Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If I've demonstrated anything in this thread, it's that I'm willing to explain my position and its underlying reasoning.  

Beyond that, and with respect, I decline to enter into a substantive discussion with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course you decline to enter into a substantive discussion with me, smac.

That's because I am on to you.

And I just exposed your duplicitous use of equivocation to avoid addressing the actual issue of this entire 25-page long thread.

You are the one who should be ashamed.  Not the author of the Tribune op-ed piece.

[consiglieri]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What utter BS!

Methinks the journalist doth protest too much.

[smac97]

On 5/12/2016 at 2:00 PM, consiglieri said:

Of course you decline to enter into a substantive discussion with me, smac.

That's because I am on to you.

Nope.  Because you usually play the provocateur, and because I don't believe good faith discussion with you is generally available.

Quote

And I just exposed your duplicitous use of equivocation to avoid addressing the actual issue of this entire 25-page long thread.

As I said.  Provocateur.  Good faith discussion lacking.

Quote

You are the one who should be ashamed.  Not the author of the Tribune op-ed piece.

Provocateur.  Good faith discussion lacking.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 12, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Still dodging the issue, Scott?

I have pointed out the game you and smac have been playing with the definition of "think."

Time for you to man up and give an answer.

And this time, use the definition of "think" that was used in the original Trib op-ed.

Not a different definition that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Okay?

You are babbling.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are babbling.

Everyone on this thread has been "babbling" for some 20+ pages now.  Did I thank you yet for the direction you took this thread?  It's been ever so productive.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Everyone on this thread has been "babbling" for some 20+ pages now.  Did I thank you yet for the direction you took this thread?  It's been ever so productive.

Actually, Smac, for one, has consistently made eminent sense.

And don't blame me for taking the thread off kilter. As I've said, much of the back-and-forth might have been avoided had you and others been candid enough to acknowledge the injustice and impropriety of using a 70-year-old, disavowed, one-time-only statement as a cliché for bashing the Church of Jesus Christ.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, Smac, for one, has consistently made eminent sense.

And don't blame me for taking the thread off kilter. As I've said, much of the back-and-forth might have been avoided had you and others been candid enough to acknowledge the injustice and impropriety of using a 70-year-old, disavowed, one-time-only statement as a cliché for bashing the Church of Jesus Christ.

I'm happy to acknowledge any injustice and impropriety when I stop seeing the concept preached and lived in the church (and on these boards).

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am sure your perception is different.  I am just regular folk.  No mission, no intense studying at home in libraries or at BYU.  FairMormon was unheard of until a few years ago and basically just a regular old member.

All I had was Children's Friend, The Improvement ERA, then the Ensign and relied fully on General Conferences, talks, my teachers through the years and meeting in general every week.  I relied on my parents and what they knew, my grandmothers and the teachings from the pulpit of the apostles and the prophet. 

I've known a good many "just regular folk" types (under your definition) in my time -- more than I can readily count. None of them have lost faith in the restored gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ or see any reason why they should. Some have influenced the development of my own testimony.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, Smac, for one, has consistently made eminent sense.

And don't blame me for taking the thread off kilter. As I've said, much of the back-and-forth might have been avoided had you and others been candid enough to acknowledge the injustice and impropriety of using a 70-year-old, disavowed, one-time-only statement as a cliché for bashing the Church of Jesus Christ.

It's odd the 70 year old quote factored in, really.  She indicated she once believed the content of the quote.  It doesn't matter if the quote is ever used at all in that sense.  She no longer accepts it and seems to indicate she learned to reject it by leaving the church.  It's a shame really that members in the Church can categorically accept the principle found in the statement.  And yet, we have examples here of other statements and teachings that come pretty close and to some of us suggest the same thing. 

The real issue should have nothing to do with reflexively worrying about someone bashing the Church so much as an effort to understand how members are getting the wrong impression. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's odd the 70 year old quote factored in, really.  She indicated she once believed the content of the quote.  It doesn't matter if the quote is ever used at all in that sense.  She no longer accepts it and seems to indicate she learned to reject it by leaving the church.  It's a shame really that members in the Church can categorically accept the principle found in the statement.  And yet, we have examples here of other statements and teachings that come pretty close and to some of us suggest the same thing. 

The real issue should have nothing to do with reflexively worrying about someone bashing the Church so much as an effort to understand how members are getting the wrong impression. 

Amen.

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've known a good many "just regular folk" types (under your definition) in my time -- more than I can readily count. None of them have lost faith in the restored gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ or see any reason why they should. Some have influenced the development of my own testimony.

