President Oaks Receives Criticism After Suggesting “Research is not the answer”

[estradling75]

8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 

This probably isn't a question for you, but is there a middle ground?  Aren't we SUPPOSED to follow God's chosen?

We are suppose to follow the leaders because we have a spiritual witness that they are God's chosen.  Sadly too many neglect that witness.  If we follow because we like and agree with them then we will falter when they tell us things we do not like (which will happen).

We also recognize that God's chosen are also flawed humans like everyone else so we do not take every act and every word they utter as God breathed or expect God to be puppeting their every action.  Rather we consider what they say and do in their official capacity.  Even then we acknowledge that they are a flawed delivery system and therefore we should focus on what God is trying to tell us through them, rather then getting hung-up because they did not express themselves the way we would have wished.

[Guest Godless]

13 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 

This probably isn't a question for you, but is there a middle ground?  Aren't we SUPPOSED to follow God's chosen?

I think the middle ground would be acknowledging that, out of context, Oaks' "research" remark looks very bad (and it absolutely does) without validating rushed criticism. You can acknowledge the struggles of faith in others without going to "Hey man, I get it. I feel that way too sometimes". There was a tone of solidarity in the opening of the article that seemed unnecessary. I think you can have an empathetic discussion without validating the thing you're trying to empathize with.

To be clear, I really appreciate the article for explaining Oaks' remarks. I had seen it mentioned and (very hotly) debated elsewhere without the proper context and it was..... unsettling.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

I think the middle ground would be acknowledging that, out of context, Oaks' "research" remark looks very bad (and it absolutely does) 

Why? Explain. I don't follow. Maybe I'm not getting the out of context quotes or something.

[estradling75]

16 minutes ago, Godless said:

I think the middle ground would be acknowledging that, out of context, Oaks' "research" remark looks very bad (and it absolutely does) without validating rushed criticism.

Or you could simply acknowledge that taking comments "out of context" is underhanded tactic of liars and con-men.  And that everyone including our leaders have the right to have there comments taken in context and the way the person meant it to be

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[1]So...MGF exists to abandon the wisdom the church employs?

Great.

. . .

[2]I think (strong emphasis) I understand what you're getting after, and I don't believe it tracks.

If the idea was, say....preaching in China when the church "can't or won't" then I'd buy the reasoning, though it would involve other concerns...

When the idea is, say...cussing more so members that cuss feel more comfortable...um... sure...let's all go get tattoos and extreme piercings and drop F-bombs here, there, and everywhere. That'll bring more people to Christ for sure.

1.  No, I’m saying that if MGF is supposed to do everything the Church is doing in precisely the same way the Church is doing it, then it may as well close up shop and turn its assets and donor network over to the Church. What MGF is doing in this case may be wise or unwise (I think you and I probably agree that it’s unwise, though we may differ in degree); but the fact that MGF is doing something differently than the Church does it doesn’t strike me as a particularly potent argument per se.  

2.  My gut is to agree with you.  But for a counterexample on the cussing issue, see J. Golden Kimball.  And more generally, see 1 Cor 9:22.  Much as I disagree with the approach, there may be some measure of scriptural precedent for it; and I’m willing to take a wait-and-see attitude for a while.  When Heather’s name starts popping up on the exmo Reddit boards, I may reconsider.  

Edited February 8, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[classylady]

For those of you who feel they may not belong here on these forums, please, please, be aware that you may be a tool in the Lord’s hand in helping those who come here with their questions. You are wonderful! I know you have helped people to come closer to Christ. Some may not be on the same spiritual rung of the ladder as you. There are those who are struggling. I appreciate every one of you who are so stalwart in defending the gospel. Thank you! Thank you!!! You are needed! You are appreciated!

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m not sure exactly why, but I keep thinking I should post a link to Elder Holland’s recent talk to the Maxwell Institute; so here it is:

Make of it what you will.

Thank you.

I read the post.  And watched the Holland talk.  He starts at 10 1/2 minutes into the video.

Research without faith is dangerous.

It would be like letting a doctor perform surgery on you without having learned the procedure.

