Flaming Meaux wrote:
The meat of the gospel that mentalgymnast advocates consistently is the full surrender of your critical faculties.
Not true.
Flaming Meaux wrote:Once you just turn off your brain and don't worry whether or not any doctrinal position, answer, or belief makes sense...
Not true. At least for me.
Flaming Meaux wrote:...it is a lot easier to just accept what someone else tells you as revelation from on high.
I would suppose there are many that fall into this categorization.
Flaming Meaux wrote:That's why the minute you take the very reasonable step of asking a follow-up question, mentalgymnast will quickly revert to a response along the line of, "Aw shucks, I guess I'm just not that sophisticated--this is all so simple when you don't have to worry about nuance."
Not true. There are times, however, when the intellect and reasoning can only go so far and one is left to either choose faith or doubt.
Flaming Meaux wrote:I think mentalgymnast means well...
And I would also make the assumption that you do also.
Flaming Meaux wrote:...but he legitimately doesn't understand that people actually exist that, when someone asks them to effectively just turn off their brain and let baseless assertions wash over them like the cable TV, are more inclined to say, "Excuse me??" rather than say, "Yep, I'm good with that."
Not true. Are you throwing the
whole LDS/Christian story into the "baseless assertion" category? What are some of the baseless assertions that you would suggest folks like me are simply letting wash over us without giving it a thought?
Flaming Meaux wrote:I think that mentalgymnast, based on things he's said elsewhere, even realizes that his advocated approach is a recipe for being taken advantage of and exploited.
Well, sure it is. How can one prove as a matter of fact that which ultimately is accepted to one degree or another on faith? Those that take the position of faith know that they are going to "be taken advantage of".
Flaming Meaux wrote:It's just that he believes he is better off being exploited on the minimal chance that whomever he's surrendered his thinking to just happens to be correct.
I don't believe that I am being "exploited". I do believe, as I have said many times now in this forum, that there are reasons for plausibility/possibility to believe in the restoration story. I don't think that I and many others like me have surrendered our thinking to others. Although, I must admit, there are many that don't take the time or effort to explore possibilities other than that which they are told over the pulpit, so to speak.
My contention/argument/point on this thread is that Elder Oaks and Turley took the best course of action in response to the problems that are occurring in regards to those that are challenging the leadership of the church. What alternative way of approach would you suggest? They are simply moving forward with the assumption and/or belief that they have been given a mandate through the scriptures, from God, to act rather than be acted upon.
It appears that the time has finally come where the leadership is becoming somewhat more bold/vocal in acting rather than sitting back and being acted upon by those that would usurp their authority. Why would you expect that they would do otherwise?
Regards,
MG