Walton has been reinstated - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Tex · 02-08-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well, the great irony here is that when the kid gets booted we get to hear idiots (Smails, I am looking at you) hypothesize about how the kid was probably having sex. Now that he is reinstated, we get to hear about how the kid and his dad were not properly respecting church authority or sustaining leaders. This is an interesting culture.

Neither of those was/is my position. I just don't think they should've taken it public.

Venkman · 02-08-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Neither of those was/is my position. I just don't think they should've taken it public.

I'm with Lebowski and 71 on this. The bishop and SP misused their authority. I don't think the university would have got involved if the dad hadn't made it public. Instead of the going the traditional "thank you sir may I have another" route we as Mormons sometimes take he stood up for his son and was vindicated. Now we can rest easy knowing his son wasn't having sex.

MikeWaters · 02-08-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venkman

I'm with Lebowski and 71 on this. The bishop and SP misused their authority. I don't think the university would have got involved if the dad hadn't made it public. Instead of the going the traditional "thank you sir may I have another" route we as Mormons sometimes take he stood up for his son and was vindicated. Now we can rest easy knowing his son wasn't having sex.

according to the article it has already gone up to the stake president, the university president, and an apostle (before the article was published).

I think the only way to read this is that due to the publicity, there was an about face from someone, not sure who though. Could have been the bishop, stake president, university president, apostle, or Jesus.

Goatnapper'96 · 02-08-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

according to the article it has already gone up to the stake president, the university president, and an apostle (before the article was published).

I think the only way to read this is that due to the publicity, there was an about face from someone, not sure who though. Could have been the bishop, stake president, university president, apostle, or Jesus.

IIRC, Jesus is not the top of the COC...in fact if I really understand the COC there really is no top. Perhaps the veto decision was made at echelons above Jesus and by the college world series Kent might be back on the sidelines.

Tex · 02-08-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

IIRC, Jesus is not the top of the COC...in fact if I really understand the COC there really is no top. Perhaps the veto decision was made at echelons above Jesus and by the college world series Kent might be back on the sidelines.

I agree. Jesus doesn't get involved in these matters. Heck, half the time he lets the prophets just do whatever the hell they want, why not a bishop?

BYU71 · 02-08-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

I agree. Jesus doesn't get involved in these matters. Heck, half the time he lets the prophets just do whatever the hell they want, why not a bishop?

Good to know we can agree on somethings Tex.

Archaea · 02-08-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

Good to know we can agree on somethings Tex.

After all these posts, Tex has finally learned a thing or two from us mainstream Mormons.

BYU71 · 02-08-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

After all these posts, Tex has finally learned a thing or two from us mainstream Mormons.

I really think the Huck campaign has been helpful to many members in the church. They have looked in the mirror and see Huck looking back at them.

They don't like what they see and are toning things down a bit.

Tex · 02-08-2008, 05:37 PM

I weight quite a bit less than Huckabee.

Coach McGuirk · 02-13-2008, 02:36 AM

I did make a comment on CB about this that 71 and I batted back in forth a bit. I made a comment I should not have. My point should have been stated better. It was meant to say no one should be kicked out for low church attendance but came out more like, "If he was kicked out, he did something worse". I did state that if he was kicked out it had to be for something more. I also stated that low church attendance is not the disease but a symptom. I stand by this. You do not stop going to church if all is well in your life. It just normally does not happen this way. I did not however state an opinion on whether the kid had done this or not, although like I said, I should have been more clear.

I come to this board in particular to read the religious discussion as I have a testimony that waivers on the worst of days. At first, when your faith is as mine, some of the discussion leads to questioning your beliefs even further, but as you continue to digest, the opposite effect takes place and I experience growth. As I do not have a very open discussion family, I am not sure if this is the normal discovery process for a testimony but it is definitely the only way I seem to be able to grow. As you will notice it does not take me asking the questions or participating in any way. I do not know enough of the gospel to feel comfortable in contribution.

I got way off topic, sorry, but I am chalking this mistake up to growth. So I will eat my crow and apologize to Mr. Walton for opining on a subject I had little to no facts about and making assumptions I should not have.

We Square?

02-08-2008, 05:37 PM	#9
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	I weight quite a bit less than Huckabee. __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

02-13-2008, 02:36 AM	#10
Coach McGuirk Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: The Bubble Posts: 606	I did make a comment on CB about this that 71 and I batted back in forth a bit. I made a comment I should not have. My point should have been stated better. It was meant to say no one should be kicked out for low church attendance but came out more like, "If he was kicked out, he did something worse". I did state that if he was kicked out it had to be for something more. I also stated that low church attendance is not the disease but a symptom. I stand by this. You do not stop going to church if all is well in your life. It just normally does not happen this way. I did not however state an opinion on whether the kid had done this or not, although like I said, I should have been more clear. I come to this board in particular to read the religious discussion as I have a testimony that waivers on the worst of days. At first, when your faith is as mine, some of the discussion leads to questioning your beliefs even further, but as you continue to digest, the opposite effect takes place and I experience growth. As I do not have a very open discussion family, I am not sure if this is the normal discovery process for a testimony but it is definitely the only way I seem to be able to grow. As you will notice it does not take me asking the questions or participating in any way. I do not know enough of the gospel to feel comfortable in contribution. I got way off topic, sorry, but I am chalking this mistake up to growth. So I will eat my crow and apologize to Mr. Walton for opining on a subject I had little to no facts about and making assumptions I should not have. We Square? __________________ "Hey! It's all ball bearings nowadays. Now you prepare that Fetzer valve with some 3-in-1 oil and some gauze pads. And I'm gonna need 'bout ten quarts of anti-freeze, preferably Prestone. No, no make that Quaker State. " Last edited by Coach McGuirk; 02-13-2008 at 05:25 AM.