Faith-Promoting History

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by tooblue

So you do believe in discernment

Yes I do.

I also believe in lack of discernment.

[Cali Coug]

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.

I have to agree. I only point out I think it would be a very challenging situation.

[Cali Coug]

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.

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



Your source for this is Quinn?



I hope so too.

No, my source is not Quinn, which limits the field dramatically.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by tooblue

So you do believe in discernment

I do. As long as I can benefit from it.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I do. As long as I can benefit from it.

Or it advances your agenda

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Please define "apostatized".

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

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

The man lost his membership (at least in part) over disagreements of church doctrine and policy. I'm happy that he still maintains some element of faith, but evidently it wasn't enough to keep him in the church.

That's a valid consideration when considering motive for his writings.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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?

Haven't had a chance to read through it yet.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, my source is not Quinn, which limits the field dramatically.

I hope you're not asking me to take your word for it.

[MikeWaters]

You can trust Cali, Tex. He's a non-apostate.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

The man lost his membership (at least in part) over disagreements of church doctrine and policy. I'm happy that he still maintains some element of faith, but evidently it wasn't enough to keep him in the church.

That's a valid consideration when considering motive for his writings.

That's a pretty self-serving summary of what happened. And you still didn't answer my questions.

Originally Posted by Tex

Haven't had a chance to read through it yet.

When you read through it, keep in mind that in 1981 he had not yet "apostatized". Nor did he appear to be in any hot water at this point. But I am guessing that in your world view, once someone "apostatizes", they lose all credibility retroactively.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You can trust Cali, Tex. He's a non-apostate.

I am not so sure. We still haven't seen a complete definition of the term.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The man lost his membership (at least in part) over disagreements of church doctrine and policy. I'm happy that he still maintains some element of faith, but evidently it wasn't enough to keep him in the church.

That's a valid consideration when considering motive for his writings.



Haven't had a chance to read through it yet.



I hope you're not asking me to take your word for it.

No matter what I say, Tex, you have to take my word for it. It isn't like you have some sort of alternative verification process.