What's wrong with Mormon Doctrine?

[Archaea]

[quote=Tex;85503

Personally, I think you are on a crusade to discredit and disparage any church leader you happen to disagree with or dislike, and to that end, you'll conveniently pick and choose the sources you wish to believe.



You apparently have short memories.[/quote]

Are doing anything different?

You conveniently pick and choose the recollection of a son about a father. Hardly a source without bias.

OTOH, we show you a real unbiased source from a faithful member that shows the republication of the MD was under suspicious circumstances.

I have no crusade except to argue for truth. In general, I support the efforts of the leaders of the Church and I wholly support the Church's purpose as identified by God. I do not believe that just because a Church member or leader stated something makes you on the side of angels, which seems to be you high-handed point of reference. You cite a source and then retreat to the hills.

Examine the circumstances of the republication. How old was President McKay? How good was his health at that time?

Do remember Steve Benson's perhaps somewhat valid criticism about ETB toward his end? Now I hold the reason ETB remained alive even though he may not have been fully competent was to give GBH more time learning administration before he completely took over the reigns. So I disagree with Steve, but understand that the leaders toward the end of their demise are not always fully competent. That's why there is a Presidency.

I agree that BRM's MD should never had been republished. If he had wanted to publish "Religious Doctrine by Bruce", then that may have been more useful. Or the "Gospel according to Bruce." The title and its authoritative and abrasive tone was one of the keys. In addition he went way overboard on the Great and Abominable Church, as well as the Blacks and the Priesthood. His doctrines on salvation and grace were also overstated.

Now, you and anybody else can throw in the gratuitous, "Gee you think you're smarter than a GA" insult if you wish. But of what use is that statement? Do you intend that a statement made by a GA is now off-limits for examination? What makes a statement by a GA sacrosanct?

I contend a statement by a GA, because it purports to represent the Church more officially, at least informally so, should be subject to more scrutiny, not less. And just because a GA makes a statement doesn't mean I have to shut off the brain God gave to me.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Are doing anything different?

You conveniently pick and choose the recollection of a son about a father. Hardly a source without bias.

OTOH, we show you a real unbiased source from a faithful member that shows the republication of the MD was under suspicious circumstances.

I'm gratified to know your bias detector is so carefully calibrated.

Originally Posted by Archaea

I have no crusade except to argue for truth. In general, I support the efforts of the leaders of the Church and I wholly support the Church's purpose as identified by God. I do not believe that just because a Church member or leader stated something makes you on the side of angels, which seems to be you high-handed point of reference. You cite a source and then retreat to the hills.

Examine the circumstances of the republication. How old was President McKay? How good was his health at that time?

Do remember Steve Benson's perhaps somewhat valid criticism about ETB toward his end? Now I hold the reason ETB remained alive even though he may not have been fully competent was to give GBH more time learning administration before he completely took over the reigns. So I disagree with Steve, but understand that the leaders toward the end of their demise are not always fully competent. That's why there is a Presidency.

I agree that BRM's MD should never had been republished. If he had wanted to publish "Religious Doctrine by Bruce", then that may have been more useful. Or the "Gospel according to Bruce." The title and its authoritative and abrasive tone was one of the keys. In addition he went way overboard on the Great and Abominable Church, as well as the Blacks and the Priesthood. His doctrines on salvation and grace were also overstated.

Now, you and anybody else can throw in the gratuitous, "Gee you think you're smarter than a GA" insult if you wish. But of what use is that statement? Do you intend that a statement made by a GA is now off-limits for examination? What makes a statement by a GA sacrosanct?

I contend a statement by a GA, because it purports to represent the Church more officially, at least informally so, should be subject to more scrutiny, not less. And just because a GA makes a statement doesn't mean I have to shut off the brain God gave to me.

I don't think you need to "shut off the brain" or treat GA statements as "sacrosanct" or "off-limits." And I seriously doubt you'd find an apostle who would disagree.

I do think there's a pretty thick line called "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" and you seem to live with one foot firmly on either side of it. What does that phrase mean to you, Arch?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm gratified to know your bias detector is so carefully calibrated.



I don't think you need to "shut off the brain" or treat GA statements as "sacrosanct" or "off-limits." And I seriously doubt you'd find an apostle who would disagree.

I do think there's a pretty thick line called "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" and you seem to live with one foot firmly on either side of it. What does that phrase mean to you, Arch?

Outside of the temple, I'm uncomfortable discussing the meaning of this.