No they haven't lost their testimony.  Many of my baby boomer friends have not lost their testimony.  And they won't  Scott..they won't know about a lot of this stuff we talk about here.  Like me, they will just listen to conference and go to their Sunday classes and know...the thinking has been done,

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's odd the 70 year old quote factored in, really.  She indicated she once believed the content of the quote.  It doesn't matter if the quote is ever used at all in that sense.  She no longer accepts it and seems to indicate she learned to reject it by leaving the church.  It's a shame really that members in the Church can categorically accept the principle found in the statement.  And yet, we have examples here of other statements and teachings that come pretty close and to some of us suggest the same thing. 

The real issue should have nothing to do with reflexively worrying about someone bashing the Church so much as an effort to understand how members are getting the wrong impression. 

Great thoughts and summary.  I wish we could move past this one point (and the word "thinking") and discuss the rest of her points, if anyone has the desire to do so now.  Getting to the "understanding" effort here would be nice.

.

Edited May 12, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No they haven't lost their testimony.  Many of my baby boomer friends have not lost their testimony.  And they won't  Scott..they won't know about a lot of this stuff we talk about here.  Like me, they will just listen to conference and go to their Sunday classes and know...the thinking has been done,

The folks I have in mind would not cop to the "thinking has been done" attitude.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's odd the 70 year old quote factored in, really.  She indicated she once believed the content of the quote.  It doesn't matter if the quote is ever used at all in that sense.  She no longer accepts it and seems to indicate she learned to reject it by leaving the church.

So it's the old, tired, arrogant I-was-blind-while-I-was-a-Mormon-but-now-I've-become-one-of-the-enlightened-ones narrative that we constantly see.

That may have been her own experience, but she has no call to be projecting it onto Church members at large or for falsely insinuating that the Church teaches it.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Think folks I have in mind would not cop to the "thinking has been done" attitude.

I didn't cop out.  I did and believed was I told.  Can't you get that?  I. Was. Taught. This. over and over again.

Edited to add:  I talked today to my hometown best friend and cousin.  She is very active and I love her so much.  She stated that she has lived with this very idea of following the prophets and remembered my devotional and the things that we were taught together. 

Edited May 12, 2016 by Jeanne

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That may have been her own experience, but she has no call to be projecting it onto Church members at large or for falsely insinuating that the Church teaches it.

Did she mention being taught this while she was active?  From what I can tell, she's only expressing what she feels or believes now.

Can you even see how irrational and extremely defensive you are regarding something she did not state?   This definitely seems to be a trigger issue for you and you might want to evaluate why that is.  It's just really odd that you're in such denial about this topic.

(And hey, we all have issues that are triggers for us that seem to cause us to over react and become irrational....I have a list of mine  )

.

Edited May 12, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I didn't cop out.  I did and believed was I told.  Can't you get that?  I. Was. Taught. This. over and over again.

Calm down. I didn't say you copped out.

I used the colloquial verb "cop" as a synonym for admit to, concede or acknowledge.

And if the concept was taught over and over again, one would think there would be some vestige of it in the vast on-line database of curriculum materials and magazines going back to the early '70s that is found on lds.org.

You would think there would be some Google hit for it, other than antagonists and dissidents quoting it back and forth to each other and faithful believers trying to rebut them.

 

Edited May 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I didn't cop out.  I did and believed was I told.  Can't you get that?  I. Was. Taught. This. over and over again.

Edited to add:  I talked today to my hometown best friend and cousin.  She is very active and I love her so much.  She stated that she has lived with this very idea of following the prophets and remembered my devotional and the things that we were taught together. 

This was very definitely taught and still is (just not the exact quote, but very similar).  I've heard it taught even recently when we had a lesson on the importance of following the living Prophet. The living part was very much stressed even to the point that the teacher had several past Prophet's pictures hanging around the room and also President Monson's picture, then asked which Prophet are we to follow?  Then, they went on to stress how blessed we are today with all the challenges and choices out in the world, to have a Prophet that gives us the answers....and on....and on...

So no, your experience is not unique and still goes on today.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2016 by ALarson

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it's the old, tired, arrogant I-was-blind-while-I-was-a-Mormon-but-now-I've-become-one-of-the-enlightened-ones narrative that we constantly see.

That may have been her own experience, but she has no call to be projecting it onto Church members at large or for falsely insinuating that the Church teaches it.

Just so I can understand where you are coming from, could you answer a couple of questions for me?

Consider the statement, "When the Prophet has spoken, the debate is over."  Do you agree with President Marion G. Romney this statement conveys deep spiritual meaning for Latter-day Saints? 

If you agree with him that that statement is profoundly true, could you compare and contrast it to, "When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done?"  I claim it has the exact same meaning. 

