consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 Basically you are saying this:People you thought had great minds (which meant they could not be wrong) believed fervently an idea or theory (which may or may not be accurate) and that was sufficient for you to consider it doctrine.I don't think it works quite that way.It is not doctrine unless Jeff believes it . . .
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 Did the "Church Of Christ Restored" teach you that?Guilt by Association . . . Failed.
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 Never made the claim you were "attacking", but hey at least you got your personal jab in towards Lord's Church right? And after-all it is only natural to support your "own".Why is it a "personal jab" "towards the Lord's Church" to profess belief in the teachings of its second prophet?
Nomad Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Well, if you want to talk about the large and spacious building, who is it pointing the finger and mocking . . . ?The metaphorical "great and spacious building" is the place where those whose pride was wounded while among the Saints can be welcomed by new friends and then turn to deride their former brethren with the full support of their fellows. It looks like the new "Consiglieri Suite" is all gussied up for a big party. All that remains to be done is for consig to make a toast and cut the cake.
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 Consig, If you are struggling at all - walk away
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 Is there a "middle path" here?Interesting thoughts, Captain Blood.And well put.If there is a "middle path," I am doing my best to find it.All the Best!--Consiglieri
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 There's CAKE???!!! I do hope that there is Cheesecake (even though it's actually a custard). Why were you holding out on me, Consig?
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 The Adam-God "theory" is not the creation of Brigham Young but of the Church's critics from his ambiguous and vague statements upon the subject of the relationship between various divine personages. The "theory" is extra-LDS, and that point should not be made light of.Which would explain why Orson Pratt risked excommunication for not accepting it?
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 I fail to see how discussing something different in private, if that is the case, is a cover-up. I had a friend in Lincoln who discussed esoteric things with me but not most people. He was very, very knowledgeable but understood some people just aren't ready for more and knew I enjoyed the discussions. I do not consider that a cover-up but wisdom and tact.Do you know what it is Elder McConkie admitted in his private correspondence?I know Pahoran does, but was just wondering if you do.All the Best!--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 This is a friendly discussion, not Dungeons and Dragons.You . . . shall not . . . pass!
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 The metaphorical "great and spacious building" is the place where those whose pride was wounded while among the Saints can be welcomed by new friends and then turn to deride their former brethren with the full support of their fellows. It's amazing how this can be seen from another perspective . . .
Deborah Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Do you know what it is Elder McConkie admitted in his private correspondence?Why does it matter if it was private correspondence?
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 Why does it matter if it was private correspondence?Because it shows that Elder McConkie knew perfectly well that Brigham Young did teach the Adam-God Theory, regardless of what Elder McConkie was preaching pubicly.All the Best!--Consiglieri
Senator Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 If there is a "middle path," I am doing my best to find it.Have you yet consulted the Buddha?
Deborah Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Because it shows that Elder McConkie knew perfectly well that Brigham Young did teach the Adam-God Theory, regardless of what Elder McConkie was preaching pubicly.So? I believe that BY was teaching Adam-God as well but I don't talk about it in church because I think there are too many unanswered questions.
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 So? I believe that BY was teaching Adam-God as well but I don't talk about it in church because I think there are too many unanswered questions.But if you were an apostle of the Lord speaking pubicly as a representative of the Church, would you declare that the devil is the one who keeps this doctrine alive and that those who believe it don't deserve to be saved?All the Best!--Consiglieri
Jeff K. Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Jeff K., on 10 March 2011 - 09:27 PM, said:Basically you are saying this:People you thought had great minds (which meant they could not be wrong) believed fervently an idea or theory (which may or may not be accurate) and that was sufficient for you to consider it doctrine.I don't think it works quite that way.It is not doctrine unless Jeff believes it . . .Looks like Consig is reduced to meaningless ad homs without any real fact behind them. Did he counter the observation? No.To Consig conspiracy is anything he disagrees with. Doctrine is what he agrees with. And of course he calls himself an active observing Mormon.Note he did not place belief and faith into his self caricature. It is telling. He has intellectually decided to follow the lifestyle, but chosen to distance himself from the faith. I am not sure I could be that dishonest with myself. Perhaps his release is undermining others beliefs and faith or even faith in doctrine?Someone once said there was a Consig that fought hard for the church doctrine and views. I just see an angry consig who feels the church left him. I guess Joseph Smith wasn't the only one who knew a Sidney Rigdom.
RoseMadder Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Perhaps BOML should follow your example in formulating a substantive contribution to the thread?Regards,PahoranLaunching a direct hit with succinctness and style is likely too lofty a goal for our jejune scare-quoting, emoticon-using bookofmormontruth. A more attainable goal might be best. Perhaps BOMT should follow your example? He's "part" of your "pose" now, Pahoran. "Lucky!"
semlogo Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Looks like Consig is reduced to meaningless ad homs without any real fact behind them. Do you know what an ad hominem is?
Deborah Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 But if you were an apostle of the Lord speaking pubicly as a representative of the Church, would you declare that the devil is the one who keeps this doctrine alive and that those who believe it don't deserve to be saved?No but saying so isn't "The Church" saying so.
Minos Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Automatic generated messageThis topic has been closed by a moderator.Reason: Train wreckThank you,Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff Too many complaints have come in on previous content. Start new threads for ongoing discussion that is appropriate.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.