 

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why? Explain. I don't follow. Maybe I'm not getting the out of context quotes or something.

Out of context, it seems like Oaks is bluntly telling people who are concerned about church history that their concerns don't matter, which is a troublesome approach to have with those who are struggling in their faith.

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Or you could simply acknowledge that taking comments "out of context" is underhanded tactic of liars and con-men.  And that everyone including our leaders have the right to have there comments taken in context and the way the person meant it to be

You're not wrong. I confess that when I first learned of this statement, I cringed, but I didn't bother to dig any deeper. That was a mistake, and I'm grateful that @Heather gave me an opportunity to realize that.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But for a counterexample on the cussing issue, see J. Golden Kimball.

That's not a counter example unless it can be shown that his colorful language brought people closer to Christ. 

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And more generally, see 1 Cor 9:22.

So we're to read that as:

"To the sinful I became I as sinful, that I might gain the sinful: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

Are we to be as Christ was or not? Wouldn't it make more sense to read 'weak' in that regard...as in meek, humble, submissive, poor in spirit, etc.?

Do some really presume Christ would join in with the Pharisees so they'd find Him more relatable?

[Iggy]

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Note: The total posts there for the entire board is showing 11209 -- as compared to Vort alone's 12455 posts on this board (which doesn't even count all the posts prior to certain forum changes that started things over).

The total posts of 11209 are for the New Nauvoo Forum, which was started in Feb of 2016, just days before the original Nauvoo closed up shop. Unfortunately, the original forum can no longer be accessed to obtain the total number of posts from there. @beefche, @NeuroTypical do you remember the year the original Nauvoo started?

[estradling75]

9 hours ago, Godless said:

You're not wrong. I confess that when I first learned of this statement, I cringed, but I didn't bother to dig any deeper. That was a mistake, and I'm grateful that @Heather gave me an opportunity to realize that.

And isn't that the real point?  We should not need someone like Heather to point out that we need to really understand things before we jump on the "I'm offended", "This person is wrong", etc, etc bandwagons.  Doing so leaves us vulnerable being manipulated, used and lead astray.  We are instructed to listen, to ponder, and pray, and that is the answer we should be giving to everyone that might otherwise be struggling.

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[1]That's not a counter example unless it can be shown that his colorful language brought people closer to Christ. 

[2]So we're to read that as:

"To the sinful I became I as sinful, that I might gain the sinful: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

Are we to be as Christ was or not? Wouldn't it make more sense to read 'weak' in that regard...as in meek, humble, submissive, poor in spirit, etc.?

Do some really presume Christ would join in with the Pharisees so they'd find Him more relatable?

1.  That’s because at this point in our history Kimball is more of a cultural punchline than anything.  I recently finished a brief biography of Kimball, though; and his contemporaries in the Church seem to have found him very effective.  

2.  It’s interesting that you bring up the Pharisees; because as you well know, they sure has a problem with Jesus consorting with sinners and dining with gentiles.  The Pharisees considered Him to be altogether too “relatable” to a category of people they themselves had concluded (through hard experience, I daresay) were irredeemable. 

You speak of “sin”, but at what point do we cross over from “sinful” to merely “unwise” or “counterproductive”?  And how do we even define “counterproductive”?  The missions of Ammon & Co triggered a political crisis that led to the most severe war up to that time between the Nephite and Lamanites that in all likelihood killed, enslaved, and/or raped more people than were converted.  Yet God counted the missionaries’ actions for righteousness, because He knew their hearts.

If your argument is “I know anti-Mormonism when I see it, and Heather’s article is anti, ergo the forum she founded must have drifted into anti-Mormonism and I am morally bound to leave”—I respect that, and there’s not a lot I can do to counter it. But as for me, I’m not sure the theological or attitudinal Rubicon has been crossed just yet—though we’re certainly closer to the frontiers than I would like to be. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 I’m not sure exactly why, but I keep thinking I should post a link to Elder Holland’s recent talk to the Maxwell Institute; so here it is:

Make of it what you will.

Finally got a chance to watch/listen.