If you think President Romney was wrong about this and that the core message of his article, The Debate is Over was ironically leading the Church astray, please let us know.  That would both clarify and prove your point.

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Calm down. I didn't say you copped out.

I used the colloquial verb "cop" as a synonym for admit to, concede or acknowledge.

And if the concept was taught over and over again, one would think there would be some vestige of it in the vast on-line database of curriculum materials and magazines going back to the early '70s that is found on lds.org.

You would think there would be some Google hit for it, other than antagonists and dissidents quoting it back and forth to each other and faithful believers trying to rebut it.

 

I am calm.  No worries.  We seem to be in two different worlds here.  Scott, as a believer in the past, why would I google something an apostle said?  I just believe him.  I am not upset. 

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Just so I can understand where you are coming from, could you answer a couple of questions for me?

Consider the statement, "When the Prophet has spoken, the debate is over."  Do you agree with President Marion G. Romney this statement conveys deep spiritual meaning for Latter-day Saints? 

The article you direct me to was not written by Marion G. Romney. It was written by N. Eldon Tanner. Just how familiar are you with it?

Quote

If you agree with him that that statement is profoundly true, could you compare and contrast it to, "When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done?"

I'm happy to draw such a contrast by pointing out a passage in the article that you appear to have missed or perhaps are intent on ignoring:

 

Quote

 

Today there are many issues under debate as controversies rage all around us. It should be evident to all that we need divine direction, as men and women who argue their causes seem to be unable to come to workable or peaceable solutions. It is sad indeed that the world does not know or accept the fact that in our midst is a prophet through whom God can direct the solution of world problems.

True Latter-day Saints have no such dilemma. They know that the messages of the prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General Authorities, who are men of vision and integrity, and who themselves try to keep in tune with deity. They are not, as some would suggest, following blindly and acting without their own agency to speak and think for themselves. Through prayer to our Heavenly Father each of us can have the assurance that the course we choose has his divine approval.

 

 

 

 

(Emphasis mine)

Here, President Tanner directly contradicts what you are trying to impute to him: "[The Latter-day Saints] are not, as some would suggest, following blindly and acting without their own agency to speak and think for themselves."

Throughout the article President Tanner cites examples that show there is wisdom in following divine direction given through prophets. Teaching people to be wise in the choices they make is not the same thing as telling people to not think or to cease thinking. If anything, it contemplates doing a great deal of thinking and pondering, combined with prayer, as President Tanner enjoins here.

Quote

I claim it has the exact same meaning. 

And in that, you are quite wrong. See above.

Quote

If you think President Romney was wrong about this and that the core message of his article, The Debate is Over was ironically leading the Church astray, please let us know.  That would both clarify and prove your point.

I think President Tanner (not President Romney) was giving counsel about the wisdom of following prophetic direction, not telling people to blindly obey without thinking about it. He said just the opposite, in fact (see above).

Edited May 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Just so I can understand where you are coming from, could you answer a couple of questions for me?

Consider the statement, "When the Prophet has spoken, the debate is over."  Do you agree with President Marion G. Romney this statement conveys deep spiritual meaning for Latter-day Saints? 

If you agree with him that that statement is profoundly true, could you compare and contrast it to, "When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done?"  I claim it has the exact same meaning. 

If you think President Romney was wrong about this and that the core message of his article, The Debate is Over was ironically leading the Church astray, please let us know.  That would both clarify and prove your point.

You probably won't get any answers (just like I didn't for the question I asked yesterday).  The reason you won't get an answer is there is essentially no difference in the two concepts ("the thinking has been done" vs. "the debate is over"). 

But, it would be nice to see thoughts or responses to the questions you ask.

Edited May 12, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

On 5/12/2016 at 3:56 PM, ALarson said:

You probably won't get any answers (just like I didn't for the question I asked yesterday).  The reason you won't get an answer is there is essentially no difference in the two concepts ("the thinking has been done" vs. "the debate is over"). 

I see very significant differences.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Did she mention being taught this while she was active?  From what I can tell, she's only expressing what she feels or believes now.

Can you even see how irrational and extremely defensive you are regarding something she did not state?   This definitely seems to be a trigger issue for you and you might want to evaluate why that is.  It's just really odd that you're in such denial about this topic.

(And hey, we all have issues that are triggers for us that seem to cause us to over react and become irrational....I have a list of mine  )

.

Your amateur psychoanalysis is worth precisely what I paid you for it.

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I see very significant differences.

If the "debate is over" when the Prophet speaks, what does it matter if in your thoughts you disagree with the Prophet?

Edited May 12, 2016 by ALarson