rcrocket: TR's and Apologist Claims

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello rcrocket,

I asked you this question on another thread. You expressed a desire not to see the thread derailed so I thought I'd ask you on a new topic thread. Here is my question:

When the LDS Apologists on these boards claim that the Prophet was "speaking as a man" when he obviously erred, do you deny them the right to honestly and forthrightly hold a TR? Is that a failure to uphold the leadership of the church?

Jersey Girl

[_rcrocket]

I don't know.

rcrocket

[_Southern Redneck]

That is one of the best questions I have come across in ages.

Thank you.

[_Jason Bourne]

That is one of the best questions I have come across in ages.

Thank you.

To bad Plu dodged the bullet.

[_mentalgymnast]

When the LDS Apologists on these boards claim that the Prophet was "speaking as a man" when he obviously erred, do you deny them the right to honestly and forthrightly hold a TR? Is that a failure to uphold the leadership of the church?

MG: I hope not, or there are a lot of us in deep doo doo. I didn't read the other thread, but I'm wondering why you would think that this would be reason enough for a member who is practicing orthopraxy in regards to gospel teachings and practices and also upholding their leader's right to lead/counsel, to give up their temple recommend?

Regards,
MG

[_Gazelam]

Did the Sons of Aaron have to give up their rights as bearers of the Ark because they understood and knew that Moses declared that he had brought forth the water form the rock?

Israel fully understood that Moses was both a man and a Prophet. On a few occasions he was also declared a fallen Prophet, Even by those closest to him.

The sooner we all understand what it is to be both a man and a prophet, the sooner we can also approach that pinnacle ourselves. There is nothing a biblical prophet did that we ourselves cannot accomplish. Remember that Christ was also a man, and was our example.

[_Mercury]

I don't know.

rcrocket

Then why do you demand in furious style the abandonment of reason?

What else don't you know? A whole hell of a lot more

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't know.

rcrocket

Great answer. Now every time you choose to needle a TR holding LDS on this board for their criticism of Joseph Smith as flawed human, this brief exchange between you and I will be the response you get from me. Thanks so much for putting it "in writing".

Jersey Girl

[_mentalgymnast]

When the LDS Apologists on these boards claim that the Prophet was "speaking as a man" when he obviously erred, do you deny them the right to honestly and forthrightly hold a TR? Is that a failure to uphold the leadership of the church?

MG: I hope not, or there are a lot of us in deep doo doo. I didn't read the other thread, but I'm wondering why you would think that this would be reason enough for a member who is practicing orthopraxy in regards to gospel teachings and practices and also upholding their leader's right to lead/counsel, to give up their temple recommend?

so, what say you?

Regards,
MG

[_harmony]

When the LDS Apologists on these boards claim that the Prophet was "speaking as a man" when he obviously erred, do you deny them the right to honestly and forthrightly hold a TR? Is that a failure to uphold the leadership of the church?

MG: I hope not, or there are a lot of us in deep doo doo. I didn't read the other thread, but I'm wondering why you would think that this would be reason enough for a member who is practicing orthopraxy in regards to gospel teachings and practices and also upholding their leader's right to lead/counsel, to give up their temple recommend?

so, what say you?

Regards,
MG

I say, stay out of it, unless you have reason to join this particular argument. Jersey is calling Plu on his hypocrisy regarding something and someone over which and over whom he has no stewardship.