A few ideas I pulled:

The mission of the church and the mission of BYU are not identical -- but their missions certainly can never be at odds with each other

"A few hold back a portion of themselves merely to please a particular gallery of peers...Some hold back by not appearing overly committed to the Kingdom, lest they incur the disapproval of particular peers who might disdain such consecration." Neal A. Maxwell slide

There's a difference between common ground and neutral ground. A position which is neutral will miss the chance for genuine profound dialogue on matters of common interest (Levinson)

you can't be credible in every circle ... if categorically defensive all the time -- but neither can you afford to EVER be perceived as failing to serve the larger faith oriented purposes of the church

I love the George McDonald quote, something along the concept of: We're not obligated to declare what we believe in every time and setting...but we are obligated to not look like what we do not believe -- to look like we do not care.

Edited February 8, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2.  It’s interesting that you bring up the Pharisees; because as you well know, they sure has a problem with Jesus consorting with sinners and dining with gentiles.  The Pharisees considered Him to be altogether too “relatable” to a category of people they themselves had concluded (through hard experience, I daresay) were irredeemable. 

Surely we can understand the plain difference between having someone over for dinner who dislikes a church leader and joining in on their dislike declamations.

This difference is SO obvious that I'm actually moderately astounded to see you pursuing the non-relationship as if they're related.

Yes. Christ dined with sinners. Yes, he "consorted" with them. But the words He spoke when with them set the example we are to follow. And they weren't, "Yeah...that Moses was a real jerk, wasn't he. See how much I dislike Moses too? Now you know you can listen to me because I don't like Moses either."

Are we really going down that age-old anti-favorite path? As if...Jesus spoke with prostitutes so therefore....visit brothels so all the Johns think you're cool???

Make sure everyone who serves Satan knows all the ways you serve Satan too so you can be Satan buddies?

Is that really the moral we're meant to take away from Christ's life?

Moreover, the implied suggestion that anyone's given problem with the idea of joining in on criticizing the Lord's anointed is synonymous with Pharisaical refusal to interact with, preach to, assist, serve, or love those who criticize the Lord's anointed is moderately offensive.

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You speak of “sin”, but at what point do we cross over from “sinful” to merely “unwise” or “counterproductive”?  And how do we even define “counterproductive”?  The missions of Ammon & Co triggered a political crisis that led to the most severe war up to that time between the Nephite and Lamanites that in all likelihood killed, enslaved, and/or raped more people than were converted.  Yet God counted the missionaries’ actions for righteousness, because He knew their hearts.

A bit tangential but: I find this logic flawed. The idea that the sons of Mosiah caused the crisis/war is entirely invalid. The Lamanites who rejected God, embraced evil, attacked, raped, and killed are responsible. Period.

And I don't believe that "good intentions" equates in any regard to righteousness. The path to hell...as they say...and all that.

Righteousness is obedience.

The sons of Mosiah were told by the Spirit to do as they did. They did God's will. They obeyed.

To be clear -- when I speak in terms of "sin" I'm using an extreme in my expression to make a point. I do not mean to imply that every imperfect, unwise, counterproductive, or other well-intentioned mistake we make counts as if we are in open rebellion against God.

The idea here is a criticism of the approach. It's a judgment of the premise, not of the person. Of course it's very easy to conflate criticism of an idea with a person..and a person holding an idea does hold certain culpabilities, surely. But the objective (if there is one) is to persuade MGF to rethink their approach. The idea is to show that the buddy-buddy with sinners by relating to the sin itself approach is flawed. Let's buddy-buddy with the sinners by relating in other ways than to the sins. We can certainly find other common ground than dislike for the apostles and prophets.

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If your argument is “I know anti-Mormonism when I see it, and Heather’s article is anti, ergo the forum she founded must have drifted into anti-Mormonism and I am morally bound to leave”

This is not my argument, but could be if you replaced "anti-Mormonism" with something a bit less inflammatory and extreme.

