Lack of inoculation takes another

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Answering the question how you wish it was asked, instead of how it was asked is great in a public relations setting.

It is less effective when trying to be honest with yourself in your own personal exploration.

Not necessarily. Beating yourself over the head trying to find answers to questions that have none is less effective too.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Um, no, that process isn't faith promoting. But I think it's also quite rare.

Rare? Hardly.

Originally Posted by Tex

Many missionaries these days struggle just to know their Book of Mormon and New Testament scriptures, much less some obscure facts about church history that happened a decade or a century before they were even born.

Trying to education missionaries on the plethora of potential church criticisms they might encounter is one easy way to confuse them and ruin the work, IMO. Teach them the foundations doctrines, help them find their testimony, and send them out to preach the gospel.

I am not talking about a plethora of anything. I am talking about the number one issue identified with our church: polygamy. You don't find it odd that they get almost zero instruction in one of the most common questions that they will be asked?

Originally Posted by Tex

Ha! You people really need to get a grip. That is neither obfuscating nor dishonesty. All he's saying is, "I don't want to talk about it because it is neither important nor relevant." And man, is he ever right.

It is both important and relevant to most people who were watching the program.

His other questionable comment was when he claimed that we don't teach that man can become like God. Do you think that is an honest statement? Did I miss a doctrinal change somewhere? Unlike polygamy and the priesthood ban, that one IS covered in our standard literature.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Um, no, that process isn't faith promoting. But I think it's also quite rare.

Many missionaries these days struggle just to know their Book of Mormon and New Testament scriptures, much less some obscure facts about church history that happened a decade or a century before they were even born.

Trying to education missionaries on the plethora of potential church criticisms they might encounter is one easy way to confuse them and ruin the work, IMO. Teach them the foundations doctrines, help them find their testimony, and send them out to preach the gospel.



Ha! You people really need to get a grip. That is neither obfuscating nor dishonesty. All he's saying is, "I don't want to talk about it because it is neither important nor relevant." And man, is he ever right.

What missionary can say he has not been questioned about polygamy?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What missionary can say he has not been questioned about polygamy?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Rare? Hardly.

I was referring to the "awkward and tortuous" process in Leb's post. Yes, that is rare.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am not talking about a plethora of anything. I am talking about the number one issue identified with our church: polygamy. You don't find it odd that they get almost zero instruction in one of the most common questions that they will be asked?

No, I don't. On the contrary, I think it's smart not to get bogged down in it. There's very little fruit that comes out of an in-depth discussion of the polygamy doctrine with anyone, much less two spiritually less mature people (the investigator and the missionary).

We're all relatively mature, strong-testimonied people here on CG (or so we like to think), and we can't even come to any agreement on the doctrine.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It is both important and relevant to most people who were watching the program.

His other questionable comment was when he claimed that we don't teach that man can become like God. Do you think that is an honest statement? Did I miss a doctrinal change somewhere? Unlike polygamy and the priesthood ban, that one IS covered in our standard literature.

I was referring to the relevancy of the doctrine to our evangelizing. It might be important and relevant to Mike Wallace (which is why he asked it), but not to Gordon Hinckley.

As to the being like God doctrine, I do think Hinckley side-stepped that one, but you're really being unfair. That is not the proper forum to launch into a discussion of any semi-controversial doctrine, because it's hard to get a fair hearing in a heavily edited 10- or 20-minute segment. I don't think his demurring on that issue is representative of what we're talking about here.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Um, no, that process isn't faith promoting. But I think it's also quite rare.

Many missionaries these days struggle just to know their Book of Mormon and New Testament scriptures, much less some obscure facts about church history that happened a decade or a century before they were even born.

Trying to education missionaries on the plethora of potential church criticisms they might encounter is one easy way to confuse them and ruin the work, IMO. Teach them the foundations doctrines, help them find their testimony, and send them out to preach the gospel.



Ha! You people really need to get a grip. That is neither obfuscating nor dishonesty. All he's saying is, "I don't want to talk about it because it is neither important nor relevant." And man, is he ever right.

it might be important to you but the fact that people have questions about it, means it's important to them.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

it might be important to you but the fact that people have questions about it, means it's important to them.

Perhaps their priorities are misplaced.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Perhaps their priorities are misplaced.

how judgmental are you, to assess another's priorities?

You have every right and duty to judge your emotional priorities, and I won't condemn you for your self-assessments, but for you to determine first what their priorities are, and then to determine that they are misplaced is extremely judgmental and harmful.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I was referring to the relevancy of the doctrine to our evangelizing. It might be important and relevant to Mike Wallace (which is why he asked it), but not to Gordon Hinckley.

(BTW, you were responding to my post, not Arch's, you mislabeled it)

Once again, it is quite relevant and important to the people we are evangelizing. Mike Wallace asked that question not just for personal curiousity, but because it is (and always will be) relevant. Good journalists ask relevant questions.

Originally Posted by Tex

As to the being like God doctrine, I do think Hinckley side-stepped that one, but you're really being unfair. That is not the proper forum to launch into a discussion of any semi-controversial doctrine, because it's hard to get a fair hearing in a heavily edited 10- or 20-minute segment. I don't think his demurring on that issue is representative of what we're talking about here.

I am being unfair? How so?

If he didn't want to talk about it, he could have just said so. Instead he gave a dishonest answer. I would hardly call that "demurring".

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the interview and I think he did a great job overall. But I certainly squirmed over those two answers, especially the second one. I am guessing GBH regretted how he answered that one as well once he had time to think about it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I would be thrilled if LDS leaders issued a statement like this:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?p=273388

Tex, you never responded to this one. I am curious what you think of Pres. Veazey's statement.

[Jim Swarthout]

Originally Posted by Tex

Even Oliver Cowdery who had a specific relevation given to him reminding him of that moment, still couldn't keep his grasp on it.

Speaking of Cowdery, didn't he have a specific "gift" that the Lord told him about? Was it the gift of the "rod" or some other kind of gift? I can't remember because the story has apparently been changed on purpose.