Faith-Promoting History

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If an apostle told me excommunicate a man, I would fax him a note that says "I excommunicate this man --signed Mike Waters." And then he calls me back and says "no you don't do it that way, you hold a council." I would reply "oh, I thought you had just given me the authority and we weren't to follow the rules of the council, so in fact you are telling me that they keys are mine and not yours, and that I am to hold a council and consider the facts then as presented, withholding judgment until such time?"

It's called integrity.

Hopefully posts like this will prevent me from ever being a SP or Bishop.

Refuse to wear a white shirt to church and grow your hair past your collar too.

And don't shave.

[MikeWaters]

Well, I have read the McKay biography and I know that an apostle tried to have Juanita Brooks excommunicated. So I take such direction as advice, not commandment.

I would resign my position before I excommunicated a man against my conscience.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Quinn still has plenty of influence on members.

But not nearly what he would have if he were still a member. Fair or not fair, that is one of the first questions members will ask when they hear a controversial viewpoint. TAG is right that if the answer is that they were ex'd that the person and the viewpoint are immediately dismissed by many (most?) LDS. Richard Bushman could say that he thinks that Joseph Smith's seer stone was actually a fossilized turd and that Brigham Young dressed in drag because people perceive his motives as being pure.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

But not nearly what he would have if he were still a member. Fair or not fair, that is one of the first questions members will ask when they hear a controversial viewpoint. TAG is right that is the answer is that they were ex'd that the person and the viewpoint are immediately dismissed by many (most?) LDS. Richard Bushman could say that he thinks that Joseph Smith's seer stone was actually a fossilized turd and that Brigham Young dressed in drag because people perceive his motives as being pure.

First off, I think we would agree that most LDS don't give a hooey about any of this stuff. It's only the rare LDS that are knowledgeable about historical issues, and among those, Quinn has a strong influence, even if he is not always liked or appreciated.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Refuse to wear a white shirt to church and grow your hair past your collar too.

And don't shave.

check (sometimes)....check........check.

I'm set.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

So are you trying to say that those who dismiss the truth claims of the LDS church have no credibility in writing about its history?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Help me out, Tex. First you say that his being an "apostate" has bearing on his credibility. If so, how is it that him claiming to be a believer is somehow irrelevant? You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Taq Man

Because in Tex's perfect world the second someone is identified as an apostate he can stop reading and dismiss all their arguments as Satan's silver tongued deceipts.

It really shortens up the whole studying process.

One's personal beliefs and background color how other folks receive what they say. The fact that he might retain some element of faith in his former religion does not override the fact that he apostatized.

It's foolish to think that such a decision should be irrelevant to evaluating his work.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Packer's involvement isn't a rumor. I know it happened for a fact, just like I know GBH was opposed to their excommunication for a fact.

Your source for this is Quinn?

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Hopefully posts like this will prevent me from ever being a SP or Bishop.

I hope so too.

[MikeWaters]

I would love to be Tex's SP while Tex is a bishop. That would be great fun. I would need to buy a "DENIED" and "REJECTED" stamp for the memos he would send me, as well as set up an autoreply on my email account. I'm willing to put in 10 years just for that.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I would love to be Tex's SP while Tex is a bishop. That would be great fun. I would need to buy a "DENIED" and "REJECTED" stamp for the memos he would send me, as well as set up an autoreply on my email account. I'm willing to put in 10 years just for that.

I would willingly serve as your Stake Clerk just to participate in that endeavor. I would be the best Stake Clerk ever.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

One's personal beliefs and background color how other folks receive what they say. The fact that he might retain some element of faith in his former religion does not override the fact that he apostatized.

Please define "apostatized".

And while you are at it, tell us why his getting booted from the church renders his continued belief completely irrelevant?

Originally Posted by Tex

It's foolish to think that such a decision should be irrelevant to evaluating his work.

The issue I raised is with the fact you consider his "apostasy" to be relevant, but his ongoing belief to be irrelevant.

And by the way, all you've done in this entire thread is denigrate his veracity due to his so-called "apostate" status. Care to discuss the points he makes in his article?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Well, I have read the McKay biography and I know that an apostle tried to have Juanita Brooks excommunicated. So I take such direction as advice, not commandment.

I would resign my position before I excommunicated a man against my conscience.

So you do believe in discernment