As to morally bound to leave...that's a bit tougher. As you can see...I'm still here. But I'm somewhat clinging onto the hope that perhaps...just perhaps...the reality that MGF's articles are so often so off-putting to many of the faithful might be a clue that something's rotten in the state of Denmark. Sadly, just like Lucasfilm, the response seems to be to blame the fans. Not a perfect example, of course, because unlike Star Wars, who upon killing their fan base will kill themselves, I'm sure there's plenty of "progressive" types who will relish the faithful-free state which remains once the honest defenders of the gospel jump ship.

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But as for me, I’m not sure the theological or attitudinal Rubicon has been crossed just yet—though we’re certainly closer to the frontiers than I would like to be. 

I am. Time and again. However, I also know that I'm very, very sensitive to these things.*

But...as I've said...I'm hopeful. I know the intentions of MGF are good. But application is suffering, and has been for some time, and it doesn't seem to be getting better. It seems to be getting worse. I find it very disheartening.

*It strikes me, fwiw, that for a few decades this abandon-tough-love, befriend-the-sinner, soften-the-wording, hippy-style approach to dealing with faith issues has grown in fashion. What is the result? Honestly, when do we step back as a whole and say, this ain't working? Maybe this approach is wrong.

Edited February 8, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[NeuroTypical]

9 hours ago, Iggy said:

Unfortunately, the original forum can no longer be accessed to obtain the total number of posts from there. @beefche, @NeuroTypical do you remember the year the original Nauvoo started?

Was it before Y2k?  It might have been in the mid-late '90's.    I joined up years after it had started, although I lurked and read for a year prior.

[mirkwood]

I thought the article title and opening were click bait.  I think I get the reasoning behind it, but I don't like it.  The article itself was fine.

I think part of the problem is there is a Mormon Culture of "hero worship" of the Q12 and FP.  I don't like that either.

 

@Vort I'm on Nauvoo too, though I visit it infrequently since the original forums shut down.  It is a very TBM site as well.

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I think part of the problem is there is a Mormon Culture of "hero worship" of the Q12 and FP.  I don't like that either.

I haven't noticed this-I think being a convert and living outside Utah I'm very sheltered from so many aspects of LDS culture. 

[The Folk Prophet]

48 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I think part of the problem is there is a Mormon Culture of "hero worship" of the Q12 and FP.  I don't like that either.

Why?

I unabashedly "hero-worship" them. (Understanding the term "hero-worship" to differ in important and meaningful ways from the idea of actual "worship").

In short, they are heroes to me. I don't apologize for that.

I don't believe that equates to believing them to be "perfect" or flawless. And I think that idea (that some members think the Q12 and FP are flawless) is a lie generated by antis. No one I have ever met...EVER...thinks that. Well...maybe a few 7-year-olds.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[1] Surely we can understand the plain difference between having someone over for dinner who dislikes a church leader and joining in on their dislike declamations.

This difference is SO obvious that I'm actually moderately astounded to see you pursuing the non-relationship as if they're related.

Yes. Christ dined with sinners. Yes, he "consorted" with them. But the words He spoke when with them set the example we are to follow. And they weren't, "Yeah...that Moses was a real jerk, wasn't he. See how much I dislike Moses too? Now you know you can listen to me because I don't like Moses either."

. . . 

[2]The sons of Mosiah were told by the Spirit to do as they did. They did God's will. They obeyed.

[3]To be clear -- when I speak in terms of "sin" I'm using an extreme in my expression to make a point. I do not mean to imply that every imperfect, unwise, counterproductive, or other well-intentioned mistake we make counts as if we are in open rebellion against God.

The idea here is a criticism of the approach. It's a judgment of the premise, not of the person. Of course it's very easy to conflate criticism of an idea with a person..and a person holding an idea does hold certain culpabilities, surely. But the objective (if there is one) is to persuade MGF to rethink their approach. The idea is to show that the buddy-buddy with sinners by relating to the sin itself approach is flawed. Let's buddy-buddy with the sinners by relating in other ways than to the sins. We can certainly find other common ground than dislike for the apostles and prophets.

[4]*It strikes me, fwiw, that for a few decades this abandon-tough-love, befriend-the-sinner, soften-the-wording, hippy-style approach to dealing with faith issues has grown in fashion. What is the result? Honestly, when do we step back as a whole and say, this ain't working? Maybe this approach is wrong.

