of all people) don't respond, I'm going to assume they aren't acting in a principled way.

(As I explained in my prior post, I submit that by behaving in this unprincipled way they're injuring their members.)

why don't you follow your wife's advice to others and represent a destitute convicted murderer on death row? is it because you are not principled?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

why don't you follow your wife's advice to others and represent a destitute convicted murderer on death row? is it because you are not principled?

Do you think she could do it without me? I am doing it at great personal cost.