Your thoughts on church leaders

[woot]

Ha. You should see me upset.

You made a ludicrously stupid comment about Church leaders receiving no more or no less revelation than the average moron, you. If you now want to qualify your statement and reduce the sphere of revelation to that of your family, I might tend to agree with you. However, I'd still argue that God has seemingly called Prophets to declare revelation that may supersede your patriarchal authority. Every major religion believes this doctrine.

All you have to do is admit that you made a stupid comment and weren't clear on your thoughts. So man up, bitch.

I love how you're being so aggressive in arguing a point that is based entirely in fantasy. Oh no! Old white men don't get to dictate someone's behavior! Shocking! He's clearly a moron.

[Portland Ute]

Ha. You obviously have no idea what that scripture says.

I do appreciate the personal attack. Glad to see that moderators are ok with these.

So let me educate your dumbass. Obviously you are your grandparents grandson/daughter.

I was expressing the point that you can't simply accept or dismiss a bad idea based on your initial reaction. That is why personal revelation and d&c 121 are so important. If a leader is promoting ideas that are self-aggrandizing or exercise unrighteous dominion then the Spirit will not be felt in earnest seeking of confirmation.

Unlike your stupid ass, I try to overcome the natural man and fight knee jerk reactions to priesthood leaders' ideas/counsel and earnestly seek to understand their intent purpose through prayer. You are obviously so much smarter that you can skip right to the decision without these unnecessary steps.

Congrats, asshole.

I once posted that you were no more acerbic that several other posters.

I retract that statement.

[BlueHair]

Ha. You should see me upset.

You made a ludicrously stupid comment about Church leaders receiving no more or no less revelation than the average moron, you. If you now want to qualify your statement and reduce the sphere of revelation to that of your family, I might tend to agree with you. However, I'd still argue that God has seemingly called Prophets to declare revelation that may supersede your patriarchal authority. Every major religion believes this doctrine.

All you have to do is admit that you made a stupid comment and weren't clear on your thoughts. So man up, bitch.

You should really work on your reading comprehension. I have been consistent in my opinion, but you can't seem to grasp it. Let me see if I can clear things up even more.

1. My wife and I will make all decisions pertaining to my family.
2. If a Stake President or Bishop or Prophet for that matter have a revelation that is specific to my family, I will take in under advisement, but will still make the final call.
3. I don't believe that church leaders are any more or less inspired than anyone else.
4. I reject any notion of stewardship any leader has over me or my family.
5. I have seen zero evidence of "revelation" in my lifetime. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence.
6. I reserve the right to change my mind if evidence surfaces that the church is true.
7. I can't state with 100% certaintly the church isn't true, but I would put the odds as nearly mathmatically impossible.
8. It doesn't bother me if people believe the church is true and I'm not out to convince anyone it's not.

Just because I don't believe, it doesn't mean that I think I am smarter or better than someone that does. Your agressiveness indicates your beliefs aren't solid and you are afraid. I haven't said anything derogatory about the church in this thread, yet you continue to attack. Looks like you have some soul searching to do.

Finally, since you find my opinion that leaders not being more inspired than anyone else to be so "ludicrisously stupid", please provide some indisputable, documented evidence to the contrary. 25 examples should be plenty for me to change my mind. Hell, I could probably be convinced with less than that.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Who knew SH was a foyer troll, too. Learn something every day.

[SloanHater]

You should really work on your reading comprehension. I have been consistent in my opinion, but you can't seem to grasp it. Let me see if I can clear things up even more.

1. My wife and I will make all decisions pertaining to my family.
2. If a Stake President or Bishop or Prophet for that matter have a revelation that is specific to my family, I will take in under advisement, but will still make the final call.
3. I don't believe that church leaders are any more or less inspired than anyone else.
4. I reject any notion of stewardship any leader has over me or my family.
5. I have seen zero evidence of "revelation" in my lifetime. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence.
6. I reserve the right to change my mind if evidence surfaces that the church is true.
7. I can't state with 100% certaintly the church isn't true, but I would put the odds as nearly mathmatically impossible.
8. It doesn't bother me if people believe the church is true and I'm not out to convince anyone it's not.

Just because I don't believe, it doesn't mean that I think I am smarter or better than someone that does. Your agressiveness indicates your beliefs aren't solid and you are afraid. I haven't said anything derogatory about the church in this thread, yet you continue to attack. Looks like you have some soul searching to do.

