• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


pogi last won the day on March 20 2016

pogi had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,146 Excellent


About pogi

  • Rank
    Lost my face in the fuzz
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

491 profile views
  1. I almost gave you credit for the first one, until I read this..."This post is proof that I should be reinstated to full board participation status" The second, third, and fourth ones are positive threads, but they have nothing to do with the church or its doctrine/teachings. In the last one you do give credit to the church, and for that I am sorry. I was wrong. Hell, I am feeling generous and will give you credit for the first one too as I believe it wasn't entirely based in ulterior motives. I may have misjudged you and I am sorry.
  2. I may possibly have brothers from other mothers, I just don't know, but I for sure don't have a sister from another mister. That's at least comforting.
  3. Why? Do you guys have something to hide over there or something? You know it is funny, I have heard a lot of comments here about this other discussion board, but I have never known what it's about. I happily stumbled upon this board and am not interested in spreading myself thin. Rongo and others have mentioned Johnnies activity on other threads so I was partial curious to see what this "trailer park" was all about once and for all, but I also wanted to verify that Johnnie isn't a completely different person over there. If there is one thing that pisses me off is disingenuous people. I really, really hate it when people hide behind masks to deceive, or change their persona depending on the crowd they are in. With me, what you see is what you get, online and offline, at church, work or at a Phish concert. I don't dress up like a hippy to be accepted by the crowd. I am me...if you don't like it, oh well. While Johnnie certainly sensors himself more over here than there, he is not really a different person as far as I can tell with the limited time that I spent over there. I was happy to see that. I just like to know what I am really dealing with, is that so wrong? I have been fooled before.
  4. OK, I hear you, I understand that you feel picked on and judged by me, and probably for good reason as I have been more heavy handed than I typically am. Sometimes you just have to get it out of your system. Like I said, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think that you will find that I am more than reasonable to try to see things from another's perspective. Sometimes that takes a little time and patience. Give me a little time, and a little patience, and I will try to better understand where you are coming from. The last paragraph was a bit of banter. What fun would this place be without a little banter? And what would banter be without a little condescension - a little jab here and there? Take your picture of Kendal Jones for example, and your comparison of me to a much ridiculed trophy hunter. That is good banter and fair game. I don't know why you would choose to push back on me for using descriptor words like "consistent negative twist" to describe your threads. Show me a thread that you have started in relation to the Mormon church or its doctrines/teachings that is not designed to be oppositional, doubt raising, or critical in nature, a.k.a. "negative twist", and I (like Scott Lloyd), will gladly acknowledge that I was wrong...I will even take it a step further, I will say "I'm sorry" and mean it. My cherry picking, in this case, might actually help your image over here. Do you really want me to put it in context? It wont change what you said at all. I understand that sometimes people say things in a hyperbolic way, especially when frustrated and angry (which you clearly were). If that is the case, just say so, but putting it in context I am afraid, will not change anything.
  5. Johnnie, I am going to choose to give you the benefit of the doubt. I have to say, I am impressed by your ability to sensor yourself on these boards (after witnessing your loosed tongue elsewhere) and keep a mostly respectful dialogue even with accusations placed against you. I know that you judge most of us over here at MD&D as being "a extremely dogmatically fixed group of hardcore believers" (from recent post elsewhere), but I just don't see that. I think we are all pretty open minded and willing to consider other ideas. We, like you, have "settled on conclusions...but are more than willing to test our conclusions and subject them to scrutiny" on these boards. You are not that much different from us. You're just at a different place in the spectrum, but that doesn't make you any less hardcore in your beliefs. I would suggest that you are perhaps even more "settled" than most of us here, I for one have removed the idea of absolute certainty from my life. I find it to be too restrictive to the principles of spiritual growth and progression. I for one welcome different voices and "alternative facts", it gives life to the boards, but I really dislike it when people are not genuine. I hope that my initial judgement was off (that this thread really is a "serious question" rather than a condescending comment in disguise) and I hope that you prove me wrong. Just one final observation...negative tabloids are designed to be "provocative", and "garner attention and robust discussion". Just thought I'd point that out. Hey, I just thought of a good nick name for you -Mo Tab - as in Mormon Tabloids I'm just playing around, but you can't deny the parallels in your style with a consistent negative twist, provocative in design, and attention grabbing!
  6. Just as the apostasy of an individual is typically a gradual process over many, many years - the great apostasy was not a single event but I think it was drawn out over several hundreds of years for it to be complete. I think the beginning of the end was the lack of presiding authority to receive revelation for the church as a whole, and the 70 didn't seem to function as a quorum to make those decision. Without that, personal opinion/revelation/interpretation branched off in several different directions with no single person claiming the authority to speak for God and for the church as the whole. After Peter and the apostles died, the most influential leaders were the Apostolic Fathers, who were theologians and writers who personally studied under the apostles, including: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Symaria. They didn't have the authority to dictate scripture or determine doctrine however. There was no clear authoritative head, with continuous persecution and murder weakening their numbers and authority. It all became a matter of opinion in not long. One Liahona article says this: "Fewer than 400 years after the death of the Savior, the Church as Jesus organized it was nowhere to be found in the whole world. This began the period known as the Great Apostasy." 400 years presumably pointing to the Nicean Council. It's a pretty good article, maybe worth a read: https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/02/what-happened-to-christs-church?lang=eng
