Lack of inoculation takes another

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

I have no clue what you're talking about, but frankly, I'm not sure I even care. You may be the most thin-skinned guy I have ever seen post on a message board.

You remember, when you insinuated that I was an "apostate."

I'm not thin skinned; you are just exceptionally rude. You know, like when you suggest a guy is "apostate" and then call him thin skinned when he subsequently thinks you're an asshole.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

You remember, when you insinuated that I was an "apostate."

I'm not thin skinned; you are just exceptionally rude. You know, like when you suggest a guy is "apostate" and then call him thin skinned when he subsequently thinks you're an asshole.

Wonder if that were ever a first.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

You remember, when you insinuated that I was an "apostate."

I'm not thin skinned; you are just exceptionally rude. You know, like when you suggest a guy is "apostate" and then call him thin skinned when he subsequently thinks you're an asshole.

You have the memory of a woman scorned. Leave it to you to still be pissed off a entire year later about something, and talk about it like it just happened yesterday.

I can't even remember what you thought the original offense was. I think I started using the word "apostate" casually to illustrate the frivolous CG use of the term "mullah," and inexplicably, you took it all personal.

Well, rest your little heart, SIEQ. I don't think you are an apostate. You probably could use a nice bland Sunday School lesson on "forgive and forget" though. Cheers.

[Tex]

Heh, found the Thread That Started It All. September 2007.

ChinoCoug posted this, to which I posted (to mock him) this.

From that, SIEQ inferred all on his own that I was calling him an apostate. And he's brought it up time and again since then.

Heh. You are thin-skinned, friend. Very.

[MikeWaters]

I'm ok with there being black and white people in the church. The ones that say and really do mean that they know without a shadow of a doubt, etc.

The ones who are absolutely certain and entertain no doubts.

What I am saying is that the members who operate in the gray are important too. And they serve a purpose as well.

A church that makes these "gray" folks feel like crap and unwanted is not going to go very far.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm ok with there being black and white people in the church. The ones that say and really do mean that they know without a shadow of a doubt, etc.

The ones who are absolutely certain and entertain no doubts.

What I am saying is that the members who operate in the gray are important too. And they serve a purpose as well.

A church that makes these "gray" folks feel like crap and unwanted is not going to go very far.

For those who live without the shadow of a doubt, I am happy for them. I do not wish them doubts. But i agree the doubters are people of value and will approach faith differently.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

On the contrary, I find that to be very wise. Those two things are completely irrelevant to understanding the doctrines of salvation and gaining a testimony of Christ: the fundamental charge of a missionary.

Well that kind of hand-waving doesn't work for everyone. So the missionaries end up learning folklore from other missionaries (mark of Cain, JS didn't practice polygamy, etc.) and they pass that on to the investigators. With a minor amount of research some investigators then provide the missionaries evidence that said folklore is wrong. Missionaries then think that they have been misled by their own church. It becomes an awkward and tortuous process when it certainly doesn't have to be. It's hard to argue that it is a faith-promoting process.

Originally Posted by Tex

Hinckley gave a wonderful answer on this topic to Mike Wallace over a decade ago: "That's behind us."

One of two parts of that interview where he was obfuscating at best, dishonest at worst. Ironic that you would find that a wonderful answer.

[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.

[Archaea]

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.

This is a great insight. Too often, if we are in a position where we're supposed to know or believed to be able to know an answer, we change the subject. In debate or in legal settings this can often be effective. But for one seeking answers, it can be quite disquieting.

Tex's approach:

Truth Seeker: I wonder about this.

Tex: You shouldn't wonder about this, you should look at that.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well that kind of hand-waving doesn't work for everyone. So the missionaries end up learning folklore from other missionaries (mark of Cain, JS didn't practice polygamy, etc.) and they pass that on to the investigators. With a minor amount of research some investigators then provide the missionaries evidence that said folklore is wrong. Missionaries then think that they have been misled by their own church. It becomes an awkward and tortuous process when it certainly doesn't have to be. It's hard to argue that it is a faith-promoting process.

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.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

One of two parts of that interview where he was obfuscating at best, dishonest at worst. Ironic that you would find that a wonderful answer.

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.