Enough of the Infalliblity Nonsense

[Indy Coug]

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...2&postcount=51

I tell you what: why don't you list all the things I do incorrectly on a daily basis because I blindly heeded the false counsel of the prophet.

Thanks in advance.

[Indy Coug]

After that post, I'm struggling with deciding if you're purposefully full of crap or just paranoid. I can accept that the question was unfair because you don't know what I do on a daily basis or how I raise my kids, but the overstatement you use with your points is just ridiculous.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

So your position is that past examples of Presidents of the Church being dead wrong have no ZERO bearing on whether the current assertions of the Presidents of the Church could possibly be wrong.

Great. Why not just burn all the history books. Wait--that is what you and your school would like--no honest history to be written.

Maybe Indy, just maybe, you do not think the President of the Church has presented you with counsel that you deem to be false counsel BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ASKING OR OPEN TO THE IDEA THAT IT COULD BE FALSE.

I promise you that not every direction from the President of the Church is agreed with by every General Authority. Anyone who agree with all the direction given by the President of the Church does so because he/she is a lemming. Every thoughtful disciple of Christ will find themselves seeing issues differently then another thoughtful disciple of Christ on occasion. You say you have never "been presented with any counsel to follow that I deem to be false counsel". The statement speaks volumes about your mode discipleship. It is one that I don't respect.

I remember the head guy from SLC over cars owned by the Church in North America (mostly mission cars) coming out to my mission to see our operations (we had over 100 cars in my mission--I guess one of the missions with the largest number of cars). Anyway he told me that Elders Hinckley and Monson deeply disagreed about giving cars to missionaries (this was back when ETB was still the President but not functioning). One thought they made the missionaries more efficient and were wonderful. One felt that having them on the streets on bikes working the area around the buildings was more effective the vast majority of the time. He wouldn't tell me which one held which view.

This is an example of two thoughtful disciples, both members of the First Presidency, disagreeing about an issue. Because there are still lots of cars out in the mission field, I suspect that Hinckley liked using cars. But now Monson is the President. What if he counsels missionaries to stop using their cars and start walking and biking more and work the areas close in the chapels? Was Hinckley right before and Monson right now? Are you going to retreat into the timing issue--Hinckley's view was right before and Monson's view is right today? Monson was wrong before?

Anyway, I think I have made my point. If you are speaking truthfully and have always agreed with every counsel from the President of the Church, you are a simple minded man. Ignorance is truly bliss.

So your second best example of a prophet being (potentially) wrong is two apostles having a difference of opinion over missionary cars.

You are just knocking 'em out of the ballpark today, Adam. Well done.

[pelagius]

I think anyone still commenting on this thread (unless you want to comment on why my model is so insightful and changed your life, etc, etc) should be forced to watch the following 5 times:



Really, it will make you feel better and it will be more productive than beating this poor overworked nearly dead horse.

P.S.

And yes I am following my own rule. I enjoy a good Jesus Freak marathon.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

Tex, I don't know why I bother with you anymore. The point isn't whether the examples affect your life. I assure you the iron mission saints cared very deeply about BY being wrong. The mission cars example wasn't an example about the possibility of a modern Apostle being wrong--it is conclusive proof that they can be wrong BECAUSE THEY DISAGREED NO THE SUBJECT--they both couldn't both be right holding opposite views. Surely you can see the distinction between trying to show a strong example of a prophet being wrong on the merits and showing an example where one of the prophets has to be wrong because they disagree.

The only thing you've "conclusively proven" is that the GA's are not the Borg. Thank you for that brilliant contribution.

Originally Posted by Adam

I can't believe I am having to explain this to you.

That's because I'm mocking you and you aren't bright enough to catch on.