Beck talk

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Hold back, dude, it's not worth it. Tex: from neutral third party, that comment to Lebowski to point it out nicely when that's exactly what he did was probably one of your dooziest doozies ever. But thanks for the MTN info, though it sucks for me.

Thanks for the "neutral" comment.

As to the MTN: you're welcome, and sorry it wasn't better news.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

A link that backs up a personal opinion? Are you just wanting him to link to his own post that states that it is his opinion?

No.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

My problem with it is the whole "mothers who know" rhetoric.

I think people are making a bigger deal out of this than needs to be made. It smacks of political correctness. Nearly everyone admits they understand what she was "trying" to say, but just not "how" she said it.

Seems like a lot of nit-picking.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by jay santos

That's kind of true. The Duty to God requirement is more of a life preparation thing, the lessons are usually specifically mission prep. That is a mistake, IMHO.

What is the mission, if not marriage prep?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I still haven't had anyone reasonably oppose my criticism. They just generally criticized me.

Because there's no way to reasonably oppose it. Your criticisms are sound.

People are going to defend it because it didn't offend them personally or because it came from on high, but the basic nuts-and-bolts contentions of the talk are simplistic and shortsighted. I'm sure Beck is a nice enough lady, but she didn't come off very well. I'd guess that one of the last things she would have wanted would have been to instigate the (sometimes bitter) arguments that she did. She might have come off differently than she had anticipated, but that doesn't change the fact that she chose her words poorly.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Solon

Because there's no way to reasonably oppose it. Your criticisms are sound.

People are going to defend it because it didn't offend them personally or because it came from on high, but the basic nuts-and-bolts contentions of the talk are simplistic and shortsighted. I'm sure Beck is a nice enough lady, but she didn't come off very well. I'd guess that one of the last things she would have wanted would have been to instigate the (sometimes bitter) arguments that she did. She might have come off differently than she had anticipated, but that doesn't change the fact that she chose her words poorly.

The reality is that if one were to reasonbly oppose the criticism they would instantly be labled Misogynist and small minded. The attacks go both ways.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The reality is that if one were to reasonbly oppose the criticism they would instantly be labled Misogynist and small minded. The attacks go both ways.

Things like this really do represent a huge issue for the church. The leadership requires obedience, and yet their track record proves that they are often wrong, not only in truth claims, but in issues of societal morality. Ignoring the theological issues of that situation for a moment, it really does put the membership in a bind when they hear something, particularly during general conference or other official settings, that doesn't ring true. How is one supposed to obey or agree with something that very well could be completely misguided?

If one believes that every word of general conference is divinely inspired, they have to agree with absolutely everything that is said and give up your ability to reason. On the other hand, if one believes that much of what is said represents the opinions of the speakers, the entire weekend, and indeed, the entire concept of divine revelation becomes very suspect, since there's no way to distinguish between opinions and words from on high.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

Things like this really do represent a huge issue for the church. The leadership requires obedience, and yet their track record proves that they are often wrong, not only in truth claims, but in issues of societal morality.

"Often wrong" in truth and societal morality, eh? Link?

Originally Posted by woot

Ignoring the theological issues of that situation for a moment, it really does put the membership in a bind when they hear something, particularly during general conference or other official settings, that doesn't ring true. How is one supposed to obey or agree with something that very well could be completely misguided?

If one believes that every word of general conference is divinely inspired, they have to agree with absolutely everything that is said and give up your ability to reason. On the other hand, if one believes that much of what is said represents the opinions of the speakers, the entire weekend, and indeed, the entire concept of divine revelation becomes very suspect, since there's no way to distinguish between opinions and words from on high.

Heh. Round 7. Ding!

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

Things like this really do represent a huge issue for the church. The leadership requires obedience, and yet their track record proves that they are often wrong, not only in truth claims, but in issues of societal morality. Ignoring the theological issues of that situation for a moment, it really does put the membership in a bind when they hear something, particularly during general conference or other official settings, that doesn't ring true. How is one supposed to obey or agree with something that very well could be completely misguided?

If one believes that every word of general conference is divinely inspired, they have to agree with absolutely everything that is said and give up your ability to reason. On the other hand, if one believes that much of what is said represents the opinions of the speakers, the entire weekend, and indeed, the entire concept of divine revelation becomes very suspect, since there's no way to distinguish between opinions and words from on high.

"Often"? Come on woot, that's like saying there isn't a Tim Hortons or Coffee Time on every other corner in Toronto.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

"Often"? Come on woot, that's like saying there isn't a Tim Hortons or Coffee Time on every other corner in Toronto.

heh I'm not sure if that's a joke or not. I'm trying to remember if it's every other corner or every corner.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

"Often wrong" in truth and societal morality, eh. Link?

Well http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/FP1909.html would be a decent start. That was an official first presidency statement, similar to the proclamation on the family. It turned out to be completely wrong. If they had done some research, they should have recognized it as being completely wrong even then. There was also the one confirmed even on CB of one of the prophets declaring that we would never go to the moon because god wouldn't allow it. I can't find a link at the moment. Most of what BRM ever said was wrong too, for example. They were also very, very wrong about blacks, another topic which was discussed quite thoroughly on CB recently. Their stance on homosexuality has changed quite a bit as well, and I think they're still on the wrong side of that issue.

I could go on, but that isn't my point. If you don't want to accept "often," at least accept "often enough for a rational person to wonder."