Jump to content

Gray

Contributor
  • Content Count

    10,119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,367 Excellent

5 Followers

About Gray

  • Rank
    Creates Man & Woman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,140 profile views
  1. Yes, but spiritual experiences are particularly open to interpretation.
  2. Spiritual experiences must be interpreted to have meaning. Often when we have them we have been primed to interpret them a certain way. Additional context can cause people to reevaluate the way they interpret such experiences.
  3. You downplayed it every time you objected to a straightforward and frank description of the policy.
  4. He doesn't use the term soft-peddling (as far as I know I'm the only one using that term, or people responding to me). He's arguing for a soft-peddled interpretation though. Robert Smith: "While I agree that the Holy Spirit can certainly be grieved in certain circumstances, I know of no analysis of Holy Write which verifies that in all circumstances. I have already cited occasions when contention did occur, and it was appropriate. Righteous indignation is a thing, CV75, and we all need to acknowledge that. Sometimes, the exchange of milktoast versions of reality are ridiculous and counterproductive. The problem as I see it is not knowing the difference." CV75: Yes, not knowing the difference is a problem. I don't take righteous indignation, which I believe the Lord would stand behind, to entail the spirit of contention per 3 Nephi 11, which precedes the Beatitudes that come in very handy when dealing with and counseling through difficult situations and feelings, nor disputation for that matter. CV75 is advocating for softening and massaging the description and messaging to avoid "the spirit of contention".
  5. Yup, exactly the point I was trying to make (albeit probably with too much spice).
  6. As I said before, this seems to be an attempt on your part to soft peddle an unpopular policy, rather than frankly acknowledging what the policy did.
  7. Yes, definition is everything. For the pantheist, God's existence is demonstrated without any question. But non-pantheists don't define God that way, so it's not impressive or meaningful to say God is the universe and God exists. So definition is everything.
  8. Nope. You made your position clear - you can't understand why "speaking to the virtues or benignity" of a church's policy is acting like a PR agent. But that's exactly what PR agents DO. Even the church has stopped defending this policy and wisely dropped it. Some folks can't seem to let it go.
  9. I did back it up, but it was never phrased as a "statement of fact." I look forward to reading your well-researched replies to the five outstanding CFRs that you have been issued.
  10. It's a direct link to a post by CV75. CFR that the link just takes you to a page of posts. CFR that "If you could put up the quote where someone says that the reason they objected to his statement was because he wasn't soft-peddling the policy sufficiently" would answer the CFR CFR that CFRs apply to ALL statements. CFR that I was making a statement of objective fact. CFR that you're asking me to be accountable for a "statement of fact" that I made These are serious CFRs and you must answer or retract. Enjoy the rest of your day answering these very serious and important CFRs.
  11. I think you're abusing CFR, but here you go: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71823-interpreter-podcast-dehlin-is-an-idiot-for-leaking-the-115-policy-also-we-dont-hide-policies/?do=findComment&comment=1209904485"
×
×
  • Create New...