Finally, since you find my opinion that leaders not being more inspired than anyone else to be so "ludicrisously stupid", please provide some indisputable, documented evidence to the contrary. 25 examples should be plenty for me to change my mind. Hell, I could probably be convinced with less than that.

God I love this board.

You start with the personal attacks in response to my benign comment, yet people come out of the woodwork to belittle me. Love it.

As for your uninteresting and unfunny reply:

1. Good idea.
2. Smart thinking.
3. Interesting.
4. Rebel. Nice
5. See below.
6. What an open mind! I'm impressed.
7. "nearly mathmatically impossible." I hope you realize how dumb this sounds.
8. If it doesn't bother you, why are such an asshole, a la Cardiaccoug, in the Foyer Threads? Take a page from the Seattleute agnostic playbook and post with some humor. No need to antagonize us simple-minded believers.
   

...please provide some indisputable, documented evidence to the contrary. 25 examples should be plenty for me to change my mind. Hell, I could probably be convinced with less than that.

Pull out your patriarchal blessing and I'll provide you proof that God occasionally reveals things through priesthood leaders.

[wuapinmon]

[YOUTUBE]
0_JyoK8RVPE
[/YOUTUBE]

[woot]

Pull out your patriarchal blessing and I'll provide you proof that God occasionally reveals things through priesthood leaders.

Pull out your daily horoscope and I'll provide you proof that God occasionally reveals things through newspaper interns.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect"]Forer effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_validation"]Subjective validation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Psi2.svg" class="image"><img alt="Stub icon" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Psi2.svg/30px-Psi2.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/6/6c/Psi2.svg/30px-Psi2.svg.png[/ame]
[YOUTUBE]haP7Ys9ocTk[/YOUTUBE]

I think you don't understand what proof is. In order to support the hypothesis that any particular person has revelatory powers, one would have to collect a great deal of data, comparing the number of prophetic "hits" to the number expected by chance, and being very careful not to read more into statements than is actually there.

My patriarchal blessing is full of vague claims that I'm sure I would have considered fulfilled by a large range of outcomes.

[CardiacCoug]

[*]If it doesn't bother you, why are such an asshole, a la Cardiaccoug, in the Foyer Threads? Take a page from the Seattleute agnostic playbook and post with some humor. No need to antagonize us simple-minded believers.

Pull out your patriarchal blessing and I'll provide you proof that God occasionally reveals things through priesthood leaders.

This is awesome. Hey I'm glad you're here SloanHater. Thanks for keeping it interesting. We don't have enough people with your worldview on the board.

[TripletDaddy]

God I love this board.

You start with the personal attacks in response to my benign comment, yet people come out of the woodwork to belittle me.

I always thought people were always pretty out in the open in their efforts to belittle you.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

God I love this board.

Are you literally telling God you love the board, or are you using that word to elicit some kind of response from the true blue believer types?

[SloanHater]

I always thought people were always pretty out in the open in their efforts to belittle you.

That doesn't sound like an apology. Or do you still believe that I believed that Stanford has a tree mascot?

[SeattleUte]

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...ghlight=theory

[SloanHater]

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...ghlight=theory

Did you post this from Las Vegas? If so, cool.

[UtahDan]

Okay, you've had your fun whoever you are. But now it is time for someone to come forward and take a bow for the Sloan Hater persona they have created. My money is on YOhio. Any other guesses?

[SloanHater]

Pull out your daily horoscope and I'll provide you proof that God occasionally reveals things through newspaper interns.


I think you don't understand what proof is. In order to support the hypothesis that any particular person has revelatory powers, one would have to collect a great deal of data, comparing the number of prophetic "hits" to the number expected by chance, and being very careful not to read more into statements than is actually there.

My patriarchal blessing is full of vague claims that I'm sure I would have considered fulfilled by a large range of outcomes.

I debated whether or not to reply to someone who relies so heavily on wiki-links to make a point, but what the hell. This thread is already a party.

I think you are the one confused about proof. I was pointing out to our good friend BlueHair that revelation, at least by my definition, can only be measured a prosteriori. Which makes the scientific method a bit difficult to use.

Which raises the question why hasn't this been asked in a new thread/poll? Even Seattleute would have to respond in the affirmative. As for your boring, nondescript blessing, well, I guess God is a good judge of character.