Simplicity spares apostasy

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is the church more worried about a 35 year old housewife hearing non-simple doctrine, or the disaster that is the current curriculum that makes many members 1) not attend or 2) dread and resent attendance?

I suspect they are more worried about non-simple doctrine being taught.

What gets kicked up the line to the GAs? The problem cases. The apostasties and excommunications that have been appealed.

Who kicks up, "Elder, half of our ward does not attend Sunday School, what should we do?" Doesn't happen.

Thankfully I have found a church-proscribed way to not go to Sunday School.

Are you a hall monitor like me?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mmm, not only mine.

Alleging that a First Presidency member is teaching doctrine out of harmony with the scriptures in the church's signature publication is a fairly bold thing to say. Not sure how you think it's not.

Tex, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Here's Joseph Smith's POV, regarding Pelatiah Brown teaching (let alone believing) false doctrine:

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latterday Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Tex, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Here's Joseph Smith's POV, regarding Pelatiah Brown teaching (let alone believing) false doctrine:

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latterday Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

So what Tex is doing is accusing you of being a Methodist?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So what Tex is doing is accusing you of being a Methodist?

I have no idea what Tex is accusing me of, but I do know that I don't think President Eyring is a bad man.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I have no idea what Tex is accusing me of, but I do know that I don't think President Eyring is a bad man.

I don't think the issue is whether or not you think President Eyring is a bad man, just whether or not he is teaching false doctrine.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I don't think the issue is whether or not you think President Eyring is a bad man, just whether or not he is teaching false doctrine.

What you think is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

What you think is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

LOL! The issue is whether or not you're saying that President Eyring is teaching false doctrine and the newer issue is seeing how you duck answering that question.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

LOL! The issue is whether or not you're saying that President Eyring is teaching false doctrine and the newer issue is seeing how you duck answering that question.

Hardly. The issue is how cowardly you'll be in your efforts to ape off of tex.

I already said that I believe that in the article tex cited, President Eyring teachings things that do not square with the Standard Works. I also suggested that if he thought following such teaching would serve him well, he should do so.

What more could you possibly want to know, High Inquisitor?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Tex, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Here's Joseph Smith's POV, regarding Pelatiah Brown teaching (let alone believing) false doctrine:

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latterday Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

I'm familiar with the quote, and I also know you think it grants you license to say whatever you like about the church or its leaders.

A point of view that concludes Eyring's April First Presidency message contradicts scripture is a point of view that deserves re-evaluating.

PS. I do appreciate you channeling Obi-Wan:

Obi-Wan Kenobi: Your father was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view.
Luke Skywalker: [incredulously] A certain point of view?
Obi-Wan Kenobi: Luke, you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm familiar with the quote, and I also know you think it grants you license to say whatever you like about the church or its leaders.

A point of view that concludes Eyring's April First Presidency message contradicts scripture is a point of view that deserves re-evaluating.

what's so bad about contradicting scripture?

are you one of those "scriptures are inerrant" folks?