M. Russell Ballard on the Sabbath

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Maybe the most experienced in PR for the Church with AAs. So they pulled their most experienced person. Actually that's impressive that they went that far.

I don't think the article specifies where she is currently living. Just because she used to be a RS Pres in Chicago doesn't mean she's still there.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I don't think the article specifies where she is currently living. Just because she used to be a RS Pres in Chicago doesn't mean she's still there.

Just noticed that the Genesis Group mentioned in the article was founded by Hinckley, Monson, and Packer in 1971, under the direction of none other than Harold B. Lee.

I'm surprised that such a racist pig like Lee would permit something so progressive under his administration.

http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/whatis.htm

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I surprised that such a racist pig like Lee would permit something so progressive under his administration.

More "texperbole". Nice.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I find that if you set your expectations very low, you can actually be pleasantly surprised from time to time by Tex. And by very low, I mean at zero.

I suppose that depends on how you define "expectations". In terms of deliberately mischaracterizing prior debates in order to villianize his opponents, he is Mr. Reliable. Metaphysical certitude.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

More "texperbole". Nice.

Sorry, but leave out "pig" (which, I confess, is dramatic license) and the statement accurately reflects the discussion here.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sorry, but leave out "pig" (which, I confess, is dramatic license) and the statement accurately reflects the discussion here.

No it doesn't. It is a mis-characterization of almost everyone's point of view and to what end? You could have made the same point without the invective and without trying to put words in others' mouths. Besides, what does it mean to characterize the discussion here? Was there ever a conclusion reached or a consensus derived from the discussions? At most your unfortunate comment may characterize the opinions offered by a very few (and I am not sure if even that is true, but one might argue it is) but your efforts to constantly stir this up with everyone (and I defy you to find any place where I have suggested any prophet is a racist, for example) makes it seem like you have some sort of intellectual Napoleonic complex.

If you truly intend to persuade, rather than polarize for your own amusement, you would be much better served by making your point in a positive way (and in this case it would have been a good point before you ruined it with your presentation). The way you serve your idea here it's like getting a steak covered with dung. I hope whoever issued your dramatic license will revoke it immediately. Maybe you simply need a good editor.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

No it doesn't. It is a mis-characterization of almost everyone's point of view and to what end? You could have made the same point without the invective and without trying to put words in others' mouths. Besides, what does it mean to characterize the discussion here? Was there ever a conclusion reached or a consensus derived from the discussions? At most your unfortunate comment may characterize the opinions offered by a very few (and I am not sure if even that is true, but one might argue it is) but your efforts to constantly stir this up with everyone (and I defy you to find any place where I have suggested any prophet is a racist, for example) makes it seem like you have some sort of intellectual Napoleonic complex.

If you truly intend to persuade, rather than polarize for your own amusement, you would be much better served by making your point in a positive way (and in this case it would have been a good point before you ruined it with your presentation). The way you serve your idea here it's like getting a steak covered with dung. I hope whoever issued your dramatic license will revoke it immediately. Maybe you simply need a good editor.

How are you posting so flawlessly? I've never before seen a Creekster post so devoid of typos in my life. I do agree with the sentiment expressed.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How are you posting so flawlessly? I never before seen a Creekster post so devoid of typos in my life. I do agree with the sentiment expressed.

I actually used the spell checker this time. I will try to do it more often, but no promises.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

No it doesn't. It is a mis-characterization of almost everyone's point of view and to what end?

"Almost everyone"? I didn't keep a poll, but there was more than a few posters hypothesizing about Lee's racism based on the reported "not while I'm prophet" statement. A few even suggested the shortness of his tenure was a result of this stance.

So don't pretend the statement doesn't reflect a fair amount of sentiment.

Originally Posted by creekster

You could have made the same point without the invective and without trying to put words in others' mouths. Besides, what does it mean to characterize the discussion here? Was there ever a conclusion reached or a consensus derived from the discussions? At most your unfortunate comment may characterize the opinions offered by a very few (and I am not sure if even that is true, but one might argue it is) but your efforts to constantly stir this up with everyone (and I defy you to find any place where I have suggested any prophet is a racist, for example) makes it seem like you have some sort of intellectual Napoleonic complex.

If you truly intend to persuade, rather than polarize for your own amusement, you would be much better served by making your point in a positive way (and in this case it would have been a good point before you ruined it with your presentation). The way you serve your idea here it's like getting a steak covered with dung. I hope whoever issued your dramatic license will revoke it immediately. Maybe you simply need a good editor.

True, I could've left out the word "pig" and avoided some of this hyperventilation. It is also true, however, that no matter how rationally and attack-free I make my points, it's met with consistent ridicule (see my sig for just a few mild examples). And the moment I make a small personal retort in return, the thread explodes.

Until I see some similar rhetorical anger directed at your fellow posters, I'll thank you to spare me the lecture on what a civil place Cougarguard is, sans my comments.

[pelagius]

I think I should have been more detailed when I wrote before. The discussion might not have become so derailed. Cathy Stokes lived in Chicago as recently as 2 years ago. Does she live in Chicago now? I don't know. Also, she has been involved with projects originating in Salt Lake for quite a while now. She is involved with the Genesis Group and was involved with the Freedman's Bank Records genealogy project. Thus, it was not unusual for her to be in Salt Lake as part of these projects. There is a good chance that she happened to be in Salt Lake and not flown in specifically for the project (assuming she still lives in Chicago). Also, she has a certainly prominence as a member. For example, she is mentioned in the following Church news article:

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/ind...004e94610aRCRD

She also is featured (along with many others) in the book or pamphlet called Why I Believe (http://deseretbook.com/store/product..._id=100035353). Thus she does have some prominence in the church and make sense that she was involved with the Sharpton visit.