Lack of inoculation takes another

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

(BTW, you were responding to my post, not Arch's, you mislabeled it)

Once again, it is quite relevant and important to the people we are evangelizing. Mike Wallace asked that question not just for personal curiousity, but because it is (and always will be) relevant. Good journalists ask relevant questions.

My bad. I fixed it.

I'm trying to decide if you're not understanding me on purpose. Hinckley's objective (if I may conjecture) is to help people gain a testimony and/or live the gospel. The question of the church's history with blacks is entirely ancillary to that objective.

Whether Wallace thought it was relevant is not even germane to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am being unfair? How so?

If he didn't want to talk about it, he could have just said so. Instead he gave a dishonest answer. I would hardly call that "demurring".

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the interview and I think he did a great job overall. But I certainly squirmed over those two answers, especially the second one. I am guessing GBH regretted how he answered that one as well once he had time to think about it.

Hmm, I went back to double-check, and I can't find that question anywhere in the Wallace interview. I did discover this question in the Time magazine article a year later however:

Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it." - Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997

As I read it now, I realize that the question of men becoming God is quite a different one from God once being a mortal man. I agree with Hinckley, and he answered honestly. We don't know a lot about it. And I don't think we teach or emphasize it either.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Tex, you never responded to this one. I am curious what you think of Pres. Veazey's statement.

I didn't realize you were expecting one. It's long ... I'll read through it sometime.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jim Swarthout

Speaking of Cowdery, didn't he have a specific "gift" that the Lord told him about? Was it the gift of the "rod" or some other kind of gift? I can't remember because the story has apparently been changed on purpose.

Something like that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Hmm, I went back to double-check, and I can't find that question anywhere in the Wallace interview. I did discover this question in the Time magazine article a year later however:

My bad. It was actually in two separate interviews in 1997.

I still find his answers puzzling at best. That doctrine has been taught over and over. The distinction between "God was once a man" and "Man can become like God" is a red herring. They are two sides of the same doctrinal coin.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Interestingly enough, I too have just recently spent time helping a man come to terms with his doubts about questionable things in church history. It was rewarding to have him again receive his temple recommend and be assigned as a home teacher.

However, I'm not sure any influence was so great on his path as that of the strong testimony of his patient wife. My observation was that played a larger role than any 40-page sheaf of material.



SIEQ, you have your own little board now where you can go (and I do not) and spew bitterness about me. Please reserve this kind of nonsense for there.

If you're going to come back here, either have the courtesy to put me on ignore, or have the guts to shut up and let me speak for myself.

If someone takes the time to review my little exchange with Tex, they'll discover:

1. His false dichotomy between the importance of family support for someone having doubts and factual, historical information (ie, a strong testimony of a patient wife vs a "sheaf" of papers, and never mind that I was working with the guy's father and that the guy is single).

2. His absurd reduction of private correspondance of general authorities such as Anthon Lund, Joseph F. Smith, Wilford Woodruff, and others (the sources I shared concerning the Adam-God theory) to a "sheaf of papers."

3. His prentending that his use of "apostates" was a response only to Chino, when in fact, I and others were involved in a conversation. Those who read the entire thread, and related threads, will see that he is distorting what occurred.

4. His worship of his own observations and total dismissal of the observations of others.

5. His so-called apology that included a put down.

Tex, you have no license to try to make me in your bitter, partisian, fundamentalist, apoliholic, and uninformed image. The moment you stop trying, you'll find me a pleasant person to correspond with.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Perhaps their priorities are misplaced.

Yet another parade of Tex's smugness. He has the audacity to suggest that people he doesn't even know--let alone understand--have "misplaced priorities." Moreover, he implies that their priorities should be his and that his are the same as the prophet's.

Yep, total whack job. Tex feels justified in trammeling others, in aligning himself with the angels, and in getting up divisions amongst his fellow church members.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

My bad. I fixed it.

I'm trying to decide if you're not understanding me on purpose. Hinckley's objective (if I may conjecture) is to help people gain a testimony and/or live the gospel. The question of the church's history with blacks is entirely ancillary to that objective.

Whether Wallace thought it was relevant is not even germane to this discussion.



Hmm, I went back to double-check, and I can't find that question anywhere in the Wallace interview. I did discover this question in the Time magazine article a year later however:



As I read it now, I realize that the question of men becoming God is quite a different one from God once being a mortal man. I agree with Hinckley, and he answered honestly. We don't know a lot about it. And I don't think we teach or emphasize it either.



