consiglieri wrote:Why should asking for clarification of a confusing statement be considered a call to repentance?
I think you're over-reacting a tad.
Do you not think it would be more effective (and reasonable) for President Packer to simply explain what he meant rather than having some guy he's never met try to ferret out his meaning in a long article published in the Mormon Studies Review.
Not to be confused with the New Zoo Review.
Comin' right at you!
Droopy's just afraid of you. Pay no mind to him.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
bcspace wrote: Because the Church doesn't want to call attention to the fact that gays are not born that way because it's too big of a stumbling block right now.
But he did call attention to it in his talk. I have yet to meet a TBM that doesn't proudly proclaim that they believe homosexuality is a choice. Nobody is afraid of calling attention to it.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
bcspace wrote:Because the Church doesn't want to call attention to the fact that gays are not born that way because it's too big of a stumbling block right now.
Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
The problem with teaching in the church is that they don't really want people to teach, for teaching involves learning something. Teaching in the church is designed to reinforce what we already know. For this reason, most members snooze through a lesson they could repeat in their sleep, and people panic when someone "strays from the manual."
Having a desire to teach in a church that does not encourage teaching has to be frustrating as hell, consiglieri. And for what it's worth, seeing you criticized for a big ego and self-righteousness by Droopy has almost filled the month's irony quota, and it's only the 9th.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Bob Loblaw wrote:The problem with teaching in the church is that they don't really want people to teach, for teaching involves learning something. Teaching in the church is designed to reinforce what we already know. For this reason, most members snooze through a lesson they could repeat in their sleep, and people panic when someone "strays from the manual."
Having a desire to teach in a church that does not encourage teaching has to be frustrating as hell, consiglieri. And for what it's worth, seeing you criticized for a big ego and self-righteousness by Droopy has almost filled the month's irony quota, and it's only the 9th.
I agree, and many believing members share this view. I still remember a BYU religion class I took taught by Joseph Fielding McConkie, in which he repeatedly complained about the negative aspects of correlation. He said that if we are just going to basically read from the manual each week then we can do that at home. He also lamented about how boring GC talks are now compared to when he was a kid (before we had to worry about submitting talks in advance for correlation and translation, and before we had to worry about sticking to strict TV time schedules). Some members of the class were offended. I remember one girl tearfully defending the church and claiming that the manuals were written by the apostles themselves. McConkie just smiled and told her that members of BYU's Religion Department were actually the main authors of most of the manuals, including himself. JF McConkie had some bat*&!% crazy views (e.g., at that time he still firmly believed in no death before 4000 BC just like his father and grandfather), but I liked him because he always called it like he saw it. I am guessing that is why he was never called to be a GA.