This thread truly frightens me - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Jeff Lebowski · 10-23-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

The seemingly correct LDS and Christian response to such "propoganda" should be along the lines of "this is unfortunate, I respect his right to believe what he wants, hopefully we do not let this issue get in the way of our fellowship one to another...or even a simple "I disagree with this brother."

Exactly.

Tex · 10-23-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I don't know how many time I have heard that if you follow a leader and the leader turns out to be wrong, you will be blessed for it. Think about what that means. This means man is greater than God. You went against God's will because you followed bad advice from a man. Now God is going to reward you for it? That doesn't seems right to me. I doubt God places church management positions above his commandments.

I don't think that's a logical jump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Tex's request is somewhat ironic.

Frankly, the LESS material on fallibilty of Church leaders, the better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I'm not sure why anyone needs new material. There are two issues, racism and polygamy, where designated prophets of God have spoken out and been completely wrong. These are not small issues. They had significant impact on members' lives and families. There are a thousand smaller issues we could discuss, but if the point we're trying to make is that prophets are fallible (and sometimes in significant ways), I'm not sure why we need to.

I'm not sure I'm in the mood to foster another 300+ thread on prophetic infallibility. Suffice it to say, I think the blacks and the priesthood issue has become the Godwin's Law of Mormon message board obedience discussions. I've said this before.

Anytime someone wants to flaunt prophetic counsel, they cite blacks and the priesthood. Anytime someone wants to push their own pet agenda on church doctrine, they cite blacks and the priesthood.

"The church will someday sanction homosexuality."
"No, they won't."
"Of course they will. Hell, they gave blacks the priesthood!"

It truly cheapens what happened that 1978 summer.

ERCougar · 10-23-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not sure I'm in the mood to foster another 300+ thread on prophetic infallibility. Suffice it to say, I think the blacks and the priesthood issue has become the Godwin's Law of Mormon message board obedience discussions. I've said this before.

Anytime someone wants to flaunt prophetic counsel, they cite blacks and the priesthood. Anytime someone wants to push their own pet agenda on church doctrine, they cite blacks and the priesthood.

"The church will someday sanction homosexuality."
"No, they won't."
"Of course they will. Hell, they gave blacks the priesthood!"

It truly cheapens what happened that 1978 summer.

There's no need to foster another thread because the issue is settled. The reason the racism issue keeps arising is because it's HUGE and it's recent. We could talk about Pres Kimball's counsel on women wearing shorts, but you'd rightfully dismiss that as being fairly insignificant. We could talk about the Adam-God theory, but you'd say that was a long time ago and never really impacted anyone's life. To jay's example, you just respond that it was a fledgling church. Maybe you don't like this example because you can't pull out all the old standbys, so instead we hear "ya got something else?"

We don't need something else.

By the way, I don't think you can use prophet's fallibility to show that the church is absolutely wrong on gay marriage. But it does open the door to the possibility, and effectively counteract exUte's endless imbecilic broken-record "arguments" (to use the term loosely).

Tex · 10-23-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERCougar

There's no need to foster another thread because the issue is settled. The reason the racism issue keeps arising is because it's HUGE and it's recent. We could talk about Pres Kimball's counsel on women wearing shorts, but you'd rightfully dismiss that as being fairly insignificant. We could talk about the Adam-God theory, but you'd say that was a long time ago and never really impacted anyone's life. To jay's example, you just respond that it was a fledgling church. Maybe you don't like this example because you can't pull out all the old standbys, so instead we hear "ya got something else?"

We don't need something else.

By the way, I don't think you can use prophet's fallibility to show that the church is absolutely wrong on gay marriage. But it does open the door to the possibility, and effectively counteract exUte's endless imbecilic broken-record "arguments" (to use the term loosely).

In other words, the examples that exist are just not that convincing, but you don't have anything else. So you go with the best you have.

Over and over and over and over.

TripletDaddy · 10-23-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

In other words, the examples that exist are just not that convincing, but you don't have anything else. So you go with the best you have.

Over and over and over and over.

Wait, are you talking about the Yes on Prop 8 pamphlets?

jay santos · 10-23-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Over and over and over and over.

but in my heart, it was so real...

TripletDaddy · 10-23-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

but in my heart, it was so real...

Tex can feel the soil falling over his head as Nov 4 draws nearer.

Oh, well....enough said.

ERCougar · 10-23-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

In other words, the examples that exist are just not that convincing, but you don't have anything else. So you go with the best you have.

Over and over and over and over.

Right...the one (or really, two) that remains uncontested.

I'm not saying your other responses are legitimate. It's just that this one so easily settles the issue. It is kind of sad that we have to remind you of a basic principle...over and over and over.

Tex · 10-23-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Right...the one (or really, two) that remains uncontested.

I'm not saying your other responses are legitimate. It's just that this one so easily settles the issue. It is kind of sad that we have to remind you of a basic principle...over and over and over.

Hah. It's not uncontested. My goodness, are you new here?

ERCougar · 10-23-2008, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Hah. It's not uncontested. My goodness, are you new here?

Were you just holding back on your outstanding arguments on why we should ban blacks from the priesthood, in favor of the "that's all ya got" line?

Never mind...Don't answer that. I see where this is going and I'm not biting.