A great quote from Elder Richards

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I wouldn't presume to tell you who should be your heroes, but if these men don't qualify as role models to be emulated, I can't imagine who would.

I don't look to man as a role model for life in general, but men or women as role models in specific arenas. If I wish to improve my cycling, I emulate what great cyclists and trainers recommend. If I wish to become a Church administrator, I review Ballard's book and follow the example of administrators I personally know, or my file leaders.

I am past the time of hero worship or looking to mortal men as general role models.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Wherein did my statement assert that you believe the Church is perfect, only that you rely upon the judgment of the leaders in deference to your own. Is that a misstatement?

No, I rely on my own judgement, but ultimately defer to the divine calling and right to make those decisions to those that are actually ordained by God to make them.

I disagree with my branch president virtually on a weekly basis in PEC, but after I RESPECTFULLY voice my opinion, which he allows me to do, I submit to his decision on the matter. I don't seek to bad-mouth him, undermine him, rally support against him and so forth.

I don't check my brain or my conscience in at the door, but I openly acknowledge that there needs to be order in all things and that I need to recognize and limit myself to what is and isn't my stewardship.

For leaders outside my ward that I've disagreed with, here is a basic example of what I've done. During branch council, myself and others voiced a number of concerns about the way that missionary work was being done in our branch and about the readiness of many converts at the time of their baptism.

Our branch president then took our concerns to the mission president, who then modified their approach in a couple of respects, though not in all respects.

This is the way the church should work, IMO.

It shouldn't consist of me personally calling the mission president and telling him where he's wrong and that his missionaries are hanging a millstone around our fledgling branch's neck.

It shouldn't consist of me making wild accusations that the Q12 and FP are more concerned with people getting wet than getting them to the temple, or that our missionary program is too corporate to meet the real needs of the people.

Those statements are neither accurate nor productive in bringing about meaningful, even if sometimes limited, change.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I am past the time of hero worship or looking to mortal men as general role models.

I still look to my dad as a general role model.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I still look to my dad as a general role model.

I don't your father other than who he is.

As to my father, I examine his vast repertoire of experience and rely upon it when necessary and useful. Where my experience exceeds his in certain areas, I look to my experience or the experience of others with greater experience.

So I no longer have a general role model in terms of mortality. An as for immortal role models, they are not before me to know what or how they would behave.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

No, I rely on my own judgement, but ultimately defer to the divine calling and right to make those decisions to those that are actually ordained by God to make them.

You did it again, you used the rhetorical device, "God and the angels are on my side."

I "defer to the divine calling."

Invoking the divine to justify your actions.

Last I checked, we're all mortals here and thus imperfect. I wager even those of us speculating about a better method, defer 99.9999% of the time to our leaders, usually not out of a sense of trying to be morally superior, but because we're too lazy or don't care enough to fight a fight.

This is a discussion board, designed for freedom of expression of thought.

For example, Requiem asked what to do, and a plethora of ideas flowed, yours as useful as the next. You are wrong in characterizing most of the suggestions as being anything more discourteous than Requiem's bishop appeared to have behaved. After that the discussion branched off into the improvement of music in order to elevate worship. In that regard, I don't see how being a GA imbues one greater wisdom than anybody else. In fact, the musically gifted are probably more insightful on this issue than staid businessmen and administrators.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You did it again, you used the rhetorical device, "God and the angels are on my side."

I "defer to the divine calling."

Invoking the divine to justify your actions.

That's all you got out of my post? Good grief.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't look to man as a role model for life in general, but men or women as role models in specific arenas. If I wish to improve my cycling, I emulate what great cyclists and trainers recommend. If I wish to become a Church administrator, I review Ballard's book and follow the example of administrators I personally know, or my file leaders.

I am past the time of hero worship or looking to mortal men as general role models.

Brilliant, Arch. We now know that you won't seek Ballard's advice on cycling, or a great cyclist's advice on Church administration.

Way to totally miss the point, as usual.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I disagree with my branch president virtually on a weekly basis in PEC, but after I RESPECTFULLY voice my opinion, which he allows me to do, I submit to his decision on the matter. I don't seek to bad-mouth him, undermine him, rally support against him and so forth.

Cue an Arch post on "statism."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

That's all you got out of my post? Good grief.

I agree with many aspects of your post, but you got off on the wrong foot by resorting to a time honored, but horrible rhetorical device, of the angels of heaven are on my side, by invoking the divine. It's called the authority card, which in an argument based on logic, is unappealing.

It makes you sound as if you consider yourself morally superior to any who don't share your position.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I wouldn't presume to tell you who should be your heroes, but if these men don't qualify as role models to be emulated, I can't imagine who would.

Brilliant, Arch. We now know that you won't seek Ballard's advice on cycling, or a great cyclist's advice on Church administration.
Way to totally miss the point, as usual.

You tried to make a point. Did you limit the scope of the type of role models these men should be?

What was your point?

Was war deiner Zweck oder dein Ziel?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I agree with many aspects of your post, but you got off on the wrong foot by resorting to a time honored, but horrible rhetorical device, of the angels of heaven are on my side, by invoking the divine. It's called the authority card, which in an argument based on logic, is unappealing.

The angels of heaven are on my side? Sorry, you've just engaged in rhetorical nonsense.

Invoking the divine? More vacuous rhetoric.

It makes you sound as if you consider yourself morally superior to any who don't share your position.

You can only fault yourself for that interpretation. While we're on the subject, how many times do you attempt to use me as a caricature to espouse your own morally/intellectually superior positions?

I simply tried to explain my view on how we can constructively/effectively offer a differing opinion with leadership. For whatever reason, you've chosen to ignore the real substance of my post and go off on bizarre tangents and engage in ridiculous rhetoric.