Will Boyd K. Packer ever be the President of the church?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by YOhio

My testimony is finally recovering from the dissapointment of Bo Gritz losing his '92 presidential bid.

I remember when they had a booth set up in the Wilk during that campaign and I heard them arguing with a student about how voting for Gritz would only help Clinton win and the answer the lady gave was something about how God was on their side.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I remember when they had a booth set up in the Wilk during that campaign and I heard them arguing with a student about how voting for Gritz would only help Clinton win and the answer the lady gave was something about how God was on their side.

I remember being a little excited to hear of a member running for president, but it didn't take too much "research" to realize that Gritz was off his rocker.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So that's what I was saying? I think that's a pretty weak interpretation.

They may not have been your intent, but it is not an unreasonable insinuation from your statements.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So that's what I was saying? I think that's a pretty weak interpretation.

It just reminded me of the stuff I used to hear the Reed Benson types say at BYU during the early 90s when I was there. If the church didn't speak out for one of their ideas it was only because they really do believe it but can't say so publicly for some reason.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

They may not have been your intent, but it is not an unreasonable insinuation from your statements.

OK, I said that PR may have been the motivating factor behind that specific edit, but BlueK extrapolated that to be my blanket defense for all instances of "disagreement" with the Brethren.

It was the extrapolation that I disagreed with.

As for whether or not PR was the motivating factor behind editing ETB's article, that's just as reasonable a hypothesis as anything anyone else has put forth in this thread.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

P.S. These types of comments are my favorite from Happy Valley... I think it's sad when a losing record in bowl games gives somebody hard nipples!

Rock solid my friend. Rock solid.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

OK, I said that PR may have been the motivating factor behind that specific edit, but BlueK extrapolated that to be my blanket defense for all instances of "disagreement" with the Brethren.

It was the extrapolation that I disagreed with.

As for whether or not PR was the motivating factor behind editing ETB's article, that's just as reasonable a hypothesis as anything anyone else has put forth in this thread.

I'm not saying you do it all the time, but it seems to be a typical tactic of the "mullah" wing. It was an especially popular technique during the Benson presidency (at least in happy valley) when he disappointed more than a few LDS right wingers by not being very political as president of the Church.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

P.S. These types of comments are my favorite from Happy Valley... I think it's sad when a losing record in bowl games gives somebody hard nipples!

Channel surfing the other day I stumbled onto a game on the Mtn where I knew BYU was going to beat Utah, at Utah. A couple of days later there was a game on where I knew the end score was BYU beating Utah at Utah in BB.

Those kind of things cause more than nipples to go hard for a Cougar fan and must be like a heavy dose of salt peter for a Ute.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I'm not saying you do it all the time, but it seems to be a typical tactic of the "mullah" wing. It was especially popular in the church during the Benson presidency (at least in happy valley) when he disappointed more than a few LDS right wingers by not being very political as president of the Church.

The less political my prophet is, the happier I am. That said, I have no problem with the prophet/Church speaking out on "political" issues that have very strong moral ramifications (gambling, gay marriages, etc.).

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The less political my prophet is, the happier I am. That said, I have no problem with the prophet/Church speaking out on "political" issues that have very strong moral ramifications (gambling, gay marriages, etc.).

I agree with that.