In fairness to BRM, it may come as no surprise that he could produce some outlandish

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Excellent. This may submarine your reputation on Cougarguard, creekster, but I whole-heartedly agree with you.

Don't worry, Tex. Creekster's reputation around here is rock-solid.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

BRM was a hard-nose, no doubt, but he was an apostle and a seventy and I think he deserves more respect from believieng members than he is receving here.

This is what I find so interesting. These discussions started with me making the point that GA's used to be all-but deified, but the growing disdain for MD (disdain is not too strong a word, which is what I think prompted creekster's comment), agenda-driven I submit, can only fundamentally alter that institution if it becoms widespread. Morever, even among the GA titans of his day McConkie was a superstar, a lot because of Mormon Doctrine. With all due respect, and I mean that, I don't see how anyone can be as disrespectful as some church going Mormons are to McConkie and profess their faith in Mormonism. I wonder even whether Mormonism has changed as much as some Mormons (a minority?) wish it would be so. Then you have this irony of a religion that professes modern revelation but whose creed seems to be made up of nothing but incertainty and contradictions and fluidity.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Then you have this irony of a religion that professes modern revelation but whose creed seems to be made up of nothing but incertainty and contradictions and fluidity.

What is ironic about a church that believes in modern revelation also having uncertainty and fluidity in some areas? Wouldn't that necessarily be the case by definition?

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by creekster

The DOMcKay bio certainly implies that the second edition was sort of pushed onto DOMcKay, but I thought the evidence of that was not completely compelling.

I agree with this statement, and I wish that they had spoken more to this issue when they made that claim. I thought they proved their point quite solidly regarding the first edition. But when speaking of the second, they simply cite old age and failing health as the reason McKay gave in. As far as I know, McKay still had the ability to put a stop to the republication had he wanted to. The authors didn't present any evidence or explanation as to why, if the second edition was pushed on him he did nothing more about it. It may well be true that Modoc2 was pushed on him, but I don't think the authors came anywhere close to proving it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What is ironic about a church that believes in modern revelation also having uncertainty and fluidity in some areas? Wouldn't that necessarily be the case by definition?

Human understanding of the universe is akin to a dynamic, radio active liquid, or akin to a free-flowing plasma, by virtue of its nature we will only grasp momentary understanding and explanations of dynamic equations.

To expect a granitelike understanding of static proportions is to deny the reality of the universe.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Don't worry, Tex. Creekster's reputation around here is rock-solid.

Coming from you I'm genuinely unsure how to take that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Coming from you I'm genuinely unsure how to take that.

Take it as a sincere compliment to creekster.

[Hazzard]

Originally Posted by Archaea

stuff.

If you are a GA, who will give you legitimate feedback?

His father-in-law appeared to be more of a fundamentalist, than an empiricist, so if he consulted his FiL, he would be directed in a more stringent mode.

All thinkers, writers, scientists and other scholars need feedback. How does a GA receive true feedback?

In our LDS culture, they probably receive very filtered, most complimentary feedback. So if they happen upon scholarly or other noncomplimentary work, they automatically believe it is, or could tend to believe it is wrong or badly motivated.

So if you're lauded as some hero, being told you are a great man and that nothing you do stinks, aren't we setting our leaders up for pride and lack of legitimate feedback?

When Truman Madsen was my stake president at BYU, he said Neal A. Maxwell would send multiple drafts of upcoming conference talks to Madsen and several others for review.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Hazzard

When Truman Madsen was my stake president at BYU, he said Neal A. Maxwell would send multiple drafts of upcoming conference talks to Madsen and several others for review.

Well, Elder Maxwell was one of the more gifted, articulate apostles in recent memory. Truman was also very worth listening to. This does not surprise me.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well, Elder Maxwell was one of the more gifted, articulate apostles in recent memory. Truman was also very worth listening to. This does not surprise me.

Nonetheless, it still kinda kills the "no feedback" assertion.