cougarobgon...

[scottie]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Holy hell, just how superficial with this topic can you be?

Oh I'm only getting started. How superficial have I been?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by scottie

Oh I'm only getting started. How superficial have I been?

You summarized his response as the WoW taking "priority" over honesty. That is patently false. His response dealt with the overall attitudes of the person involved moreso than the specifics of whether it was A instead of B.

How you boiled down his several hundred word response into such a misleading conclusion is pathetic.

After that post, maybe you need to see your bishop about being honest in your dealings with your fellow man.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You summarized his response as the WoW taking "priority" over honesty. That is patently false. His response dealt with the overall attitudes of the person involved moreso than the specifics of whether it was A instead of B.

How you boiled down his several hundred word response into such a misleading conclusion is pathetic.

After that post, maybe you need to see your bishop about being honest in your dealings with your fellow man.

Look, cougarobgon's response was great and I'm happy he became less judgmental over time. I was calling out that he admitted that during his tenure he would have without hesitation given Member A the TR while denying Member B, and went on to say that if he were bishop now he believes he would still give a TR to Member A, and that Member B would have to prove himself more. Big deal right? Hey, we all have our hang-ups.

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by scottie

Thanks for the response cougarobgon. So at some point (maybe for your entire 6 years?) while you were a bishop you would have given Member A a temple recommend and denied Member B. Is that not a perfect example of LDS members thinking that WOW adherence is more important than Christian values?

Not attacking, simply discussing.

There are some members that have indentified a strong attribute they possess such as keeping the wow, paying tithing, doing geneology, serving in scouting, etc...they make the rest of us feel guilty for not measuring up to their standard and they lose sight of the importance of developing other Christlike attributes...however, I would rather spend my time with my father in law, who has never been to the temple, because he just can't break a nasty habit he acquired long ago, than spending time with some of those individuals. My FIL is now in his 80s and has slowed down quite a bit. But, just 10 years ago, I could not keep up with him. He was always a faithful home teacher, carried out whatever assignment he was given, looked out after the elderly...and dearly loves his family. My wife of course was sad when my FIL could not attend the temple for our sealing, but despite that, he is probably the best father she could have ever hoped for...and she knows this. He accepted the gospel despite his habit. He quit it long enough to be baptized...and that decision was what brought his family into the Church. Along the way he quit during times that he served in callings...but, over the long run, he has been unable to break his habit and such, has been unable to go to the temple. I am sure at some time he could have qualified for a temple recommend. But, I believe the reason he has never been to the temple is because he knows he will eventually break the wow.

Are there some consequences for disobeying the wow, of course, he cannot enter to the temple to be sealed to his family...however, he has experienced the joy of participating in confirmations or baby blessings, many times with my children. I never questioned whether or not he should be able to participate, he is always invited and participates willingly. He is a good man...some day I hope I can possess some of his Christlike virtues...we will just have to wait and see how merciful the Lord will be to him. I am sure the Lord will.

Of all the decisions I made as bishop, one of the most difficult ones was not allowing my FIL to baptize one of his grandaughters...I considered the baptism a saving ordinance and determined to err on the side of righteousness...Prior to the baptism date I asked that he meet with me during our interview I asked if he still was struggling with his nasty habit...he got upset walked out and didn't speak to me for a week...he attended the baptism anyway. We have been on good terms since then and he supported me as his bishop. Did I make the right decision? I hope I did.

-Cougarobgon

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Really? How often have you seen this? serously, how many times have you 'seen' this?

All my life my father talked with affection about his MP, and derision about the predecessor MP (my father was AP). A big theme in my own mission was what a bafooon the predecessor MP was. Our mission split and sometimes after the split I'd talk to fellow ZL's from the new mission and they were always critical of my MP. I could tell they were parroting stuff their MP had told them. My MP finished his mission on the same day I did. But I had some good friends and former companions with whom I stayed in touch. They were critical of my MP (the only one I had the whole mission), and I could tell they were parroting stuff the new MP told them. Waters' statement about the predecessor MP in his mission.

Do I need to go on? How many more examples do you need?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

All my life my father talked with affection about his MP, and derision about the predecessor MP (my father was AP). A big theme in my own mission was what a bafooon the predecessor MP was. Our mission split and sometimes after the split I'd talk to fellow ZL's from the new mission and they were always critical of my MP. I could tell they were parroting stuff their MP had told them. My MP finished his mission on the same day I did. But I had some good friends and former companions with whom I stayed in touch. They were critical of my MP (the only one I had the whole mission), and I could tell they were parroting stuff the new MP told them. Waters' statement about the predecessor MP in his mission.

Do I need to go on? How many more examples do you need?

So your proof is something that happened anecdotally more than thirty years ago. Interesting.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So your proof is something that happened anecdotally more than thirty years ago. Interesting.

My evidence is less than thirty years old.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

My evidence is less than thirty years old.

oh you returned in 1979, 29 years my bad, and how often has your father recently stated that?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Do I need to go on? How many more examples do you need?

You have given me enough info here to satisfy me that you are once again, Miss Havisham-like, pulling some tidbit from your rather distant active past to support a flat and overly broad generalization. Need I go on?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Miss Havisham-like

Terrible analogy.