  7. Thanks Calm. You are right, I don't typically interject to point out fault. I am a helper at heart, but nobody is perfect and I am guilty in this particular case. I tried to do it in a constructive way, but that just made me look like a self-righteous, patronizing ***. Oh well, we learn from our mistakes. I don't know why but this particular thread just set me off a little, perhaps it was the culmination effect at work.
  8. Do you like to read negative tabloids? ...me neither. Do you enjoy divisive political commentary, where one media source relentlessly critiques/criticizes a politician? ...me neither (unless Trump is the target of course - no, even that gets to be excessively annoying). These media sources often think of themselves as "truth seekers", rather than bullies. Often attempting to make ugly accusations/criticism more acceptable by framing them as questions rather than statements. They often hide their condescending tone behind sanitized "honest" questions like, "has ___ ever admitted to making a mistake?" Many times, what these media sources say is true...I don't know about you, but their approach still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. What if one of these media sources began publishing thousands of comments about a cherished friend of yours on diferent websites? They publish critiques hiden behind sanitized questions...thousands of them. Your friend is a man with a heart of gold with ideas that could change the world if people could look beyond the warts. He has a few skeletons in his closet, he has made some mistakes, and his approach is not allways polished and palatable by all, but this particular media source likes to take advantage of every opportunity and is silent/blind to the greatness behind the warts. Would it be condescending, putting-off, preachy, holier-than-thou, and patronizing of you to interject in the comment section and say, "look, if you really want to know the big truth about my friend; if you want to learn his heart, you are going about it all wrong"? No doubt the media source will take offense, as they are "simply asking honest questions" and seeking for "truth". They will say things like "instead of counseling me, why don't you just answer the question?" Would this not erk you? Because from their plentiful history and critisism of your friend, you don't see it as an honest question at all, but another critisism hidding behind a sterilized question. Saying things like, "Serious question: is that an ugly wart on your face?" is really no different from saying "that is an ugly wart on your face." Acute critiques are fine, but chronic finger pointing is a problem. Is it possible that your approach here, at times, may be perceived by others as a form of negative tabloidism by persistent, subtle, badgering of my church/faith through sanitized questions? I can't speak for others, but that is true for me. That is why I interjected because it seemed so blatant in this particular thread. It seemed so disingenuous that I found it completely unpalatable. My interjection was perceived by you as a "baked" response on my part to "preach, counsil, tell, proclaim, expound..." because that is not only a mormon's "right", but "responsibility" to do so; because I believe that "I am right and everyone esle is wrong." That is so far from reality man. I have boundaries too, and you crossed mine with this thread. And I too have no problem calling someone out. I have no problem with people asking honest, hard questions, but I do have a problem with patterns of badgering hidden behind question marks. I will be sure and not take that in a patronizing way, but will consider your advise as you consider mine. This is a perception problem. Whether my perception of your intention is right or wrong doesn't matter, and whether your perception of my intention is right or wrong doesn't really matter. The fact is that we have each perceived of each other's intentions in a negative light, and that is a problem because perceptions form our realities. So, perhaps we can each learn from our mistakes here in what led to problematic perceptions by others.
  9. Put them through what...life? Would you discourage people from having children then?
  10. Agreed. Just be careful, you may be accused of being a patronizing and condescending preacher if you suggest that others think critically about their approach to truth, or challenge their beliefs and practices...unless of course it is directed at a believing Mormon...then it's fair game.
  11. Is it patronizing to try to get someone to see from a different perspective by questioning their approach? Is that not what we do here...ask questions and debate? What is wrong with suggesting a little introspection? Why is it fair for someone to chronically pick apart and fault-find my church, but when I gently suggest a different approach to truth seeking...I am the bad guy? I don't get it. If he really wants to find truth in the church as he claims, why is it patronizing to offer suggestions on where and how to look? Again, if you want to find the heart of a person, you don't chronically complain about their warts. That's all I am saying. What is wrong with suggesting that "you may be looking in the wrong places"? Are we so thin skinned that we can't take constructive criticism in our quest for truth? If his approach does not change, the same pattern will be repeated over and over with the same predictable results. Nothing will change.
  12. If that was "preaching", that was the worst dam* sermon that I have ever given. I felt like it was more of a gentle kick in the pants and rattle of the cage to stop looking at the warts if he is truly looking for the heart of the church. Seems reasonable to me. If we are going to debate, lets get to the heart of the matter.
  13. Thanks Johnnie, I am sorry if I have made you feel like a distraction. I am not concerned so much about the spirit of the board. This is a place for discussion about topics like this. I just hope that through discussion that we can eventually go a little deeper, beyond the warts of the church and get to the heart it all - because that's where things really start to happen. It's a beautiful day for the slopes. Wish I could be up there with ya. Have fun!
  14. I hope it doesn't appear as if I want him out. I'm just suggesting a fresh approach to the seed.
  15. No condescension implied at all, and I'm sorry if I'm coming of as patronizing and superior. Johnnie, all I am doing is pointing out a pattern that I see. I am not even saying you are wrong all of the time. I think you make a lot of fair points, but if you truly are searching for truth in the church/gospel, your approach is not going to work. It can't be recognized that way and will never sprout. We can debate if the seed is good or bad all day long, but we will never see eye to eye because it is not about the seed, it is about the soil. After briefly reviewing your posting history here, I don't see the required amendment of 'hope' in your soil, I see the opposite. If all you want is debate, that is fine and I don't have a problem with debate, but if you want to know what debate cannot reveal, then something is going to have to change in your approach. Take it for what it is worth. I hope I don't offend you, but if you are here to find truth, you have to be open to outside suggestion. You critique my faith day after day, so I hope that you are open to take a gentle critique yourself - not out of spite or resentment, but out of hope to see eye to eye someday.