- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Tom Haws wrote:
As Brian said, hyperbole and fervent partisanship are human nature.
I find this concept very intriguing!
So, What does it mean, or what does it say about a person that cares more about “their team, school, religion, or political figure than the truth?
Example- I know people that will not say a critical word about President Bush (this is just an example I could use Opera, the Dallas Cowboys, Delta Airlines, Ford trucks, any religion, or the color purple). Every thing he did was correct they claim! He’s an incredible man! On and on, all good, nothing bad!
Other people say exactly the opposite. Every decision JWB made in his life was wrong even drinking 2% milk instead of skim!
In reality, “the truth” is that he made some good and some bad decisions. Why can’t some people just look at all these things objectively and call it how they see it and not how they “Want” it to be? They can’t handle the “truth” or is it something else like what is “mine” is better than yours?
PS I appreciate all your posts. To better understand truth, one must look at all viewpoints of life not just the “Dogmatic view of the Jedi”
f4h1
CWald, you’ll get no argument from me. I agree that there were hard feelings between Hugh B Brown, HBL, and JFS. Quinn also makes the claim (in either Origins or Hierarchy of Power) that there was talk about bypassing Smith as president because of his advanced age and giving it directly to Lee because Lee was 2nd in line, considerably younger, and there were big questions about Smith’s health. Quinn states that Smith agreed to include Lee as a counselor so that Lee could run the church, but Smith would advance as a sort of figure-head president. Lee had a powerful personality, and Prince shows that Lee was trying hard to exert his influence in the last years of McKay’s life. My only point in bringing it up was there were a few other things at play for the presidential succession after McKay. Obviously Lee and Brown were on opposite sides of the issue of the priesthood ban. But I agree, Brown and Lee’s difference of opinion was the significant factor as to why Brown was not retained in the First Presidency.
I am curious how Alvin Dyer felt in 1978, since he was adamantly opposed to lifting the ban in 1969.
Since we’re talking about speaking out of turn, it seems to me that Lee’s legacy is correlation. Lee has had the most influence on making sure leaders don’t speak out of turn. While there are benefits to correlation, I think it has outgrown it’s usefulness:
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/11/06/comparing-correlation-to-the-supreme-court/ As an FYI, Mark E Peterson never served in the First Presidency. Kimball’s counselors were N Eldon Tanner (til he died), Marion G Romney, and Gordon B. Hinckley. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Presidency_(LDS_Church)#Chronology_of_the_First_Presidency Peterson definitely had some big issues with lifting the ban. But, like McConkie, he sustained the prophet after the 1978 revelation. (Peterson died from cancer in 1984.)
That’s right, MH. Thanks. I knew Elder Peterson was one of the most vocal proponents of the justifications for the ban, but I forgot he wasn’t part of the FP.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.