A couple of responses (and I’m sorry for any disjointedness; I’m sort of posting on the fly here):

1.  I agree with you in principle, but let’s keep some perspective:  The text of Heather’s article, problematic as it was, didn’t go anything near this far.  The closest she got was saying she’s not in the Oaks fan club (which was unfortunate, but based on experience I’m willing to believe was a result of inartful word choice rather than any true animus) and an observation that sometimes leaders do say things in an unfortunate way.  She’s not calling anyone a jerk.  She’s not even affirmatively saying she dislikes him as an individual.

2.  Just so.  And I’m not in a position to say proof-positive that MGF and its authors arent also following whatever portion of the Spirit has been granted to them.

3.  Agree in principle, but again, let’s look at the article itself.  Is the text an attempt to identify with the personal contempt the hearer presumably has for President Oaks?  Or is it an off-the-mark attempt to express empathy for the pain a person feels which that person attributes to President Oaks?  These are subtle distinctions, and while I would agree with correcting those who get it wrong—the suspicion now being directed at the MGF staff and talk of widespread exodus from MormonHub in favor of some other discussion venue, does strike me as a little bit of overkill. 

4. Excellent questions.  Anecdotal evidence leads me to suggest it doesn’t work.  But I also have to do a gut check and ask:  what does MGF—or the Church, which has also softened its tone in ways I’m not always thrilled with—know, that I don’t know?  What spiritual whisperings have they heard?  What focus groups have they held?  What statistical data have they gathered?  Yes, yes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions—but good intentions are also a prerequisite for spiritual revelation; and if I trust someone’s intentions then I’m less likely to jump all over them for following what they believe to be a spiritual prompting, even if it’s one I find dubious.  

Edited February 8, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

15 hours ago, Godless said:

Out of context, it seems like Oaks is bluntly telling people who are concerned about church history that their concerns don't matter, which is a troublesome approach to have with those who are struggling in their faith.

I'm still not following how "research is not the answer", even out of context, is the same as saying concerns about church history don't matter. It seems to me like one has to be purposefully looking for offense to find offense in the idea that the answer to a so-called "faith crisis" in religion is to focus on that which matters in religion -- God, the Holy Spirit, and our relationship with/faith in Them.

I've been struggling to come up with an example but I'll go with this: It's like saying if you're struggling to be fit, studying how to be fit isn't the answer...getting into the gym and keeping the pizza and donuts out of your mouth is. Now we could debate back and forth all day as to the merits of fitness science and knowledge and its value in helping an individual get fit, and I have no problem with that debate...but to imply that the view that when push comes to shove, if you want to be fit then eat right and exercise is the key is somehow offensive would be ridiculous. Of course even saying this I feel confident that someone out there will disagree -- but I can't understand how beyond the current culture's apparent need to be offended at everything.

I know that's an imperfect example -- as I said, I've struggled to come up with a better one (if I think of something I'll share it).

In other words, it would be perfectly reasonable in my opinion for someone to say, "research may not be the end all of the answer to a historical concern with the Church, but I believe it plays an important part in the overall answer". I might nit-pick at the idea a bit and argue for the merits of the Holy Ghost here and there, etc...but I would understand the response. Finding the idea "very bad" or offensive somehow...I don't understand that.

As to Heather's article, my biggest problem with it besides the "I don't like Oaks" view which was just undiplomatic at best is in this:

"The response that I just need more faith doesn’t work for me. I wish it would. But when I have doubts and questions, I’ve never managed to find a way to completely ignore them."

Does anyone else note the MAJOR flaw in this thinking? She's basically saying that she believe that having faith is equivalent to ignoring things. That's not accurate in any way shape or form. Maybe the "very bad" view that some seem to have stems from the fact that so many simply don't understand what faith actually is.

