This thread truly frightens me

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think you've got a healthy attitude on the issue. Many of the CB posters on the thread I linked, on the other hand, I believe do not.

You've been fortunate if you've experienced such a diversity in thought in your church life. My experience is not so diverse. Most of the members in my ward are very conservative politically, and those who are not tend to stay quiet.

From what I've experienced in the church, diversity is not rewarded. Conformity of thought is rewarded.

Why should conservatism, diversity, and conformity be mutually exclusive? How else are we going to "establish Zion"? To reach that goal, if that is what you believe, there has to be some give and take without giving up core beliefs and/or agency. In the spectrum between being a hardliner and a liberal, I am closer to the hardliner side and typically fall in line (willingly, there has been no brainwashing) with the rank and file of the Church...there are some things that I take issues with, but recognizing that to some, those principles, programs, direction, counsel, etc...have value, I suck it up, and again, willingly, play my part. No one has ever forced me to do so. For example, I don't like scouts and specifically hate camping, I don't like those silly camp fire songs, I never made it to eagle rank...yet, I recognize that if a YM will embrace the principles scouting attempts to instill in them, they will be grow up to be fine men and make positive contributions to society. I have no problems with the principles, it is the program by which those principles are taught to the YM that I don't like...yet, I try to be the best 11 year old scout leader that I can be and those 11 y/o in my patrol will never know that I hate scouting. I make it fun and encourage them to embrace the principles and advance in rank. Am I hypocrite, I don't think so, even though I don't like program, that is the program the Church has chosen to strengthen the AP at this time and I will do my part to advance it in the Primary and YM programs.

You may want to point out that I chose a not so controversial subject, scouting, to explain my position...yet, I believe my attitude in approaching things will get me through many, if not most of the controversial subjects discussed in this forum as well as others that may arise in the future.

[creekster]

Since our goal is to become one in Christ, doesn't it stand to reason that people seeking that goal would be more likely to want to have unity on most issues? I am pretty sure Jesus always makes up his mind on things.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Since our goal is to become one in Christ, doesn't it stand to reason that people seeking that goal would be more likely to want to have unity on most issues? I am pretty sure Jesus always makes up his mind on things.

Is not this why Paul says we have leaders at all: to teach us until "we all come in the unity of the faith"?

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more achildren, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of bdoctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

This is what I do here everyday: speak the truth in love.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I wrote a long post and lost it because I was "timed out."

Grrrr....

So is Tex arguing for infallibility again? Is he arguing that agency is to choose to follow the prophet or to choose to go to hell? Is he equating unity with conformity? Is he ignoring scriptures about the voice of the people and common consent? Is he being his usual ignorant self? Is he avowing one's decisions should be turned over to another (fascism)?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I wrote a long post and lost it because I was "timed out."

Grrrr....

So is Tex arguing for infallibility again? Is he arguing that agency is to choose to follow the prophet or to choose to go to hell? Is he equating unity with conformity? Is he ignoring scriptures about the voice of the people, and common consent? Is he being his usual ignorant self?

Actually, I think I was the one that suggested unity might look like conformity. Just being my ignorant self, I suppose. At least I didn't call you SU.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by creekster

Actually, I think I was the one that suggested unity might look like conformity. Just being my ignorant self, I suppose. At least I didn't call you SU.

I would argue strenuously that unity and conformity are not the same (appearances aren't the issue, I think the two are qualitatively different). That is, I would if fundamentalists credited reason as something more than a play thing.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I would argue strenuously that unity and conformity are not the same. That is, I would if fundamentalists credited reason as something more than a play thing.

Unity speaks to the purposes of the heart, and conformity speaks to the uniformity in outward actions.

I believe in unity and only limitedly in conformity.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Unity speaks to the purposes of the heart, and conformity speaks to the uniformity in outward actions.

I believe in unity and only limitedly in conformity.

Yes. Consider the compass: Each of us at different points, having fragmentary, different, and even oppositional perspectives, and being circumscribed through God.

Too many people oversimplify the square and flat-out ignore or misunderstand the compass.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I would argue strenuously that unity and conformity are not the same (appearances aren't the issue, I think the two are qualitatively different). That is, I would if fundamentalists credited reason as something more than a play thing.

Don't they look the same? IOW, whether you are agreeing with someone or acting like someone because you are choosing to conform or because you have been led to a unified position by reason or the spirit, isn't the appearance to others the same? This is not an empty question, particularly if we are willing to criticize others for appearing as sheep, and if we assume the premise that we should all be unified in Christ. Now perhaps you have some other definition for unity that I am not considering, and if you have already posted it somewhere, please point me there.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I wrote a long post and lost it because I was "timed out."

Grrrr....

So is Tex arguing for infallibility again? Is he arguing that agency is to choose to follow the prophet or to choose to go to hell? Is he equating unity with conformity? Is he ignoring scriptures about the voice of the people and common consent? Is he being his usual ignorant self? Is he avowing one's decisions should be turned over to another (fascism)?

You should start to get an idea of what he's actually arguing by around post #150.