I didn't realize you were expecting one. It's long ... I'll read through it sometime.

The false dichotomies and dismissals just don't stop with Tex:

The Church's history with blacks is "entirely ancillary" to people gaining a testimony and living the gospel? Actually, Tex, for many people it isn't. Some people have this crazy idea that "all are alike unto God" has something to do with the gospel.

And who is the "we" that doesn't know about the teaching of God becoming a mortal man? Is it those who stick only to correlated material? Is it those who ignore the many discussions on the subject? Is it those who would white wash our history? Is it Tex now using ignorance to suggest that it isn't important?

I just love it when the Tex's of the world speak for me. Or maybe his "we" doesn't include me. Maybe it only includes those who "have it right," or who only read the things he does.

[tooblue]

This thread is fascinating. Many are quick to contend that Tex is self-righteous. Yet, Mike didn’t start this thread as a means to convey the moral superiority of his own beliefs on the subject of inoculation? And Arch didn’t participate as means to assert that his self-righteous desires in regards to gospel study are in contest with perceived church leaders self-righteousness? Furthermore, Jeff didn’t jump in to further prove the moral superiority of his beliefs in regards to obfuscation and the white washing of history? And SIEQ didn’t share stories of helping educate others struggling with the warts of church history as a means of confirming his morally superior actions? Lastly, I’m not being self-righteous in pointing out the above stated ironies?

Y’all might think you’re very different than Tex, but this thread clearly illustrates we are all stripes on the same zebra.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by tooblue

This thread is fascinating. Many are quick to contend that Tex is self-righteous. Yet, Mike didn’t start this thread as a means to convey the moral superiority of his own beliefs on the subject of inoculation? And Arch didn’t participate as means to assert that his self-righteous desires in regards to gospel study are in contest with perceived church leaders self-righteousness? Furthermore, Jeff didn’t jump in to further prove the moral superiority of his beliefs in regards to obfuscation and the white washing of history? And SIEQ didn’t share stories of helping educate others struggling with the warts of church history as a means of confirming his morally superior actions? Lastly, I’m not being self-righteous in pointing out the above stated ironies?

Y’all might think you’re very different than Tex, but this thread clearly illustrates we are all stripes on the same zebra.

Weak.

Surely you can come up with more interesting "ironies" than that.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

This thread is fascinating. Many are quick to contend that Tex is self-righteous. Yet, Mike didn’t start this thread as a means to convey the moral superiority of his own beliefs on the subject of inoculation? And Arch didn’t participate as means to assert that his self-righteous desires in regards to gospel study are in contest with perceived church leaders self-righteousness? Furthermore, Jeff didn’t jump in to further prove the moral superiority of his beliefs in regards to obfuscation and the white washing of history? And SIEQ didn’t share stories of helping educate others struggling with the warts of church history as a means of confirming his morally superior actions? Lastly, I’m not being self-righteous in pointing out the above stated ironies?

Y’all might think you’re very different than Tex, but this thread clearly illustrates we are all stripes on the same zebra.

I don't think I'm morally superior in any way (avoid argument: Tooblue: yes you do! Me: no I don't and I know my thoughts better than you do, Tooblue: blah, blah, blah, about his donuthole). There are plenty of people out there trying to help one another with Mormon history. My mentioning my own involvement had everything to do with Tex's dismissive stance.

I don't think of myself as an example to follow, and certainly wouldn't try to conform someone else to my POV (as you and Tex both do), but at the same time, I'm not going to apologize for who I am (which you and Tex demand on a regular basis, and then get offended when you aren't liked for doing it).

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I don't think I'm morally superior in any way (avoid argument: Tooblue: yes you do! Me: no I don't and I know my thoughts better than you do, Tooblue: blah, blah, blah, about his donuthole). There are plenty of people out there trying to help one another with Mormon history. My mentioning my own involvement had everything to do with Tex's dismissive stance.

I don't think of myself as an example to follow, and certainly wouldn't try to conform someone else to my POV (as you and Tex both do), but at the same time, I'm not going to apologize for who I am (which you and Tex demand on a regular basis, and then get offended when you aren't liked for doing it).

I can't know your thoughts and for that matter you can't know mine. So, therefore your assertion that I wish to 'try to conform someone else to my POV' is silly. Furthermore, I'm not making an argument but rather an observation. Also, I'm not offended, another mistake you make while trying to point out what I must be thinking.

And I will always apologize for rude behavior or language and I don't care if you or anyone else here likes me.