Edited February 8, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

I'm enjoying the JAG-TFP exchange, and find myself agreeing with both. I hope that does not make me lukewarm and spew-out-of-God's-mouthable.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Does anyone else note the MAJOR flaw in this thinking? She's basically saying that she believe that having faith is equivalent to ignoring things. That's not accurate in any way shape or form. Maybe the "very bad" view that some seem to have stems from the fact that so many simply don't understand what faith actually is.

Thank you for pointing that out. I had begun a response that explored this very thing, but quickly got sidetracked and rewrote it into something else. I think it was my "Mom's a jerk but she's right in this case" post.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The text of Heather’s article, problematic as it was, didn’t go anything near this far.

Once again...extreme ideas to make a point. I'm not meaning to suggest that thirdhour has actually descended into apostasy.

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 And I’m not in a position to say proof-positive that MGF and its authors arent also following whatever portion of the Spirit has been granted to them.

Of course not. But that isn't really relevant or valid as a rebuttal to the critique. If MGF want's to explicitly state that the Spirit has prompted them to be openly repeatedly critical of church leaders then what can be said but to leave them to what they believe as I go on doing my best to believe as I do. I will, if such approaches continue, however, at the very least continue to decry it and at most, leave, because I don't believe anything of the sort regardless of what others believe.

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

but again, let’s look at the article itself.

My consternation is not over one article. It's a trend I've seen.

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

talk of widespread exodus from MormonHub in favor of some other discussion venue, does strike me as a little bit of overkill.

It's not over this article alone, at least not for me. There are many a thing that have soured this place for me over the years. The past few years where the articles have turned, in some cases, towards a "progressive"...or at least "progressive light" vent is only one of the factors. But it is a big one.

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

4. Excellent questions.  Anecdotal evidence leads me to suggest it doesn’t work.  But I also have to do a gut check and ask:  what does MGF—or the Church, which has also softened its tone in ways I’m not always thrilled with—know, that I don’t know?  What spiritual whisperings have they heard?  What focus groups have they held?  What statistical data have they gathered?  Yes, yes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions—but good intentions are also a prerequisite for spiritual revelation; and if I trust someone’s intentions then I’m less likely to jump all over them for following what they believe to be a spiritual prompting, even if it’s one I find dubious.  

I appreciate this. I do. I appreciate your generosity in the matter.

But there are things where I feel very strongly a hard line needs to be taken. And I believe there is a clear understanding needed that the two ideas (generosity and taking a hard line) are not mutually exclusive ideas in every case.

To use another extreme example -- you may well understand that the Lamanites coming to murder your family are influenced by the traditions of their fathers, and feel truly wronged, and have goodness to them that may even surpass your people's...but you still defend your home and family to the death. Yes...if and when they stop you don't go after them in vengeance, you allow them to take an oath and walk home in peace...but...well...hopefully you'll see how I relate this without presuming I'm suggesting MGF are equivalent in any way to the Laminates.

[The Folk Prophet]

Can we just step back and actually parse the not being a fan thing here?

Shouldn't we be declaring: Hurrah for Zion and the watchmen on its towers that God has blessed us with! Let us Praise Him and sustain and uphold His faithful watchmen with all our might, lest He remove them and leave us to our destruction!?

How are we so complacent in the gift the apostles of the Lord are to us that we can feel comfortable in anything but unabashedly cheering them on with the utmost vigor?

I love Elder Oaks. I love that God has brought up such a great and intelligent man to help guide His church. He may well be our prophet someday soon.

Consider that.

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why?

I unabashedly "hero-worship" them. (Understanding the term "hero-worship" to differ in important and meaningful ways from the idea of actual "worship").

In short, they are heroes to me. I don't apologize for that.

 

I have seen many members equate them and their presence, or sightings, as you see the world react to Hollywood actors/actresses.  That is a problem.  If that is not what you mean by your "hero worship" then good for you.  Fawning over them is a problem.

 

Quote

I don't believe that equates to believing them to be "perfect" or flawless. And I think that idea (that some members think the Q12 and FP are flawless) is a lie generated by antis. No one I have ever met...EVER...thinks that. Well...maybe a few 7-year-olds.

I know adult members who act this way.

Edited February 8, 2019 by mirkwood